Comments | imomus: Crap is a load of books

imomus

Crap is a load of books

Jan 29, 2010 10:17

1. If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

anonymous January 29 2010, 09:53:19 UTC

Consciously trying to be "subversive" is a load of crap. Did the postmodernists die in vain?

I don't think the Book Of Jokes is in any way subversive, anyway. It was published by a university publisher, respectfully reviewed in the broadsheets. The "shock" value of it is an integral part of its artistic respectability, even. "Shock", in this post-YBA age, is surely a key signifier of "artistic" intent.

Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 10:02:34 UTC

"Still," said the Murderer, "it's nice to be safe. The way to live long and live well is to stay safe ( ... )

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 29 2010, 10:37:56 UTC

I’ve read Click Opera for long enough to know exactly what your response would be. As you note yourself, what’s subversive to one age ceases to be so for the next, if the subversion is successful enough. The “subversion” then becomes a signifier of establishment artistic intent. The sort of thing you consider subversive about The Book Of Jokes was long ago subsumed into establishment literary/artistic discourse. How long ago was Saatchi’s Sensation exhibition? How long ago was it that Ballard published Crash, subsequently made into a Hollywood-backed movie? Didn’t Genet end up with a Légion d’honneur? I’m not saying that genuine subversion is no longer possible, although I think it’s certainly a lot more difficult than it used to be, as late capitalism has even embraced contestation as a means of innoculating itself from it. But one thing is certain, post '68 we really shouldn’t be looking for it in the hoary old tropes of sexual and violent transgression.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 10:54:36 UTC

This is what I tried to tell the critic from Le Figaro when he informed my french publisher that the paper wouldn't be reviewing the novel because he'd stopped reading at an episode of incestuous child rape. "Presumably you also stopped reading The Holy Bible when you got to the story of Lot, monsieur?"

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 11:00:57 UTC

But if you're a regular reader you'll have read me on Wednesday saying that empathy and altruism are, in a sense, our society's final taboos. I intend to transgress my way to kindness, diligence and trust in the next one. It will not be easy, and it will get appalling reviews, precisely because it defies the gods of cynicism.

Wait, that's me!

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 29 2010, 11:14:28 UTC

Well, I am a regular reader and I certainly think your quasi-structuralist position on framing is relevant here. We shouldn't be looking at what taboos haven't been broken, we should be looking at the whole notion of breaking taboos, which is all rather Freudian and last century. That's not to say that in our jaded postmodern society we've broken all the taboos. There may well be more taboos - or different taboos - to break, but is this interesting?

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 11:25:40 UTC

It is interesting because it takes us to the heart of contemporary renegotiations, not just of semantics but of ethics and values and styles. This pinpointing of the emotive issues of the day is, paradoxically, what gives literature some of its longterm value. We want to know what renegotiations were going on in a given year.

New taboos are constantly being created. Robert Hughes pinned one mechanism for this -- PC -- when he said: "It used to be that you could say girl but you couldn't say fuck. Now you can say fuck but you can't say girl."

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 12:05:19 UTC

I'd add that if you don't like the framing taboo / transgression, there's an alternative framing in The anxious interval which is the application to cultural history of the Freudian idea of sublimation.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 29 2010, 13:26:42 UTC

I do find the PC debate pretty uninteresting, whether it's people criticising PC or transgressing its principles. If grown women don't want to be called girls, I'll respect that, and not worry too much about those who don't. And then move on to something genuinely interesting.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 29 2010, 13:30:04 UTC

whoops, I meant "whether it's people approving PC or transgressing its principles"

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 13:39:34 UTC

It's as interesting as you make it. For instance, the question of how far you turn a blind eye to disability lies behind the spectacle I'll be performing at the Volksbuehne soon, Exploding Beowulf. The song at the basis of that -- Beowulf (I Am Deformed) -- originates in the tension between equality and difference, and in PC's refusal to confront that. You may not laugh at the deformed Beowulf. You should assume he is as capable of defending Denmark as any other hero. With your "realist" hat on, though, you have to admit that he probably isn't, and that you must let equality of opportunity go by the board in this instance. I find that a very interesting scenario for a song, and an exploded song. Others may be more willing to knuckle down to the self-contradictory logic the song explodes, though.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 29 2010, 19:34:23 UTC

Momus thinks PC is crap, and that men should be able to address women as "sweetheart" and "darling" at staff meetings.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 29 2010, 21:05:44 UTC

Momus thinks PC is crap, and that men should be able to address women as "sweetheart" and "darling" at staff meetings.

You're obviously not British. We all have bad teeth, drink lots of tea, and call each other "darling" and "luv" in the sweetie shop.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 30 2010, 05:41:11 UTC

nice dodge. i think the point still stands, though.

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! imomus January 30 2010, 06:59:45 UTC

Yeah, Bernard Manning was always telling his viewers to read Kathy Acker novels. Come on, pay attention!

Re: Conformity is the new subversion! And vice versa! anonymous January 29 2010, 19:30:46 UTC

Robert Hughes is a fucking square.

Back to all threads