only some of you will read this, and of those few, only some of you will find it as amusing as i do.
the postmodern deconstruction of a small grocery list.
(you have to scroll up to the journal entry, for some reason the link puts you in the middle of the responses, which im sure in turn could be deconstructed, something like this: the link's act of placing the reader in the middle of the responses to the entry, and not at the top of the entry itself, works against "natural" narrative progression. by placing the reader "en media res" (in the middle of the narrative that is the journal entry and its responses) the link forces the reader to consider the middle as the beginning, thus negating our desire to encounter the narrative in its preordained order. we, as readers, are forced to negotiate the text in an unfamiliar way; this unfamiliarity allows us to question the "natural" narrative progression (is it natural? what is the nature of time? how does it function to be an opressive force?) this is reminiscent of not only derrida's ideas of deconstruction, but also of delueze and guittari's notions of the rhizome and its functioning against chronological time in order to un-order, to allow all to exist at the same time, or all to exist at no time. in short, the move the link makes allows us the necessary distance from the text to question our presuppositions concerning time as a necessary narrative function, or is the narrative a necessary function of time?) ill resist the urge to deconstruce the parenthesis i just put that entire rant in.
(you have to scroll up to the journal entry, for some reason the link puts you in the middle of the responses, which im sure in turn could be deconstructed, something like this: the link's act of placing the reader in the middle of the responses to the entry, and not at the top of the entry itself, works against "natural" narrative progression. by placing the reader "en media res" (in the middle of the narrative that is the journal entry and its responses) the link forces the reader to consider the middle as the beginning, thus negating our desire to encounter the narrative in its preordained order. we, as readers, are forced to negotiate the text in an unfamiliar way; this unfamiliarity allows us to question the "natural" narrative progression (is it natural? what is the nature of time? how does it function to be an opressive force?) this is reminiscent of not only derrida's ideas of deconstruction, but also of delueze and guittari's notions of the rhizome and its functioning against chronological time in order to un-order, to allow all to exist at the same time, or all to exist at no time. in short, the move the link makes allows us the necessary distance from the text to question our presuppositions concerning time as a necessary narrative function, or is the narrative a necessary function of time?) ill resist the urge to deconstruce the parenthesis i just put that entire rant in.