Subject: living fiction
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 01:14:15 -0400 (EDT)


> 
> "They" are dead, but so are "you" and "I". Are "we" thus the
> dead who speak (as well)? En-coeur! Who's/whose living? Past
> fiction is such a simple notion to for-go. It is always good
> to "arrive" without hope, a not-now-after, the shedding of a
> first faith. But then this new Text as living-death, no more
> recalled, much less totalled (stalled?), is a shaky sentence
> at best. "Self" loathing must also come under suspicion of a
> self-examination. Why has "everything" been thrown away just
> because "we" made it? "Thou shall (not?) kill!" No comments?
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________

Ah, "no comment", yes. Living fiction would be, it seems, a
non-mediated paradoxal element acting on language by way of leaps that
have no sense to them or relation save that of the dying appropriation
of dead lines........ Arrival requiring a little holding back in a
"not-now-after" keeps this side of arrival as an "arrive" -- there is
much hope in this word, an eager word so to speak, and not be
temporarily silent depending on tenacity. But yes, I would say at least
a "shedding" of all faith with what Kierkegaard calls, "this power of
resistance", which is also why he doesn't go far enough with a "night
of hopelessness". A little more uncertainty and doubt, which he very
much advices, is in order. A new Text? I don't know, we are really
getting ahead of ourselves on this topic. Perhaps, I could say, another
way of communicating an event of writing that can't be recuperated by
an understanding set on semantic depth rather than the simple and singular.

...


--