Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 15:15:29 BST
From: "Brian C. Bromwell" <B.C.Bromwell-AT-exeter.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Orpheus and Re.to.Th.





On Wed, 14 May 1997 11:40:01 BST Brian C. Bromwell wrote:

> From: Brian C. Bromwell <B.C.Bromwell-AT-exeter.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 11:40:01 BST
> Subject: Re: Orpheus and Re.to.Th.
> To: deleuze-guattari-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:19:33 +0200 Vadim Linetski wrote:
> 
> > From: Vadim Linetski <picador-AT-luckynet.co.il>
> > Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:19:33 +0200
> > Subject: Re: Orpheus and Re.to.Th.
> > To: deleuze-guattari-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> > 
> > Brian C. Bromwell wrote:
> > > 
> > > I understand the whole resistance to theory idea.  What seems 
> interesting to me is
> > > the possibility that the poetry of Orpheus has sprung FROM the D-G 
> theory.  This
> > > often occurs when artists are theoretically informed.  Their art is built 
> around theory
> > > rather than vice-versa.  This being the case, does the writer then build in 
> a
> > > sort of self-reflexive resistance to his/her work, rendering it impervious 
> to
> > > the very theory on which it is built?  Is this possible?  Is it necessary?  
> Sometimes,
> > > Orpheus' writing lends itself quite easily to a D-G analysis.  This 
> obvious pinning of
> > > theory onto art does not seem to be in the spirit of D-G.
> > >      I think that passages in _A-O_ and _MP_  are poetry in their own right. 
>  Does
> > > theory in this case, if considered as art, have a resistance to theory?  
> Does any of
> > > this make sense to anyone?  Is the simultaneous production of art 
> (poetry in this
> > > case) and theory the only way forward?
> > >      Someone set me straight please.
> > > 
> > > Brian
> > > University of Exeter
> > 14 MAY 97
> > Dear Brian and Liano,
> > albeit my last post (an answer to Andrwew's letter ) might be considered
> > as an answer to your messages allow me to make another go and try to
> > spell out the ideas re:res.to th. stuff. But first, i must ask Liano to
> > accept my apologies that i prefeer to respond to his post indirectly:
> > the main reason is technical: Brian's questions are directly related to
> > Liano's argument, and although it'd have been proper to include quotes
> > from  Liano's letter this 'd have involved too much (cross)cuttings and
> > pastings.
> > what i find dsiturbing in Liano's argument is his attempt to blur the
> > difference between saying "this is shit" and "stop shitting". My own
> > argument was based on this distinction which i find fundamental and
> > would like to thematize now. By blurring the distinction Liano de facto
> > propounds exactly the very continuum between poetry and theoryy which
> > Brian is quite correct to question. Forsooth it's not the only way
> > forward: moreover, in my view , it's the very thing which hinders any
> > worthwhile advance! The trouble with D/G (one of the many) is that on
> > the one hand they seem to support this continuum (a natural one, so to
> > say) whereas on the other, and again  Brian is correct in stressing this
> > point, they would not have supported the production of
> > literature-out-of-theory (an artificial continuum). Which means that
> > there are two ways in which evaluation and "procrustination" can be
> > related. What sort of continuum does Liano opt for? Obviously for the
> > first, "natural" one. Note that he conceives of his own intervention
> > which he is posting just as it came out (his apologetic preface) as
> > "shit" of sorts and in so doing = it with Orpheus' stuff. For his part,
> > Brian seems certain that the latter would lend itself easily to D/Garian
> > reading as an illustration of their theory, i.e. pertains to the
> > artificial continuum, and by the same token, as artificiality in
> > general, cannot be = with any natural product, shit incl. THIS allows us
> > to make an important remark re: status of literary text in D/G theory,
> > and, i venture to say, in Pomo in general (to my knowledge the issue
> > remains thus far unaddressed): curiously enough , on its own terms, PoMo
> > theory can use only texts which antedate it, whereas those produced
> > "post" are by definition beyond the PoMo's reach, by definition
> > subversive of it's theoretical claims. Which explains why by baring the
> > mechanism of tradition transmission PoMo ensures its functioning , is
> > doomed to institutionalization, i.e. is the mechanism of appropriation
> > of narratives by dominant cultural forces. And that is why -
> > structurally - Liano does perpetuate this mechanism (logocentric,
> > patriarchal - whatever the label) all his well-minded denials and
> > obvious good-will to do the contrary notwithstanding. It follows that if
> > we are to conceive of theory vs. lit. relation actually subversive of
> > our Western tradition, of interpretive strategy really and truly
> > anti-oedipal, we have to thematize discontinuum, the radical break
> > between text and theory. The worthwhile res.to th. is the textual
> > resistance: my research aims at outlining an approach that would
> > conceive of a text as never lending itself to theory, serving only as an
> > object which thwarts theoretical efforts without allowing to produce
> > theory out of it. The definition of a text would be : an object that
> > does not allow for use. This is neo-Kantianism to be sure, a
> > rectification of a theory of useless technology (the authors pungently
> > fail to draw all thee implications reverting to well-troden paths). To
> > reiterate, PoMo in general, D/G in particular go in opposite direction
> > theorizing exactly the USE. Whence, among many ironies, the
> > metamorphosis of the PoMo sublime into the conventional BEAUTIFUL 
> (see
> > my "THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF DECONSTRUCTION"). Might it not be the 
> reason
> > that, as Liano astutely remarks, there would have been no noise if
> > Orpheus' poetry was evaluated as "beautiful"?
> > To return to the distinction between "shit" and "stop shitting". The
> > continuum the latter implies and Liano defends IS the core of the
> > patriarchal paradigm: it is a version of ristotle's definition of the
> > man as a speaking animal, i.e. the one for which action is informed by
> > speech. The discontinuum i propound obviously prompts us to re-conceive
> > of the relation between these two fundamental activities otherwise
> > (again, D/G's desiring production, call it shitting, fucking, or what
> > not, structurally, is an instance of A's continuous definition)
> > thank you
> > vadim
> > 
> 
> Vadim (and everyone who wants to chime in)-
>      Thanks for the reply.  I think I understood it everything you said, 
> although I could do with a specific definition of 'continuum'.  I like your 
> conception of literature which has no use.  I suppose my next question 
> would be "Does any such lit. exist?"  As literature is one of my prime 
> interests, this is of utmost concern to me.  Has anything come close?  
>      Another problem for me seems to be the fact that D/G cover EVERYTHING 
> with their theory.  They hit drug-users, masochists, Proust, Taoism, courtly 
> love, Thomas Hardy, chivalric romances...  nothing appears to be outside of 
> their ideas.  When I first approached D/G, I thought thought this was the 
> beauty of it-something all-encompassing (ah yes, those silly days when I 
> wanted an answer for everything).  Now, it almost seems restrictive in the 
> sense that it accounts for everything.  How can we escape?  How does one 
> go about resisting D/G theory?  The last bit may be blasphemy in this 
> particular forum, but what the hell!  Can we do away with Gilles and Felix?  
> Might they even want this themselves?
> 
> Questions, questions...
> Brian  
> 

Vadim-
     Another question just came to mind.  Isn't the idea of a literature with no use on 
the verge of being theoretical itself?  It is just another reading where, rather than 
analysing the ways in which lit. conforms to any theories, one reads it in order to find 
the ways in which it DOESN'T conform to any?  I'm not sure that theory is 
inescapable after all.  In which case, D/G save the day with their all-inclusive 
philosophy (an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" kind of attitude, I know).  Maybe we 
should hang on to them after all.  Hmmmmmm.  

Brian