File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9812, message 38


Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:30:02 +0200 (EET DST)
From: Vadim Verenits <grimnes-AT-physic.ut.ee>
Subject: Re: Deleuze and Redemption - or flight.


That should mean the death of author(that is actually Derrida`s idea) both
with advent new type of
narrative, narrative that constantly repeats itself through the
infinite row of iterations,new mythology,mythology of part-instead of
whole, and self-similarity.That is a mere source of "shizoanalysis",
that becomes more and more influental within our "smooth"space.Dare I
call it fractal? But what
i want to do is to underline the similarity of modern and s.c " postmodern
discources", the aspect of their unlimited "semiosis", semiosis with no
limits, when supernatural "machinery of capitalism"produces a huge
number of meanings of simple *pure things*:that is why Roland Barthes
prophecies are seemed to be fulfied.Just look around and see that
everything we deal with is a result of reactions between two agenda of
modern(*postmodern*)physics :SIMULATION and MYTHOLOGIZATION(i would
neglect the film narrative for some particular
reasons, because until now we have had a brilliant examplples of
re-mythologization of contemprorary thought by the means of s.c "minor
art", such as Lynch and von Trier films ; Welsh and "acid literature",
outburst of cyberpunck aestetics and s.o,it is a bad taste ).But it
seems to be a good idea
to draw parallels between nowdays spreading "nomadic" discourse and the
trend of s.c."decadents" at the end of XIX century(and even early;thus
even de Sade and Lotreamont can be regarded as decadents, prophets of
"dark side of our life", though i prefer to refer to Artaud as the most 
outstanding example of shizophrenic discourse in "pre-post-modern ages"
If you can link this premise with the concept of "bloody ritual
of narrative`s sacrification" from one side and the notion of fractals
from other side , please send comments or own ideas.

 On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Daniel Haines wrote:

> Anthony Beck wrote:
> > 
> > Dan,
> > You imply that in the film medium narrative may be sacrificed to action.  I
> > think this is barbaric - theme, significance, pirtable meaning, depends
> > arguably upon narrative.  there may be some limits to the portability of
> > rhizomes.
> 
> this wasn't exactly what i meant!
> 
> i wasn't praising for "action" over "narrative" but only trying to point
> out what a radical break in the narrative action sequences involving
> special effects require - an asignifying break, a rupture, they have no
> relationship to the narrative as such but bring into play a whole other
> range of affects that have no place in a conventional narrative - in
> short, they introduce the deluge, the inhuman...
> 
> i'm not really talking about  rhizomes as such - what I was trying to
> say (perhaps not very clearly) was that while moving images/sequences of
> images have been used in cinema mainly to create narrative structures
> that take a model of narrative based on writing, and have continued a
> form of narrative specific to writing,  developed through writing (as
> opposed to narrative in oral traditions, for example,which operates
> differently, has different functions) this isn't the only way of using
> cinema/film.   Film doesn't have to reproduce that kind of narrative, or
> any kind of narrative - it can operate through rupture and break - the
> cut.  
> 
> from this kind of thinking i was speculating that perhaps it misses the
> point to criticise films by placing them in the relation of "lack" to
> the conventions of literary narrative structuring (if you'll excuse such
> an awkward phrase!) - after all, who said film has to work this way? why
> do we expect a film to "tell us a story" - with a beginning, middle, and
> end? 
> 
> in terms of d&g this seems to me absolutely crucial - follow the line,
> the rupture, the asignifying - whatever opens a plateau populated by
> intensities, affects....  i'm not suggesting that this question has any
> pat answer, but i think it's important to ask  -why do we expect a
> narrative from film, and what/who does our expection
> benefit/reinforce/compromise?
> 
> > I think this is barbaric - theme, significance, pirtable meaning, depends
> > arguably upon narrative.  
> 
> i don't have a problem with being "barbaric" (although I am not attached
> particularly to this idea - it holds a kind of  romanticism that is
> essentially narcisism) - who were the barbarians if not the peoples who
> exerted a "nomadic" influence over the established powers they
> confronted? don't we need to get a bit "barbaric" to escape the
> "decadence" of the modern west?
>  
> > there may be some limits to the portability of rhizomes.
> 
> if you mean that under some conditions rhizomatic connectivity will
> always be channelled into existing power structures and therefore serve
> only to strengthen the hold of that particular strata,  that some
> systems will ALWAYS maintain equilibrium - then i wonder what justifies
> thast assumption? in what way is it more valid than the opposite
> assumption?
> 
> or if you mean the applicability of the 'concept' of a rhizome - isn't
> it (in a sense) a way of understanding that everything is an event, of
> understannding everything as an event, and as such has unlimited
> "portability"?
> 
> ??
> 
> dan h.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/     
> http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
> 
> Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
> Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
> Wa to nin o motte nashi,
> Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
> 
> We who study Karate-do,
> Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
> With peace, perseverance and hard work,
> We will reach our goal without failure.
> 


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005