Mark Dery on Tue, 22 May 2001 18:06:55 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> no people. |
McKenzie Wark wrote: >>Those 'nature' documentaries annoy the hell out of me. They are part of an endless reduction of the life of the animal to the human, the measure of all things, apparently. The whole biological world is read in terms of its mirroring of our vanity. All of which is much better expressed in Alan Sondheim's 'no people'. I'm surprised that Mark would take objection to this, of all the nettime texts. Its better theory than a lot of the theory on nettime, as well as being better writing. Like a lot of Alan's writing, its looking at the meshing of writing with other things, the heterogeneous world in which words partake. Unlike a lot of literary modernism, his work (to me at least) is not about language. Its to do with words, and the work they do amongst other orders of things. Codework, i'd call it. Which might not be a bad thing to be thinking about, in an age when media make so many more worlds in which words and other codes get to mess with things.<< Ken, I almost always come away from your posts enlightened, not to mention entertained, but in this instance I'm simply baffled. There's no debating taste, of course; if Sondheim's writing sets your hair on fire, who am I to disagree? Even so, I have no idea what you mean by the vaporous phrase "its looking at the meshing of writing with other things." (Why the resistance to using the correct contraction, rather than the incorrect possessive, by the way? I don't mean to be catty, but my Inner Safire has always wondered.) What "other things"? Inarguably, *all* writing, everywhere and always, has something to do with things other than writing; one needn't be a card-carrying Foucauldian to believe, as the old, bald devil did, that the "frontiers of a book are never clear-cut.it is caught up in a system of references.it is a node within network." In any event, onward: Sondheim's writing is about words, not language. How does he manage the neat trick of disentangling the two? Last time I checked, words and language were inextricably intertangled. Nor am I at all clear on what you mean when you say his writing is about "the work [words] do amongst other orders of things." *What* sort of work among *what* other orders of *what* sort of things? Trying to pin down your meaning, here, is like trying to hit a blob of mercury with a nail gun. I catch your general drift---that Sondheim's writing considers or critiques words as an instrumental technology---but beyond that, it's all ectoplasm to me. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net