Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Thursday, August 04, 2005

. . .  and Junky Aesthetics

Posted by Sean McCann on 08/04/05 at 11:57 AM

I just came across a long, elegant essay by Eric Griffiths about Burroughs in the July 22 issue of the TLS (archives for subscribers only).  Though strikingly intelligent, it’s a disconcerting piece, apparently motivated by both thoughtful and sympathetic interest in the whole Burroughs oeuvre and by a stern sense of Burroughs’s moral failings.  For Griffiths, Burroughs is less the satirist he’s sometimes taken to be than a Gulliver himself—fascinating and comic, but also a smug visionary

The main claim of the essay, though, is Griffith’s contention that Burroughs perversely (all senses intended) reproduced the major attitudes of the middle American world he seemed to have roundly rejected: an obsession with physique, medicine, and hygiene; a dedication to security; a fear of contamination; a fascination with control, in both its nefarious and ostensibly benevolent, reforming guises; an impatience with democracy.  Griffiths calls him unexpectedly a “reactionary: he mirrored what he repudiated.”

I found particularly intriguing a brief note about the literary theory associated with Burroughs’s “cut-up” technique.  Griffiths calls it a “positivistic superstition that words operate on the ‘nervous system’ in a quasi-pharmaceutical way” and implicitly associates it with Burroughs’s life-long, quasi-magical fascination with medicine and with his equally persistent interest in human conditioning and control.

There’s an interesting conundrum here and one that applies to more than Burroughs alone—for instance to Ginsberg, who, shaken by his confrontation with Burroughs’s cut-ups, developed his own interest in the materiality of language.  In his early definitions of postmodern fiction, Ihab Hassan, taking Burroughs as one exhibit, interestingly described it as a “mentalist” literature, by which he meant it was a writing obsessed with consciousness and motivated by a “growing insistence of Mind to apprehend reality im-mediately” (Para-criticism, 122).  Griffith’s description at first glance would seem to be the opposite: that Burroughs was attracted by a kind of vulgar materialism that aimed to reduce minds to brains. 

But there’s clearly a connection here, and not just in the sense, emphasized by Griffiths, that like many of his contemporaries Burroughs was attracted to a vision of himself as a supreme intelligence, however imperiled, while he thought of others as slavish bodies.  The vision of words acting directly on the brain, and the vision of minds operating immediately to comprehend and transform the world share a single appeal perhaps, in the way they each promise to do away with the problem of other minds.  Griffiths suggests something like this as the central quality, and limitation, of Burroughs’s work.  It’s interesting to consider whether it wasn’t shared by a number of his contemporaries.


Comments

<i.Cf.</i> Ken Kesey, LSD, and the Merry Pranksters.

By on 08/04/05 at 02:35 PM | Permanent link to this comment

For a counter-reading of sorts, see William Gibson’s gushy celebration in Wired, which hints at how Burroughs anticipated “sampling,” mastered the art of “appropriation,” and is the unacknowledged godfather of … fan fiction.  No reactionary there!  Ah, plagiarism, you are our true communal vision.

By on 08/04/05 at 02:54 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Sean,

Isn’t the instrumental ontology of mind and ideas the only good mystery we still have?

I think that “How big is an idea?” is a perfectly good question that we will eventually solve.

It is curious how both the materialists and the non-materialists have so little to tell us about the connection of molecules to mind.

The scientists have been historically uncomfortable with the issue and have avoided it, (while continuing to talk in metaphor and having no explanation for why math “works” to predict the environment).  As if one could explain the path of a baseball without knowing the mind of the pitcher.

On the other hand, those that choose to ignore the effect of molecules on the mind, procede to work harder and harder to ignore the obvious manifestations of the material basis of the mind. Have they never been on drugs?  What do they make of death?

And as for “the positivistic superstition that words operate on the ‘nervous system’ in a quasi-pharmaceutical way” who can deny that “talking dirty” undoubtedly makes many a human limbic system pump?

Charles Taylor writes of how our notion of self is strongly bound up with notions of evaluation.  True enough,but isn’t it equally true that everyone with a “brain” now “knows” that the mind is a thing?

Who out there has figured out how to be a thing that thinks it chooses?

Its not vulgar to be a materialist; its brave beyond our capacity.  We have tinkered with the material basis of rats and fruit flies and dogs and wheat and nematodes in lots of ways that we don’t yet dare to do with ourselves.

Some of the fears( but not all of course) seem so inconsistent. If the mind isn’t a “caused” entity then apparently all the chemical tinkering in the world won’t affect it.

Of all the superstitions we have, the materiality of language is certailymy favorite.

By on 08/04/05 at 04:00 PM | Permanent link to this comment

A sidelight on Burroughs is that he was an anthropology student at Harvard and, I think, got introduced to the anthropological idea of “participant observation”, which was being introduced into American sociology about then in books such as “Tea Room Trade” (Homosexuals, still not gay), “Whiz Mob” (pickpockets), and “Street Corner Society” (neighborhood juvenile delinquents).

Being non-judgmental on the anthro-relativism pattern was part of the methodology, and this meshed with Burrough’s libertarianism and also his sexual deviance, as it was thought then to be.

He may have been a Kinsey subject, and I’m pretty sure that his buddy Huncke, a thief and street punk, was one.

So his life and writing were a kind of self-experiment.

Also there was the idea that “objectivity” was the road to truth and universality, and required liberation from every convention, so that crime was liberating, and unreadable writing too.

By John Emerson on 08/04/05 at 07:28 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Funny—with the title of this post mirroring the one for the post about genre writing below, up until the third paragraph I somehow assumed that this was about Edgar Rice Burroughs.  Reading the first and second paragraphs under that assumption is rather amusing.

By on 08/04/05 at 07:46 PM | Permanent link to this comment

John Carter, Hustler on Mars or maybe, Tarzan, King of the Junkies. 

Didn’t mean to say that the quest for consciousness is vulgar materialism per se, Martin.  Only that that particular example is.

By on 08/04/05 at 10:44 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: