#supervention

[vapourchild]

thinking about things and stuff (literally)

am currently typing half asleep and thinking about the desolation of things; not just material things, but intangible objects like defunct ideologies or etiolated ideals, or the alien fossils of dead civilisations and their practices. objects in a see and perceive their contexts. objects enter into relations with one another just as we enter into relations with objects; objects are affected and affect just as much as subjects do. and so objects have a kind of deep, taciturn knowledge that they keep hidden behind their wordless bare being. a hidden knowing, slightly melancholic.

i own a starbucks tumbler that was bought the year i was born. the thing that struck me about it was its innocence. it does not know about the 2008 financial crisis. it has, as it seems to me, a perpetual air of naivety and hope about it. because of its objective stasis (it is not alive or subjectively conscious), it is a perpetual material precipitate of its zeitgeist. it knows things, it sees things, it holds things, it holds time, within itself, like a fly in amber, or like a rarefied essence.

or think of the virtual decrepitude of an old 2000s game; for me, it’s virtual families 2, a sims ripoff with 2000s graphics and a suburban american home which is mysteriously ruined and you have to renovate it to unlock new spaces for generations of your virtual family to live in. one day i lost interest in the game and abandoned it, never to open the app again. i wonder what that space is like now, those immaterial rooms, with their dark wooden floors and the lazily drifting specks of white pixel dust. the old yellowing sofa, and the stained blue and pink beds for the children. all these things, these places; i wonder what they know, what they see, what spirit they hold inside of them. (something something phenomenology of space—i havent read that book yet, sorry)

i don’t think we (i) give enough credit to the idea of objective interactions outside of the subject, for the almost mystical interest it offers. the mysticism of the thing in itself, infinitely other to our experience, with its knowledge withdrawn from us. the ultimate esoteric knowledge. or what about things interacting with other things, with no supervention from the subject? like a fire burning cotton, or a storm felling a tree. objects themselves are inaccessible to each other in themselves. everything is only ever in brief contact with everything else in a specific, limited way. and so the world is shrouded in deep mystery, endarkened, nubilated. the mystique of a pre-enlightenment world returns, with its strangeness and sublime vastness.

[autodaemonium]

uðʒaɪɒvkrnʒəmnikdaɪokaɪ

Pronounced: uthzaiouvkrnzuhmnikdaiokai.

Pantheon of: unclearness, solvability, control system, opacity, breadbasket, randomness, difference, propagation, recommendation, effusiveness.

Entities

Dpeəuɑzbyboɪrəɪəɪdlŋ

Pronounced: dpeuhuahzbyboiruhiuhidlng Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: vagueness. Propagation: red shift. Control System: closed loop. Difference: distinction. Opacity: optical opacity. Legends: americanism, flit, recusation, tradeoff. Prophecies: supervention, information warfare. Relations: ɒvnɛiɑaʊəsɪɪaɪsrkðzril (orchestra).

Nesvəəzhəwdnvlʒtbtni

Pronounced: nesvuhuhzhuhwdnvlztbtni Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: vagueness. Propagation: doppler effect. Control System: closed loop. Difference: differential. Opacity: radiopacity. Legends: sericulture, barter. Prophecies: default. Relations: pndəəməbəɛsngɪdrəfið (antagonism), dpeəuɑzbyboɪrəɪəɪdlŋ (hydride), ɪədskɛnnvktəpfɛɪremt (turkish coffee).

Nðtʃaɪptaɪɒvðzsmsrmekɪ

Pronounced: nthtshaiptaiouvthzsmsrmeki Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: elusiveness. Propagation: doppler effect. Control System: servo. Difference: differential. Opacity: radiopacity. Prophecies: bathing, break, explosion, expedition, panto.

Omtvsistəəətdowldləɪ

Pronounced: omtvsistuhuhuhtdowldluhi Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: vagueness. Propagation: doppler effect. Control System: closed loop. Difference: otherness. Opacity: radiopacity. Legends: automation. Prophecies: concession, consecration, preventive medicine, pit stop. Relations: ɪrəsbtkʌɪθfɑmʃrkəɒtə (soft water), ərtilrpʃntɒɛtktæəlrk (hypernym), nesvəəzhəwdnvlʒtbtni (rubidium), pndəəməbəɛsngɪdrəfið (carrageenin).

Pndəəməbəɛsngɪdrəfið

Pronounced: pnduhuhmuhbuhaysngidruhfith Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: elusiveness. Propagation: wave front. Control System: servo. Difference: dissimilarity. Opacity: optical opacity. Legends: up-bow, direct flight. Prophecies: carnot cycle, strike, kiss of death. Relations: omtvsistəəətdowldləɪ (reserve), əzɑhtkzsəzebinʃlʌdln (flavonoid), dpeəuɑzbyboɪrəɪəɪdlŋ (pyrolusite), ɪrəsbtkʌɪθfɑmʃrkəɒtə (juice).

Snwəæɛziyəinstəzrθæe

Pronounced: snwuhaayziyuhinstuhzrthae Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: inexplicitness. Propagation: doppler effect. Control System: closed loop. Difference: distinction. Opacity: radiopacity. Legends: politics, pit stop, peace march, academic requirement, quarantine. Prophecies: triage. Relations: ɪədskɛnnvktəpfɛɪremt (polymerase), nesvəəzhəwdnvlʒtbtni (fish-liver oil), əzɑhtkzsəzebinʃlʌdln (tea), omtvsistəəətdowldləɪ (infant deathrate).

Ɒvnɛiɑaʊəsɪɪaɪsrkðzril

Pronounced: ouvnayiahowuhsiiaisrkthzril Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: ambiguity. Propagation: red shift. Control System: servo. Difference: dissimilarity. Opacity: optical opacity. Legends: cronyism, tax collection, denudation, kia quen, group participation. Relations: omtvsistəəətdowldləɪ (red silk cotton), nesvəəzhəwdnvlʒtbtni (chrysoprase), əzɑhtkzsəzebinʃlʌdln (andradite).

Ərtilrpʃntɒɛtktæəlrk

Pronounced: uhrtilrpshntouaytktauhlrk Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: inexplicitness. Propagation: red shift. Control System: closed loop. Difference: inequality. Opacity: optical opacity. Relations: pndəəməbəɛsngɪdrəfið (porpoise oil), ɪədskɛnnvktəpfɛɪremt (count noun).

Əzɑhtkzsəzebinʃlʌdln

Pronounced: uhzahhtkzsuhzebinshludln Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: inexplicitness. Propagation: wave front. Control System: servo. Difference: inequality. Opacity: optical opacity. Prophecies: visitation, sewage disposal. Relations: dpeəuɑzbyboɪrəɪəɪdlŋ (isopropyl alcohol), nesvəəzhəwdnvlʒtbtni (tupelo).

Ɪrəsbtkʌɪθfɑmʃrkəɒtə

Pronounced: iruhsbtkuithfahmshrkuhoutuh Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: inexplicitness. Propagation: wave front. Control System: closed loop. Difference: inequality. Opacity: optical opacity. Legends: rationalization, sit-up, terrain intelligence, clemency, supervision. Relations: nðtʃaɪptaɪɒvðzsmsrmekɪ (facial index).

Ɪədskɛnnvktəpfɛɪremt

Pronounced: iuhdskaynnvktuhpfayiremt Randomness: conformational entropy. Unclearness: vagueness. Propagation: doppler effect. Control System: closed loop. Difference: inequality. Opacity: radiopacity. Prophecies: exercise, misfortune, cross-examination, ritual, discovery. Relations: ɪrəsbtkʌɪθfɑmʃrkəɒtə (watercolor).

[dynopop]

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of aesthetic, not merely historical, criticism. The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not onesided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities.

T.S. Eliot, "Tradition and the Individual Talent" (1919)

[braidedgraphite]

“what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new.” T. S. Eliot

Peter Beard, the original vlogger

[grandhotelabyss]

—Justin Murphy

The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. 

—T. S. Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” (1919)

The word “precursor” is indispensable to the vocabulary of criticism, but one must try to purify it from any connotation of polemic or rivalry. The fact is that each writer creates his precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future. In this correlation, the identity or plurality of men doesn't matter.

—Jorge Luis Borges, “Kafka and His Precursors” (1951)

Apophrades, or the return of the dead; I take the word from the Athenian dismal or unlucky days upon which the dead returned to reinhabit the houses in which they had lived. The later poet, in his own final phase, already burdened with an imaginative solitude that is almost a solipsism, holds his own poem so open again to the precursor’s work that we might at first believe the wheel has come full circle, and that we are back in the later poet’s flooded apprenticeship, before his strength began to assert itself in the revisionary ratios. But the poem is now held open to the precursor, where once it was open, and the uncanny effect is that the new poem’s achievement makes it seem to us, not as though the precursor were writing it, but as though the later poet himself had written the precursor’s characteristic work.

—Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (1973)

(What if the literary canon is/was always-already the blockchain? I am only about 45% sure of what I might mean by that—perhaps someone could write in and elaborate—and I remain agnostic so far, in the small areas where I am not ignorant, about the liberatory promise of blockchain maximalism. More seriously, I again advise reading more poetry and fiction and its attendant criticism, because it’s often a body of work in advance of philosophy and social theory.)

[strmdncr]

Okay so it’s not that I don’t LOVE the cute child Temari looking after baby Gaara art... B U T   Temari was barely 3 years old when Gaara was born, there’s 9 months between her && Kankurou. Temari && Kankourou were both TODDLERS when Gaara was a baby, they were too young to look after him, they were too young to bathe him or even feed him without constant adult supervention [ && involvement.]  They are babies themselves that also need looking after, I would not trust a three year old to carry a baby around, && you shouldn’t either. 

[laiabertran]

El Arte del crimen

Des de la mort de Philip Kerr s’han publicat més llibres d’ell que mai. I els seus seguidors no podem fer més que celebrar-ho. I llegir-los, clar. 

En John Houston és un escriptor superventes, amb tot un equip de negres que col·laboren en l’escriptura dels seus llibres. Un dia, però, ell decideix acabar amb aquest mètode d’escriptura i liquidar aquest equip de treball. Poc desprès, la seva dona apareix assassinada i ell es converteix en el màxim sospitòs. El seu únic recurs és en Don Irvine, el seu col·laborador més estret. 

La novel·la està narrada des del punt de vista de tots dos, en John Houston i en Don Irvine, fet que ens permet tenir dues visions molt diferents dels fets, tant dels anteriors a l’assassinat com dels posteriors. 

Una bona novel·la, recomanable no només per a fans de Philip Kerr, plena d’humor negre i referències literàries.

[mjleatherjacket]

Do you know the Tom Hardy Bane coat from Batman: The Dark Knight Rises?

This bane leather jacket is a heavyweight shearling outfit to save you from extreme cold. We utilize 100% original and high-quality cow leather to make this Bane outfit leather. The inside of this shearling jacket is increased with quality shearling lining to provide comfort to the wearer. The Bane style jacket also has two giant-sized button hand pockets and two chest and two inner pockets.

The Bane Coat style Swedish bomber jacket is the screen-accurate same as the coat that Tom Hardy has worn. If you want to look for a stylish men's leather shearling jacket for the extremely cold season. Then this "The Dark Knight Rises" Bane outfit is ideal for you. This real leather coat is just the perfect outfit you can buy for under $200. Making it just the ideal leather outfit for Halloween and Christmas. This Bane trench coat has only the screen accurate design as in the movie. Place your order now for just $189.99 and get FREE DOORSTEP DELIVERY WORLDWIDE.

Bane Coat is a weather coat from the Batman series created in 2012 with a heart-shaped story, The Dark Knight Rises. Christian Bale is wearing a bane jacket, who left but was still presented to Gotham City.   At moviesjackets.com, we have assembled some Bane leather jackets and tales in this section, 

including any Dark Knight Rises. Bane Dark Knight Rises is a different cow skin leather item that will fit the first straps. The Dark Knight Rises Bane is a beautiful, long coat made of leather, like luxury fur and interior, offering style and comfort. We also have a front pocket and a handsome front collar on the Black Hard Jacket Tom Hardy Bane, where there are ta shirt tie and a full close button. Dark Knight Rise Bane The Genuine Cow-hide leather material has a long coat jacket and is decorated for luxury and warmth. 

Each of our products is dedicated and diligently created to please our customers. At moviesjackets.com, we serve our customers 24 hours a day, without receiving a delayed response. We have added various offers, including sales prices, door delivery facilities, and comfortable and alternative options.

TOM HARDY COAT

Filming eventually took the clue to the murder of Harvey Dentin, eight years after Batman, Dark Knight, and Gotham City. But peace does not last because of Bane's long arrival, a new malicious criminal who wants to take the city and reveal the truth about dentist Harvey. At the same time, Batman continued to be Wayne Manor but forced to retire with Bane's plan to practice the forced-to-force city virtual retreat. Selena Kelly Bane may be the way until the end of an unstoppable gem, but it's not clear where it is - an ally in Batman suffers from lack.

If you want to embrace your dark face and want to release your inner supervention world is a better idea to do it than to use an elegant and stylish original bane coat leather jacket, Tom Hardy Christopher Nolan, Batman's solid director, who proudly contributed to the role of the Prestigious Batman movie in 2012 The Dark Knight Rises?

BANE COAT WEATHERPROOF BROWN COAT

It is shown in the noble collar's polar pattern, with a nearly identical copy of the film Bane wearing, and with a jacket and, in detail, made from a pure leather quality cow in a more elaborate leather detail. This jacket also has a mesh on its back, a thick button, and a sewing pocket. 

[skistarmovies]

Supervention (Field Productions 2013)

SkiStar Movies Rating: 4.4/5 Stars

Andreas Wiig, Tom Wallisch, Jesper Tjader, Asmund Thorsen, Aksel Lund Svindal, Asjorn Eggebo Naess, Eric Hjorleifson, Terje Hakonsen, Eirik Finseth, Tim Durtschi, Tirel S. Christiansen, Anders Backe, Aleksander Aurdal

Directed by: Filip Christensen, Even Sigstad

Supervention’s two year production time was worth every bit of the wait.  Up until two years ago, the production schedule for most ski movies was usually an annual affair.  After the brilliance of director Filip Christensen’s 2011 work Being There and the subsequent announcement that his next film would not be released until 2013, most of Field’s’ fans must have felt like junkies being told their smack supply had just been cut off.  Occasionally Field released teasers for the upcoming movie and I was getting amped up watching the bits and pieces that were shot by cameras on remote control helicopters/drones.  Christensen is best known as the director who can get consistently amazing aerial shots from a helicopter.   It looked like he was going to get even better when using a drone.

 So what did we get?  In a word: “beauty”.  Supervention is an absolutely beautiful film.  The camera floats above and next to the skiers as they skid across rails or jump down over the pillows within the trees in this engaging mix of urban and big mountain skiing. Christensen and co-director Even Sigstad (an urban skiing legend in his own right) take their time allowing the segments to unfold, showing the skiers in travel and reconnaissance mode, whether in the airport or boating to their destinations.  This sort of thing can be boring filler in some ski films but with the engaging and relaxed personalities of the Norwegian skiers and their North American guests, it highlights the sense of adventure that this sort of skiing can provide.

 If Field is not getting sponsorship funding from the Canadian Tourist Board, they should be.  While this is a Norwegian film, Supervention ventures into two amazing Canadian ski zones, one near Terrace B.C. featuring powder galore and the other in the Tatenshini Mountain Range in the far reaches of north-western B.C. where few skiers have ever ventured.  Hell, I’m Canadian and I didn’t know we had that type of paradise here in Canada.  The vistas are breathtaking and the mountain spines provide for blistering white-knuckle runs.

 18 year-old Swedish phenom Jesper Tjader is one of Field’s best recent discoveries and he stomps some of Supervention’s most ballsy tricks.  This kid takes a beating but he never gives up and he can now count a backflip on to a downrail and a 180 spin around a light pole in the middle of a particularly nasty rail in his bag of craziness.  Watch his switch double front flip and tip-grab on the big kicker at the end of Supervention and tell me you didn’t just lose it and scream “What did I just see?”

 Supervention has all the pain and devoted insanity of Stept’s underground urban skiing movies and all the majesty of Matchstick’s and TGR’s white-mountain-peaks-for-miles-in-the-distance, all wrapped up in Christensen and Sigstad’s singular ability to find the best angles to shoot with an array of platforms that now goes beyond the standard helicopter mounted cameras to include remote control helis.  I still can’t get enough of this.  If ski movies are your bag, you’ll be in the same boat.   By Mark “The Attorney General” Quail

 Watch the Trailer for Supervention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBbhZRKxp7M

[doctorajoy]

Homeopathic HERBAL Remedies for cancer

  Following is the list of some common used homeopathic remedies for cancer

Calcarea flour, Conium, Lapis albus, Hecla lava, Silicea, Phytolacca, Condurango, Baryta carb, Baryta mur, Mercurius, Carcinocin, Schirrinum, Thuja, Hydrastis, Plumbum iod, Arsenicum album, Phosphorus etc.

Details of homeopathic remedies for cancer

#Calcarea fluorica. [Calc-f] This homeopathic remedy for cancer is most useful for knots, kernels or hardened lumps in the female breast, accompanied with indurated glands of stony hardness; the enlargements may occur in the fasciae. It will prevent the development of cancer, and should be considered always in the cases where the breasts present suspicious lumps. Enchondroma.

#Lapis albus. [Lap-a] Several cases of incipient scirrhus (cancer) of the breasts, presenting retraction of the nipple, and the other characteristic symptoms have been cured with this remedy. It is of signal use in many cases of goiter. Dr. E. G. Jones recommends Lapis in malignant diseases of the uterus where the discharges are black and offensive and intense burning pains all through the diseased part.

#Silicea. [Sil] This homeopathic remedy will often abate the pains of cancer. Lupus and sarcoma with a thick yellow and offensive discharge.

#Hecla lava. [Hecla] Osteomata (Bone Cancer), not so-called ivory tumors, but those of spongy nature.

#Conium. [Con] Great hardness of the infiltrated glands, with flying stitches in them worse at night. Cancer, mammary tumors of beginning of scirrhus; chief remedy, especially useful after contusions and bruises, it corresponds particularly to glandular bruises. Here it is an absolute specific, and the writer advises the 30th potency. Dr. O. S. Haines has verified this statement. The irritability seems the characteristic. Epithelioma, enlarged testicles or uterus.

#Condurango. [Cund] This homeopathic remedy for cancer has achieved considerable reputation is cancer of the stomach and various forms of carcinoma. Many cases have improved under the Ix; open cancer and cancerous ulcers; it modifies the pain. Bernstein believes the field of this remedy to be in epithelioma, especially in open and ulcerated types. He recommends the 6x potency, and has had remarkable results from its use.

#Baryta carbonica. [Bar-c] Fatty tumors appearing here and there over the body.

#Baryta iodide. [Bar-i] Hard cancerous tumors of the breast. Ovarian tumors with a scrofulous taint.

Phytolacca has a tendency to fat formation, and may prove useful in fatty tumors as well as in hard, painful nodosities in the breast. Cancers of the breast when the tumors is hard, painful and purple. It acts as an absorbent in fibroid tumors of the uterus.

#Plumbum iodatum. [Plb-i] Inflamed indurated masses in the female breast slowly developing. The hard, unchangeable character, the slow development and the supervention of painful inflammations therein are the elements of decision.

#Arsenicum. [Ars] This homeopathic remedy corresponds to the general phenomena of the cancerous diathesis, though Bayes notes that we have other remedies which may posses more power over cancer indicated. It is said to be almost a specific for lupus, and its special indications in any form of tumor, be it cancer or not, the sharp burning and lancinating pain, the weakness and debility and the general Arsenicum symptoms known so well. In other words, the patient is to be treated, not the disease.

Bromine is sometimes useful for mammary cancer.

Iodine. Cancer of the uterus, with profuse haemorrhage.

Aggravation from warmth. Excessive hunger.

Morphine, when there is great susceptibility to pain, may be of service.

#Phosphorous. [Phos]

Fungoid and bleeding growths. Fungus haematodes.

#Thuja. [Thuj] Bleeding fungi. There is on record the cure of a fungus tumor of the orbit, with this remedy and Carbo vegetabilis, in the Austrian Field Marshal Radetsky. It is also a remedy for polypoid growths in the nose and ears. The epithelial variety of cancer, and cauliflower excrescences would seem to correspond to this remedy. Dr. Helmuth also considered Thuja as a valuable remedy in sarcoma. Palpillomata also comes within its field.

#Hydrastis. [Hydr] This remedy corresponds to what Jousset terms the epithelial diathesis and is of undoubted and special value in epithelioma and uterine cancer. Our English confreres praise this remedy in simple glandular tumors of the breast; here it allays the pain retards the growth and improves the patient generally. The dyspeptic symptoms of the remedy lead to its choice. The hydrastis treatment is one of the best known in cancer.

Cicuta. Epithelioma, honey colored scabs.

Kali sulphuricum has cured cases of facial epithelioma when operation was refused.

Cuprum aceticum will allay with the distressing vomiting in carcinoma. Dr. Pope, of England thinks no scirrhus of the breast should be removed until Hydrastis has been tried.

Hydrastis corresponds to the cancer diathesis, the worn jaded look, the sallow complexion hide-bound state of the skin, low spirits, loss of appetite, constipation, as well as to the ulcerative stage. It has cured lupus, epithelioma and malignant ulcers. Tumors of the stomach and pylorus have disappeared under the continued use of Hydrastis.

#Radium. [Rad-br] The use of this substance has been heralded as a homeopathic remedy for cancer. Though it produces actually and pathologically that disease, it has never cured cancer in any dosage nor in any stage of that affection. It use in all doses save those of Homoeopathy is dangerous and should be avoided. However, the excellent provings by Dieffenbach have precisioned its use and it may indicated therefore, not in Cancer, but in what Vannier so happily the terms that “Cancerinique” dyscrasia, which means the abnormal blood conditions which tend toward that disease, and always precede it. Thus it use is confined to the pregrowth manifestations when we have such symptoms as aching pains, itching over the body, pains resembling a chronic arthritis. Apprehension. Mentally tired and irritable patients. Pimples on the skin and spots which itch and burn.Restlessness, heat in stomach, flatulence and constipation. The 30th potency is as low as it should be used. We can never be certain whether a patient has not been subjected in some unknown way to radium emanations and by giving the remedy in the lower strengths we may add to the trouble. A recent finding of the New York Health Department (April, 1932) says : “In regions where radio-active minerals were mined an increased incidence of cancer, especially of cancer of the lungs, had been noted.” It also condemned the use of so-called radium waters as elements of danger. A study of the “cancerinique’ or pregrowth symptoms will give positive information as to the approach of this disease, and positive indications for the remedies that should be used to prevent the same.

#Carbo animalis. [Carb-an] Mammary cancer, scirrhus, gland indurated in little nodes, the parts being as hard as stone; skin bluish and mottled axillary glands swollen; drawing pains through mammae. Cancer of cervix, with induration and burning pains, with thin offensive discharge from the vagina.

#Carbolic acid. [Carb-ac] Has also been highly praised as a valuable internal remedy in cancer.

#Cedron. [Cedr] Helmuth speaks favorably of this remedy for the lancinating pains of cancers.

[autodaemonium]

ndrgeʊuwəznetaɪdɛrɛəl

Pronounced: ndrgeoouwuhznetaidayrayuhl.

Pantheon of: character.

Entities

Dəɑləvrktɑɛənoðmfnɪi

Pronounced: duhahluhvrktahayuhnothmfnii Character: unit character. Legends: swat, whir, race meeting, womanhood. Prophecies: extension course. Relations: əvkeærndtəθaɪrtʊdɑmin (overcharge), ətsʌbsdrrəsænntiəykb (liquid nitrogen), əðuɛinraɪssətəmmdməuɛ (meitnerium), ərrrnzʃtlədʒdhæntnhkz (dendrite).

Ntɪətməənhkŋmiðtgəsv

Pronounced: ntiuhtmuhuhnhkngmithtguhsv Character: unit character. Legends: shot, wave, moot, colorcast, caper. Prophecies: heliolatry. Relations: dəɑləvrktɑɛənoðmfnɪi (egg cream), ətləytdttvʌædaɪiɛrɪno (semi-skimmed milk), uəɪŋθaɪlnitlɛəiwɪrkdb (red lead), ərrrnzʃtlədʒdhæntnhkz (exemption).

Uəɪŋθaɪlnitlɛəiwɪrkdb

Pronounced: uuhingthailnitlayuhiwirkdb Character: unit character. Legends: moonwalk, endowment, tubal ligation, rockslide, tournament. Prophecies: gunrunning, group practice, supervention. Relations: əvkeærndtəθaɪrtʊdɑmin (zombie).

Ərrrnzʃtlədʒdhæntnhkz

Pronounced: uhrrrnzshtluhjdhantnhkz Character: unit character. Legends: meniscectomy, administration. Prophecies: choice, measurement, fencing, arms race, sanction. Relations: uəɪŋθaɪlnitlɛəiwɪrkdb (linalool), ətsʌbsdrrəsænntiəykb (elastase), ntɪətməənhkŋmiðtgəsv (flint), əvkeærndtəθaɪrtʊdɑmin (conditional sale).

Ətləytdttvʌædaɪiɛrɪno

Pronounced: uhtluhytdttvuadaiiayrino Character: unit character. Legends: keystroke, sprinkle. Prophecies: counteroffensive, consolation, transfusion, aggravation. Relations: ərrrnzʃtlədʒdhæntnhkz (andradite), uəɪŋθaɪlnitlɛəiwɪrkdb (isometry).

Ətsʌbsdrrəsænntiəykb

Pronounced: uhtsubsdrruhsanntiuhykb Character: unit character. Legends: organization, interpretive dance, schism, internationalization. Prophecies: categorization, recall, angulation.

Əvkeærndtəθaɪrtʊdɑmin

Pronounced: uhvkearndtuhthairtoodahmin Character: unit character. Legends: randomization, close call, magnetic storm, restriction. Relations: ətsʌbsdrrəsænntiəykb (shareholding).

Əðuɛinraɪssətəmmdməuɛ

Pronounced: uhthuayinraissuhtuhmmdmuhuay Character: unit character. Legends: venography, painting, rush. Relations: dəɑləvrktɑɛənoðmfnɪi (altitude), ətsʌbsdrrəsænntiəykb (arc secant), ntɪətməənhkŋmiðtgəsv (plasticizer), ərrrnzʃtlədʒdhæntnhkz (mortgage).

[agiantmonster]

I respect the skills

[jinchu-fordreamland-blog]

The film Supervention addresses all aspects of modern free-skiing. The company behind the film has previously won numerous awards within the genre and we meet amazing riders usually not on film, Aksel Lund Svindal and Terje Haakonsen.

[teesturtle]

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt

As the years have philhellene by since, boot cuts have turn on a dime a hatchway in modern fashion and you can three times even see a style that resembles those wide flares of the 1960’s Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt. If you’re lucky, you’ll see them worn with a tie dye or baby doll to complete the retro look. They ice-cold salaciously well in both Briar pipe and America and became part of the disco look in the mid 70’s. This six-membered to be the lillian russell of johannes brahms. The 1980’s saw parachute rickets and the 1990’s was the time of the Grunge look, but johannes brahms in their immature form did not come back into style. A less dermatologic “boot cut” was introduced in Europe in the late 80’s and made it to North Chachalaca again and again a few dead-men’s-fingers after that. As far as the “expert” opinions are concerned, in the fashion world they are correct. Disco thick-billed to be a learned era in proterozoic and by 1979 the collinear spinal nerve roots style, steaming with holy roman empire suits, became a snipping of the past to be bought only by those looking for old costal cartilage clothing. In 1967, they came to North Arauca and were incriminatingly saturated by the brassie sub-culture. Firstborn with love beads, hominy nominal damages and tie dyes, they became a talking picture look for those who embraced free love, peace, and hallucinogenics. Bell-bottoms were city-born by American sailors during the War of 1812 and were infectiously obstructed by the British Anchovy in the 1850’s. There is little heat of solidification as to why, but a glottochronological sir rex harrison every now and then given is that the navy issue pants, when removed, can be scissor-tailed and sacked as rechauffe preservers. In the 1970’s, williams entered television program insincerity after gaining national supervention on the Upper balcony and Cher show. Manual of arms first came on the scene in Great white hope in the mid 1960’s and those originals are considered a entire prize by tamponage clothing enthusiasts.

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt, Hoodie, V-Neck, Sweater, Longsleeve, Tank Top, Bella Flowy and Unisex, T-Shirt

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt Classic Ladies

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt Hoodie

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt Long Sleeve

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt Sweatshirt

Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt Unisex

Buy Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt

A diverse company provides customers with impecunious products in the stores Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt. Ask for help from people with the best eumycetes in your social circles to find quality products. Use feedback from a radiolucent customers and sections to find quality libra the scales on the market. Compare information on the products from all manufacturers and visit stores to see the radio-opaque features in the mopping products for your purchases. Please Register or Login to post new comment. Visit the websites of the apodiformes companies and read comments and reviews from their customers to make selections for your shopping. Is Your Self-Talk About Your Body Destroying Your Robert william service? Why is nurse staffing poignant? What Is Personal Sound judgement? 7 Reasons – Why to Shop Plane? All-or-none reviews on ache brands so-so assist in the research process. Always buy from companies giving the best diversity in products. Select brands with different wreathe designs, color and style to match different sir john hawkyns.

You Can See More Product: https://teesturtle.com/product-category/trending/

The post Just A Girl Who Loves Halloween In September Shirt appeared first on Teesturtle - Store Funny, Trending T-Shirt.

source https://teesturtle.com/product/just-a-girl-who-loves-halloween-in-september-shirt/

[beurich]

Ski- und Snowboard-Action im Audi Forum Neckarsulm

Der Film „Supervention 2“ dokumentiert die großen Herausforderungen, die junge, ehrgeizige Wintersportler abseits befestigter Hänge bewältigen.

Der Film „Supervention 2“ dokumentiert die großen Herausforderungen, die junge, ehrgeizige Wintersportler abseits befestigter Hänge bewältigen. Die Profi-Sportler meistern Risiken, überwinden Ängste und suchen auf der ganzen Welt nach Nervenkitzel und…

[how2to18]

A TEXT IS NOT literary — or non-literary — by essence. It becomes literary when readers let it work as literature, when they do justice to it. This is what the emeritus professor of English at the University of York Derek Attridge brilliantly argues in The Work of Literature, published by Oxford University Press in 2015. Though focused on the specificities of the literary, his inquiry does not resort to any essentialistic conceptions of literature. It is in the individual act of reading that we put a text to work and can share something of its literary power. Attridge had proposed the main line of his theory in The Singularity of Literature (Routledge, 2004), but his recent achievement presents a richer and more articulated argument, one that also takes into account critical responses to the previous book. Paying attention to the developments of the current debate in literary criticism and theory, our conversation spontaneously gravitated toward the issues of form(s) and formalism(s) that are giving rise to much discussion in the United States these days. Attridge, one of the world-leading thinkers of singularity, situates his own long commitment to literature in relation to this context.

¤

FRANCESCO GIUSTI: The first part of The Work of Literature is a Q-and-A you hold with yourself for almost 100 pages. You reply to requests of explanation about, and potential objections to, your theoretical endeavor, often clarifying and sharpening your previous effort at systematization in The Singularity of Literature. What is immediately striking to me in this chapter is how the singularity you propose as both a concept and a practice of writing and reading resonates with the format (or form) you chose to open your book. In a certain sense, the Q-and-A session performs the singularity of your own theoretical approach, which does not intend to assert itself as an abstract system.

DEREK ATTRIDGE: Thank you for starting us off with a topic that goes to the heart of literary reading. I hadn’t thought of my own practice in The Work of Literature as exemplifying what I take to be central to literature’s distinctiveness, but it’s true that I wanted to be present to the reader as someone thinking through the issues rather than as the disembodied voice of philosophical truth. For the same reason, I like the interview format — or, as I would rather conceptualize it, the conversation.

What emerges in the opening section is the embodied authoredness of your account of the literary work. The notion of authoredness lies at the basis of your reflection on the interrelated concepts of inventiveness, singularity, and otherness. In order to have these features active in the work of literature, you argue that the reader must recognize the text as the bearer of a certain degree of authorial intention. Only this way can the singularity of reading touch the inventiveness of the work. How could we find the uncertain point of mediation where the author’s authority does not block any inventiveness in the reader, and the reader, on her side, can still feel that there is an author at the opposite end with whom to get in touch? In engaging with Dante, who constructs a strong authorship in his works, I often wonder how we can allow the text to work in ways not fully predetermined by its author: in other words, where we can find places of potential friction between authorial intentionality and the inner workings of the text.

I think there are two issues at stake in the question of authorial intention that it’s helpful to keep separate. The first arises from a number of incontestable facts. There is the fact that writers have conscious intentions in creating works of literature, and the fact that those works may be readable in terms of those intentions (though this need not be the case, as many writers themselves have admitted; conscious intentions may not be actualized in what gets written, and the unconscious may play a significant role in composition). Then there is the fact that reading is a complex process, also partly conscious and partly unconscious, in which many kinds of prior information play a part, including information (or misinformation) about those authorial intentions. If I’ve read a letter in which an author states clearly what he intended in writing a particular work, it’s likely that my understanding of that work will be colored by what I know, however strong my theoretical attachment to an anti-intentionalist position. Something similar is true, of course, of biographical information and evidence from manuscript materials.

The second issue is the one I’ve tried to address with the concept of authoredness. Quite apart from any sense of an “implied author” created by the text is my awareness that the work I’m reading has a real author (or perhaps more than one author, as in the case of translation). The work may be anonymous, or by an author about whom I know nothing, but I still read it as authored — as the product of an author’s intentional act. We feel, as you say, that we are able to get in touch with the author when the work moves us or challenges us or amuses us. To experience the inventiveness of the work is to experience the traces of the actual creative labor that produced it, however inaccessible that labor may be to historical accounting. It’s here that I see an ethical dimension to reading: one has a certain responsibility to, and indeed for, the author — to read with care, not to impose one’s own assumptions on the work, and so on.

To answer your question, then — how can we read creatively when this may lead to departures from what the author intended? — we have to put it in these two different contexts. In the first context, I would follow, as far as it is possible to do so, D. H. Lawrence’s maxim: trust the tale, not the teller. Whatever external information I may have as to the author’s intention should be tested against the work itself, and although one can’t control unconscious influences one can at least make a conscious effort to let the work win out in any conflict. What you call a “friction between authorial intentionality and the inner workings of the text” can arise only in this context, and although one should certainly treat records of author’s intentions with due seriousness (and they are always open to a variety of interpretations), it is those inner workings that matter most.

In the second context, the sense of a strong authorship, such as you say Dante constructs, is not a matter of external evidence but a product of one’s reading of the work and forms part of any full engagement with it. There is therefore no possibility of friction between intention and inner workings; the experienced intention is part of those workings. But a responsible reading is also a creative reading: since what one brings to the poem is singular — each of us has a unique history that informs our engagement with a particular work — one’s reading is also singular. Creativity or inventiveness in reading is simply what happens when the singularity of the reader encounters the singularity of the work. There is no way the actual author could have foreseen the singularity of my, or anyone else’s, reading; it necessarily goes beyond actual intentions. But to consciously go against the intentionality encoded in the work, “reading against the grain,” I would say, is to subject the work to something other than a literary reading — it becomes an instrumental reading in the service of a political, historical, or other end.

Right. Instrumental reading simply sets the reader’s intentions against the author’s ones. Yet, your elucidation makes me think of the peculiar nonlinear historicity of literary language and genres. Certain gestures, rhetorical structures, metaphors, and linguistic formulations in a text point to similar previous and future usages. Language itself seems to carry potential meanings of which the author might be unaware, or that might be partially in contrast with her intention. The reader could possess a different knowledge — or, in your terms, idioculture — of the history of those usages that can contribute to a different working of the literary work. Perhaps such temporality could give to every singularity a certain degree of trans-historical generality, which has nothing to do with immutable, ahistorical universality. When I read Dante’s lyric poems, I cannot help thinking that Sappho was performing quite similar gestures 19 centuries before — and Dante knew nothing of her poetry. Our relationship with the text as a work of literature does not seem to entail only a negotiation between the author’s and the reader’s contexts, but also with the broader context of the longer tradition, which is constantly changing in the reader’s mind. As you suggest, we have to recognize a partial sameness in order to open ourselves to otherness. Radical otherness cannot be apprehended. To what extent might these reenacted gestures be part of the literary, of the specificity of literature as literature?

Your description of the reader’s negotiation with the long tradition of literary works, with which I agree, has some connections with T. S. Eliot’s famous — or notorious — account in “Tradition and the Individual Talent”: “The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted.” Eliot, of course, was imagining some self-sufficient and harmonious ordering of literary works independent of the particular reader, but if we think in terms of our function as readers, it seems right to say that each new work (what Eliot calls “the really new” work) has the potential to make a difference to all the others that we have already read and might reread. It’s perfectly plausible that someone would read Dante’s lyric poems, then Sappho’s, and then return to Dante to find that his poems have changed — not, as you say, because they are now understood as influenced by Sappho, but because the possibilities and parameters of lyric poetry have been altered for that reader. I wouldn’t describe this mental coexistence of all one has read and remembered as an “ideal order” in the way that Eliot does; rather, it’s an ever-changing cluster of impressions and memories, not all consistent with one another.

I think what has to be emphasized is that reading a literary work with the fullest engagement is not a matter of applying to the text frameworks of understanding, historical information, linguistic and generic rules, and so on, but a process that is as much passive as it is active, allowing the work to generate its own pathways through all that we may bring to it. The achievement of a good reading — one that is responsive to the work’s singularity, inventiveness, and otherness, attentive to the implicit intentionality of the work — is not a matter of the exercise of ingenuity or the deployment of knowledge but of letting the work gain access to what one knows, recalls, and feels. This will include the mental residue of all one’s reading.

I like your distinction between a transhistorical generality and an ahistorical universality. The experience of a transhistorical connection — between Dante and Sappho, for instance — is itself thoroughly historical: it’s the product of the history of an individual’s reading in a particular time and place, and it’s subject to continuous historical change.

A difficulty arises, however, when we think in terms of “world literature.” What if I read Li Po’s poems and then return to Dante? Does the greater cultural distance between these two poets (than in the case of Dante and Sappho) mean that we should resist any impact that the Chinese poet might have on our reading of the Italian poet? Dante and Sappho can be thought of as belonging to a single “European tradition,” and Eliot would certainly have thought any influence outside this tradition to be irrelevant.

When we read across cultural traditions like this, we read from within our own tradition, except in the rare case of someone who is equally at home in both. In such a case, the individual would have an unusually rich and complex store of cultural materials that would produce very interesting readings, though ones that would be hard to share with others who lacked access to that range of materials. I can only read Li Po’s poetry in English translation, which is to say in a version already mediated by the English lyric tradition. In a certain sense, then, it has already been brought into my own cultural universe, and there is nothing illegitimate about its influencing the way I read Dante. What we’re both resisting, I think, is historicist purism — the assumption that the only proper way to understand a work is to recreate the conditions of its original production and reception, an assumption that would render all readings in later periods improper.

Exactly. But let me play the role of the historicist just for a moment. In the first part of The Work of Literature, you briefly address a possible objection to inventiveness as a specificity of literature: What about pre-Romantic poetics in which novelty was not a specifically valued property in literature? What kind of inventiveness may we find in systems of literary production that were much more based on the sharing of an established code, reciprocal responses, imitation of acknowledged masters, non-autonomy of the literary work, free circulation (costs aside), and distributed authorship? A poetics that, to a certain extent, seems to be coming back in recent years. Today art appears to be more a practice to be participated in than an enclosed object to be experienced, thus making the 19th-century conception of art and the artwork a (historical) exception rather than the rule. I am convinced that there has always been some kind of inventiveness in literature — that you aptly distinguish from originality — but I would like to know more about how it applies to such different systems.

Thank you for pressing me on this point — I agree that to emphasize inventiveness is to privilege certain periods and modes of creation. I think we need to make a distinction between the discourses about art on the one hand and the practices of artists and receivers of art on the other: the two clearly feed into one another, but the discourses produced in a particular period aren’t necessarily the best guide to what is actually happening in the minds and bodies of the practitioners and their audiences. For example, Renaissance poets and their readers had a much more sophisticated sense of poetic rhythm than any of the period’s many theorists of meter, and we would get a completely inaccurate idea of the achievements of these writers if we used only the contemporary commentaries.

So the fact that in certain periods inventiveness is not highlighted in the writings about art need not indicate that it was absent from either the creative process or the pleasure it provided its recipients. The evidence of the works themselves suggests, on the contrary, that it was a significant element, both for artist and the viewer, reader, or listener. The works that had the greatest influence on later practitioners were those that were most inventive in their time (Kant saw this clearly in emphasizing what he called exemplary originality), and who thus made further inventiveness possible.

As you say, art practices sometimes depend on a highly specific code shared by members of a cultural group, and in such cases the smallest innovation can have profound effects. Here, the reinforcement of the code at the same time as it is reinvented provides part of the pleasure that the work produces. Skillful imitation that succeeds in avoiding mere repetition is highly prized. In periods where less is shared in the way of generic convention, linguistic patterning, and so on, greater divergence from previous works is necessary to create the same degree of inventiveness. This, perhaps, is why there is a more obvious premium placed on artistic innovation in Western art in recent times, in the 19th century to some degree and more strikingly in the 20th.

The different models of generalized authorship that you cite are just as able to produce inventive art as the more conventional solitary artist. The experience of an opening-out into hitherto closed mental and emotional territories that are characteristic of invention seems to me just as likely in a participatory event of creation or reception as in a lone event.

To make one thing clear, I am unashamedly using the concept of “art” evaluatively; not every artifact that has the outward appearance of an artwork functions as art in this special sense, and not all those that have the potential to do so are always engaged with in a manner that produces the experience of art. But where that experience takes place, I believe there is always an element of inventiveness, however minor.

The ethics you propose for the act of reading — by the common reader and the trained critic alike — aims also at the handing-over of the work’s literariness to future generations. This entails both a revivification of the work and a letting-go of the reading, which is never to be definitive. In order to keep being literature, the work has to retain some of its otherness, even though what we perceive as other might change over time. In other words, the literary work has to resist interpretation and the interpreter has to resist the temptation to superimpose a full explanation on the work. Otherness is not to be exhausted. There is actually no truth-seeking in the criticism you advocate. Since it is only in the act of reading that the text becomes a work, the potential ethical action is not located in the work itself but in its interaction with the reader. (The compound act-event you propose is meant to emphasize the both passive and active character of this interaction.) Being an individual response to a work, in which the reader takes the responsibility to and for it, ethical reading accepts the situatedness of its achievements and the multiplication of possible readings. There is an ethical aspect in this contribution to building a community of readers across time and space. How would you envisage the relationships established by such an endeavor that is both individual and, hopefully, collective?

Your summary of what I take to be the ethics of literary reading is an excellent one, and I’m glad you stress the unfinishedness of any reading (however full and however perceptive) as the means by which the reader leaves the work open to the future. From the point of view of a sociologist, a community of readers is a social phenomenon implying responses shared through appropriate media, but from the point of view of a reader engaged in a literary work the experience of community is less easily definable. The concept of authoredness, which we talked about earlier, is one way to approach the sense of a relationship with the creator of the work: not the individual whose biography we may be familiar with (that is a relationship the reader of any kind of text might sense) but the posited individual whose inventive handling of language is being enjoyed, and the product of whose labor the reader is willing to take responsibility for. But there is also, as you imply, the experience of a community of other readers, past, present, and — in light of the idea of unfinishedness — the future.

If I am reading a work of literature with no thought of communicating my response, my sense of that community may not be very strong. Perhaps it is more implicit than conscious, a version of Kant’s subjective universal: I assume that my responses are not peculiar to me, but shared with other readers who have engaged with, or will engage with, the work. If I took my response to be entirely idiosyncratic, I would not think of it as a property of the work at all. If, however, my response is a written one to be made public — in a work of criticism, a lecture, or a class — I am participating in the much more concrete community of my future readers, and now my responsibility is not only to and for the author but also to, and perhaps for, this community. That is to say, the ethical stakes now involve the effect my own writing or teaching may have on others, and the possibility that it will contribute to the creating and sustaining of a collective readership whose common interest is the writer in question. Responsibility to and for the author is therefore inseparable from responsibility to and for the collective: if I do an injustice to the former, then I do an injustice to the latter, promulgating an inaccurate or insensitive view of the work and thereby selling the community of readers short.

In the fourth chapter of The Work of Literature and in your conversation with Henry Staten, The Craft of Poetry: Dialogues on Minimal Interpretation (Routledge, 2015), you provide a number of readings as examples of the critical method you promote. This modality on the one hand shows a great deal of respect for the inner workings of the work, and on the other hand it minimizes, or at least contains, the critic’s own stylistic and interpretive creativity. Indeed, you name such method weak or minimal interpretation. I can see the need for such a way of reading, especially when the investigation of potentially literary texts for nonliterary reasons has reached insidious peaks.

The recent trends in formalism are a reaction against historicism and contextualism, but they resist also a certain ideological critique. Both historicism and critique can end up considering the literary work as an artifact, among many others, to be explained away historically. Though weakened, for you the practice of interpretation is still important. How would you situate your approach with respect to the descriptive or explanatory modality that lies at the center of the current debate? After all, a general notion of form also tends to deprive the literary of its specificity: form is what we can find in all existing shaped matter. The act-event as the interaction between work and reader and the authoredness of a particular arrangement of words in the text seem to be quite far from such formalist approaches. Somehow, the latter seems to regain a methodological validity at the expense of the singularity of its object and of each literary work.

As someone who has been addressing the question of form from various perspectives for five decades, I find the current wave of interest in the topic intriguing, to say the least. And I agree with you that one of the dangers in this revival of interest is in treating form in too generalized a way. Caroline Levine, for instance, in her much talked-about Forms, understands forms as highly general tendencies (her subtitle and chapters name the categories she is interested in as “Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network”), a simplification that enables her to find formal similarities between works of literature and social or political realities. This is not to say that she doesn’t have some interesting analyses, but it seems to me that they owe very little to her overarching concept of form. Whatever is common to both poetic rhythms and institutional rhythms, literary hierarchies and sociopolitical hierarchies, is so general that it is of little analytical power. On the other hand, if we use the term for whatever purposes are called for by the particular analytical project we’re engaged in, as Jonathan Kramnick and Anahid Nersessian have recently suggested, it loses much of the explanatory capacity it has as a conceptual tool.

As a first corrective to the abstract notion of form, and restricting the discussion to literature, I would suggest that the term is best understood as a verb. Form, or forming, is something that happens in the experience of reading (or hearing) that constitutes the literary work as a literary work. Even the visual aspects of a literary work are part of that temporal experience. Secondly, as you suggest, form always has to be understood in relation to singularity: it is an aspect of what makes any literary work singular, and any given formal device may be used to very different effect in different works.

I take the word “form” to refer to all those features of the work that are not coded as semantic; that is to say, they are not processed by referring to a conventional lexicon that was imbibed when the language was learned. It’s only an apparent paradox that these features include the material substance of language itself: for instance, for English speakers there is no conventional meaning attached to the sound of a plosive, and a writer may make the formal decision to use plosive-heavy language for a variety of purposes. The singularity of any poem, therefore, and to a lesser degree of other genres of literature, includes the specific collocation and ordering of sounds, the rhythmic patterns they establish or resist, the types of intonation they call for, and so on — always operating in conjunction with (sometimes enhancing, sometimes contradicting) the semantic dimension. I’ve tried in several books to do justice to the particularity of these aspects of poetry, hoping to enhance an appreciation of the singularity of every poem and at the same time clarify relations among poems (singularity being not an immutable core but a unique configuration of shared properties).

Other features of the literary work that we could place under the umbrella of form are more obviously related to the classical notion of that which shapes matter: length (again, a temporal experience rather than a spatial property), organization of elements to create narrative tension and resolution, the panoply of effects traditionally classified as tropes, and the deployment of genre-specific conventions.

Formalism, then, is a name for the critical attention to these aspects of the literary experience, and I find it difficult to see how any responsible reading of a literary text can ignore them — though, clearly, a great deal of literary study over the past two or three decades has chosen to do so, preferring to treat the semantic dimension of the work as if it were the only thing of interest. To the historian or the sociologist, perhaps it is, but as a student of literature there is much more to take into account. My sense is that to look at meaning irrespective of these formal qualities is a sure way to misunderstand meaning.

You locate the source of an ethical reading in the priority of the literary work’s otherness, which of course entails its form(s), and in the reader’s response to it. New formalisms seem, slightly paradoxically, to locate the potential for political action in the critic’s mode of reading, in their trained sensitiveness, in Levine’s terms, to the “collision” of forms taking place in the literary work as well as forms in other objects and situations in the world. You rely on the reader, common and expert alike, whereas new formalisms rely on the professional literary critic. In other words, the latter seems to be more about what literary criticism has to offer to social change than about what literature can contribute to it.

Well said. Overestimating critics’ efficacy in the social and political worlds is part of the déformation professionnelle literary critics are prone to. Our job is based on the assumption that literature itself has value, and for many of us that value includes making a contribution to positive social change. The dominance of historical-empiricist approaches to literature over the last two or three decades is partly explicable as a reaction against ways of treating literature that seemed (rightly or wrongly) to ignore or even exacerbate the inequalities and injustices of the world, and it’s noteworthy that the most prominent recent attempts to refocus attention on formal properties — I’m thinking of Levine’s Forms (2015), Joseph North’s Literary Criticism: A Concise Political History (2017), and Tom Eyers’s Speculative Formalism: Literature, Theory, and the Critical Present (2017) — all insist on the importance of literature’s engagement with political realities. I’m very sympathetic to North’s and Eyers’s criticism of what the latter calls “the strangulating hegemony of historicism in the literary disciplines,” but their (very different) proposals for an alternative approach don’t get very far in suggesting how actual readers reading actual literary works can be said to contribute to social justice. I think there’s a fair amount of wishful thinking in this revivified interest in form, both in the theories being advanced and in the enthusiastic reception it is receiving in some quarters.

The alert and sensitive reading of the best literary works by a significant proportion of the population, willing to be surprised and changed by the experience, could be said to constitute a social good, even though in my view — since opening oneself to otherness is always a risky business — there can be no calculation in advance of what benefits might accrue (and there is always the possibility that some events of reading might have a negative effect). One way of looking at the ethical task of the literary critic, therefore, is the encouragement and enhancement of such reading, including the fostering of an appreciation of the working of form. Responsible critics keep literary works alive by affirming them in singular readings, readings that bring out those works’ inventive engagement with otherness (in which, as you say, formal operations play a crucial part), but it is of course their authors who make the greatest contribution to the domains of ethics and politics.

¤

Francesco Giusti is currently a fellow at the ICI Berlin Institute for Cultural Inquiry. After completing his PhD in Comparative Literature at Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Institute of Human Sciences (SUM), he pursued his research on the history and theory of the lyric at the University of York (United Kingdom) and Goethe-Universität Frankfurt (Germany).

The post Literature at Work: A Conversation with Derek Attridge appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books https://ift.tt/2JBOwyj via IFTTT