THANKS FOR THE VERY POSITIVE REVIEW AND FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THE WORK. (MAYBE I’LL GO TO GRAD SCHOOL SOME DAY?) NO, I AM A STUDENT BUT AN UNDERGRAD, A FRESHMAN, I DECIDED TO GO AFTER PUBLISHING, ITS STRANGE BEING A PROFESSIONAL WRITER YET A FRESHMAN, BUT THIS IS MY FIRST ESSAY ON WRITING SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE FEEDBACK.
CSL
Criticism / LANGUAGE POETRY
With mimesis from mime, Implying, a chance is harmful and alluring, the cumulative effect of this binary being played out between different types of navigation- as a viscerally immediate, anti-absorptive readable.
We look for fascinating texts, not something likely to have an absorptive effect, developing so gradually as to be well – established, before becoming apparent
suggests a certain passivity of our habits. The flesh gives up its location —
For identification demolished, subjective control of its objectives the way that language writing is thought to be reader-centered.
We’re not using the physical choreography of language to decorate, or cover up, its referential, mediating role. We don’t just go to these texts for critical detachment, or for negative evaluations of word play..
Constraint is its self-denial.
If so-called language, a voyeurism or magnetized hearing that’s combustive, separable 2-D planes, not pulled together into the illusion, rather freed up and fastened on individual words,… The distance between is desublimating.
Writing plays off, the body taken for granted, as something likely to have an absorptive effect. The literalisms of language, goes to work all the more extravagantly on our nerves- It’s leaping!
Affective stimulations are so prominent in poetry that flesh, is subject to greater disturbances of meaning, by the directly materialized images that are dealt with. Excesses from the control the action of the reading affects, even reshapes, the body as a zone of multiplicitous positioning, reading affects, even reshapes- the body’s constraint is its self-denial. It takes place within competing accounts, alternate possibility, a deprivileging of time, or represented of. The montage takes place right here, as our reading is more opaque, is not a window we call up to transport us to an imaginary world.
The literalisms of language, isn’t elsewhere. We get a spatializing of the words by the readers’ active practice, this imbues them with a fictitious and paradoxical power. It makes ready dislocations from the prestablished, materialized world. The apparatus of illusionary is possible through the mechanics of the background. Meaning isn’t domesticated by being filtered through the superimpositions and concentric circles of resonance of the Senses offered up as a collage- realism becoming anti realism.
The arbitrariness of language takes charge without just having to mediate ‘the real’, or take precedence over the subject. It extends to the between, to a synchronic everything at once, to a simultaneous ‘accounts’ of elaborated events and/or experiences. So, rather than a narrative, we get a collage, it is not a window to magically transport us into an imaginary world rather a mirror of the actual world. The distance needed for subjectification to be hyperbolic, to miniaturizes it so we can swallow it in tinier doses.
Once we get beyond the settling, unruffling, visual simulations.
The implausible familiar gives pleasure we can imagine is the symptom. Flesh is no longer your own, nor the place — but mental space, no longer based on linear arrangement, but on words, talking past each other in the simultaneity of possibility, a deprivileging of time, or at least of representing some elsewhere/else-when.
We’re using information more like the cut-outs of letters on a page. Any experience of conventional literature is less likely for the reading to peer at the psychological space, where, the words become the social, and it takes hold of us bodily, dizzily, drunk on the neurotoxins of egomaniacs dilutionary granger.
It makes for social a game-world, a multi-dimensional stadium of meaning, fought out in the trenches of individual words and sounds. And this judgment is entirely social.
Meaning at the level of Signification we investigate, detonate, pushing it into disequilibrium. Meaning is a public, address involves the public side, the surrounding and eliciting of the public, this emphasis — whether in the iconics of concrete poetry or the naturalizing graph of voice in the language.
The prescription and enforcement process is traceable to a social abjection. As if these governing actions lie on a mirror’s surface, they apply to actions in reading and can involve parallel actions. This, Social Control govern actions on the surface — governs actions, in reading now combining a materialized present or ‘active engagement’ as vicarious. Which is usually used as a prop or support for some imaginary representation, on the one hand, and immersion or representation, on the other.
The utopian allegory is that of eternal life — or of recuperable time of representation. As the utopian allegory is that of eternal life — or of recuperable time, that nothing is forgotten, the words become the social norms, the degree of our freely chosen and freely juxtaposed possibilities of meaning. Facts make music.
But then we’d have to read from the meanings it tenders, solicits ‘the Other’. So, the visual emphasis on Sound, on Noise — rather than the unrecoverable time, that nothing is forgotten.
—So here, the page (like the cinema screen) as a safebox for memory.
Reading needs to honor the opening up of possibilities of meaning or social sense, the textual quality able to be made animated, but by the reader’s ability to reconstruct this responsiveness and reconfigure the relation. Since reading triumphs over the fixed space, which is always already a translation; language.
This reasserts a romanticism- as if you could achieve a surveillant penetration of artifice to get to an essence. Compared to this, the emphasis intersects with an emphasis — whether in the iconics of concrete poetry or the naturalizing graph of voice in New Poetry — comes back to the choice of what to emphasize in the New Poetry — comes back to the subject and reasserts a romanticism; as if you could achieve a surveillant penetrated and fragile is any humpty-dumpty voice.
We’re not just waiting to peer at the ‘private sector’? — that would fit with the Language. Writing a more explanation is embedded in the writer, with literariness as the well-upholstered backdrop and has control over the remote, customary layers of meaning.
Customary meaning = social sense, so, reading reimplicates us in its regulation and of that which is immanent to our sense of selfhood. We counter-interpellate from the text being set loose to work on the of escape, from representational or theatrical, less given to auratic or cinematic illusion. Our almost automatic complicity, we want a reading action or praxis to the point where that distance disappears.
The huge horizons of escape from representational idea that writing isn’t just the viewing screen of representation, pulls us farther into the circuit of Language. It heightens our captivation and we’re delegated, vicarious—
“offered in a humble and ingratiating spirit”.
For reading: no self-validation, No self-validation, No self-validation, No self-validation, No self-assertion. Its ‘face of the text is not recuperative as personal souvenirs. Still, this doesn’t just remain the viewing screen of representation as it pulls us farther into the circuit of Language at our disposal (and therefore without the ‘proof of purchase’ (the valid signature interpellative overall, macro level.
We’re not seeking purity. We don’t look through seduction; we’re caught up in sensory overload, omnivoyeurism. Seducing, not by letting us, keep a knowing’ or privileged nay-saying, but a hermeneutic distance.
Dismantling doesn’t encourages a spatializing performance. Reading plays along — to denaturalize or discombobulate perception. Fostering a softer mental space or architecture. Space can be less fixed in either: first person representational writing helps lay bare the device — at the social, in which we are social, not just on the literary level, for the armor of the private self, soaked by complicity, is personal and therefore without a stabilize able outer shell that certifies one as a legitimate disposer, as a safe subject, = an empty pleasureless pride.
Maybe Brechtian distance is too reminiscent a sublimation to give us a model for reading: To start with, unembarrassed by there being an outside, outside of the usual outside. The thrill in this is post-personalizing in that perspective fakery. We get something the words don’t want to quarantine. It pulls us in, puts its headphones on us (and requires some distance when writing) it is not just a projection, or even a clearly marked subdivision. It is that which becomes the vectoral rather than the vehicular-world we already know. It avoids making the world seem pre-known or interpellative, overall, whatever happens with its particulars gets intense.
It is the optical — the paperweight of cinematic absorption, our almost automatic complicity, ripped through seduction. Is more than a mental mystification, it is a shifting pragmatism of experience: they’re not seeking purity. We don’t need a tabula rasa, we live within a more complex, and overall body, not merely for the identity politics, but for enlisting recruits in one or another general struggle made specific.
Wanting something that would agitate or reinscribe the social body.
But not smoothly, not with the usual expectations about being transported through or a looking at as an opaque, action-oriented, socially controlled materiality (and social trouble is ongoing). With this kind of writing, the reading is that of the social body. But not Something that rejects or negates the referential, or even the baldly representational forces of language, but one that resists letting those forces be confined & recuperated, or re territorialized, back into the continuities that those anchors prescribe:
First, Set loose from GENRE
The writing is more like the windowed for gathering information space or architecture of signification, of participating in a larger scaffolding of illusionary or fictional narrative. As we get closer to the experience, we get closer to sacrifice and ultimate surrender, to anti-productive expenditures and excess, to a surplus or hyper-trophy of enjoyment. In order to maximize this openness at every level: acoustics, page layout and design, authorship, genre, grammar.
WE are the Other of Words, can not disavowal.
—The Reader becomes the software of textuality.
Signifying isn’t freestanding, is a part of that system , that is language. So, that we recognize how much writing gets sidetracked in hypermedia’s absorbing, 3-D illusionary or fictional narrative. We get closer to sacrifice and surrender, to anti-productive expenditures and excess, to a surplus or hyper-trophy of enjoyments.
Faced with Collage & Noise,
Reading can look at language could work to record or construct or reactivate the social, (r+a+w+, +m+a+t+e+r+i+a+l+s, = lettersχ = syllablesχ = wordsχ = phrasesχ = sentencesχ = linesχ = stanzas/paragraphsχ = cantos/chaptersχ = WHOLE/Poem/Text=LANGUAGE…) a social contextual rerouting, at the service of a social readymade, language. Try to turn the literary social, what are we eliciting? Something of the sensing that holds together that’s not smooth.
Something that goes beyond while at the same time becomes the social, textual complicity.
WE are the Other of Words
By applying letters to the page programming the codes of the normal, exposed. Staining the white fabric of society covering it with ashes. We can emphasize The FORCE of WORDS!
This doesn’t just come from writing’s refusal’s of the anecdote or representation, of participating in a larger scaffolding of illusion. Because to go all the way they are already ‘wired’ to social codes like the music of so-called Language as the arena, as the medium, the mode of engagement and the centerpiece of Method. What’s social here is not some separable content, but the Method of writing, it is the reading which performs that social investment, or some alternatives to it.
The words aren’t idealized, or de-realized.
This joining is the adventure of keeping them active at a micro level, as singular & literal events constantly varying, skidding, interpenetrating, mutually transforming, out in the open, on the surface. We can emphasize the shocks.
I’ L T D
L S A E E
A C R
M
We make ventriloquism with this kind of writing, the reading performs that social investment and social materials of agency, of subjects, of subjects, of subjects, of subject positions, of persons, of discourse —and make the building blocks—the raw material reality. Reading constructivism all the way the reproduction needs of that system and its surround, part of the Author, that all-purpose glue the traditional reader is supposed to identify with.
Language Writing distinguishes itself by challenging the usual expectations about being transported through an illusionary or fictional narrative. We get closer to sacrifice and surrender, to anti-productive expenditures and excess, to a surplus or hyper-trophy of enjoyments.
Faced with Collage & Noise,
—Reading can be set loose from GENRE
The writing and how it gets sidetracked in hypermedia’s absorbing 3-D illusion, we move away from some of the already ‘wired’ social codes, like the music of so-called ‘free improvisation’, which means free from prescribed genre or idiom. [Non-Idiomatic Syntax.]
{Is Normative Syntax a Genre?}
And just like when we use computer screen, can encourage a looking at (as an opaque, action-oriented, control-paneled materials of agency, of subjects, of subjects, of subjects, of subjects, of subjects, of subject positions, of persons, of discourse —and make them the building blocks, the raw materiality) of the reading moment.
Reading can look at language and not just what it ends up meaning in its customary genre-confinement. But at the force of the words and set loose from the usual expectations about being transported through or a looking through: as a transparent, dematerialized virtuality cinema-style or the outside in.
We counter-interpellate from the usual expectations about being transported through our ‘self’, that commodification. A shifting pragmatism of experiential reactivity: that’s what reactionaries always want to quarantine. It pulls us in, puts its headphones on us, and requires more wide-open information more like the animated cut-outs. A voyeurism or magnetized hearing that’s combustive, objects more opaque, not a realistic continuity; more like constantly opening up multiple explanations.
You can’t keep out the NOISE.
—Right away, it sounds off in non-immersive experiences; rather than immersion, a social character.
With a direct investment of flesh and bodily surface, we become the recording device. The ‘screen’ of reading is more of a free-floating fascinatability. We look for fascinatability. We look for fascinating texts, not something we’re dealing with Excesses from the control. The implausible gives Pleasure, Popping-OuT on the surfaces of the words flesh, and our flesh. Usually, the body are taken for granted or not noticed, but because of their usual packaging.
Writing plays off the body, taken for granted as something to keep a distance.
This is desublimating.
Writing plays off the body as a zone of multiplicitous positioning.
We learn to take up permanent residence within a pre-fixed space, something likely to have an absorptive effect here, think of Brecht and what he called “socialist one-liners.” A more shocking intimacy, shortcircuits the calming pillow of self-reflection, the unruffled distance- This is no 3-D fly-through.
The equivalents of hyperlinks and menus, from the control panel side of the complexity, of the tasks that these texts mimetically, contagiously. With mimesis from mime implying a chance to entrap, harmful but enticing, having a gradual and cumulative effect, think of this binary being played out [tw--B--een]
traditional poetry/fictional; it isn’t domesticated by being filtered through the superimpositions and security of any unified gaze.
Here, predetermined sequence, or fixed diachronics, gives way to the side-by-side, to the boundary limits of language to decorate (or cover up) its referential, mediating role. They swamp that role or heighten it at a distancing Artifice or Theatrical Showiness, we might contrast Immersion & Navigation as a viscerally immediate & anti-absorptive effect, think of Brecht on what he called “culinary theater”. And, on the other hand, there is more activisms called for — by constantly choosing among competing accounts, alternate possibilities.
Reading these texts for critical detachment, or for negative evaluations of a social character.
With a direct investment of flesh and bodily surface, we become the recording tape loop.
[Compared to the horizontal relation, of sign to sign (‘value’) or signifier/signified (‘signifying’) — this is a vertical relation, of sign to sign (‘value’) or signifier/signified (‘signifying’) — this is how radical texts work?]
The flesh is ignited —almost like a masochism of affective stimulation.
>The distance from.
Which makes the immersive density of juxtapositions and concentric circles of resonance of sense (we are offered up as the collage, not a window we call up to transport us to an imagine is the stabilizing haven of any subject in anything in plausible, familiar, subjective, control.
We’re not digging out latent meanings or dainty subordinations.
“It’s not disjunctive.” It’s all about body reaction! Mimetically Contagious. With mimesis from mine…
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
effervescentpsyche reviewed Version 1 -
Read 80% of the Item
This 22 word review has not been unlocked.
adadelaney reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
This 6 word review has not been unlocked.
badhabits reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I like your ideas very much, but this is a hard and complicated read. Lots of statements flowing into my mind at lightening speed but not much time is taken to really explain and clearly lay out what you are trying to express with each given point. I would suggest strengthening this piece by either breaking into clear chapters or narrowing down points of interests and going more indepth with them. Thank you for sharing. An amazing start! I loved “i’m all scattered” the most. That was really beautiful.
- add/view comments (0)
macabre_ reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
A lot of this made me laugh, and a lot of it made me think, and a lot more still made me want to weep, hailing the gorgeous metaphors and hyperboles and similes and vocabulary. I haven’t any criticism; Criticizing criticism is an interesting topic, however. You took an English lesson and made it fun to read. That, I promise you, is a challenge, and buried at mile marker five.
robertryburn reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
Your use of words was interesting as a form of language poetry. Most of the words I had read or seen before and your use of them was interesting.
Publishable well I do not know if most people will understand the words unless you give more of a definitions of these words and maybe an ignorant person like myself will understand more of what you are trying to say.
Noise was interesting, I do not know what the word collage means after reading your paragraph several times.
Otherwise when you want to publish yourself let me know.
VoicesInMyHead reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
I must say that you are talented just to have written this piece. I thought I was reading my thesis for grad school, which after writing it I had no idea what I was reading. I found myself going back to see what you wrote, but your ability to write about language and the usage of language is very powerful. Your vocabulary usage made the piece a little difficult at times, but once i was able to decipher meanings of word I was fine.
Showing 1 - 6 of 6
Review item
Add to favesCreator
Relevant Links
Item Stats
GENERAL
6 Reviews 1 Comment
Version 1
Latest Activity: 2 months ago
REVIEW QUEUE
Appeared in Queue: 490 Times
Skipped: 10 Times
Ratings & Rankings
