Un-Sight/Un-Sound (delirium X.) by M. gnOme Press. 2014.
Referential reading (as opposed to the kind when I read a recipe or genre fiction - for information or simple delight) requires, for me, an admission of weakness.
A Smattering of Personal Weaknesses: I have this point of view and not that one; I have a facility with certain domains of knowledge and not with others; I have, in today's parlance, a low EQ - I respect numbers far more than people; I need communication; I have a desire to understand.
M's book addresses aspects of human life outside this description of my comfort zone. How to approach it?
A deviation: when a reader disparages another's work with the accusation of "inaccessible" what it often means is that the reader is unwilling to do the work necessary to understand the Other.
There are at least two solutions to this difficulty. One is to refuse to move outside what is known. Rationalization follows.
- Rationalization Option 1: blame the writer. Call the text unreadable. Refuse to see that the definition of “readable” is not static.
- Rationalization Option 2: Say “this is just not my cup of tea”. If you can answer the question “why?” in a coherent manner, this a perfectly legitimate answer. Otherwise this refusal roots in the same emotional mud as option 1.
- A second solution to the feeling of inaccessibility: the reader can attend to the text as it is, even if hesitantly, with difficulty, with effort.
"...the dogs devour the tears shed as of skin sanguine in lapse of momentary lack of resolve cast..."
As a reader, I must begin where I already am. Un-Sight/Un-Sound (delirium X.) does not live at the same coordinates as I do. Therefore, I must move towards its place on the human map.
Another aside: I wouldn't describe my sense of delirium X as one of inaccessibility. Half way up a sheer cliff face is inaccessible to me without a helicopter or some other mechanical aid. If I have the “aid” then the cliff is accessible - even if it is scary (don't like heights much). Text comes, perforce, with its own 'copter. Historical knowledge. The internet. The ability to reason, make connections, think. What this says to me: the accusation of inaccessibility roots in fear.
"...echoing from out of gouge / what gouge unto / light what else of the other / measure beyond..."
Let's go back to my low EQ. M's book, when opened randomly, strikes me as a wail. Each dipping spot - another growl or wail or whinge. So much pain/rage/despair/angst/etc./etc. I don't even know all the feeling-terms to cover the complicated world of M's textual delirium.
"...brace what trace lacking still what lapse desire in effect birthing from the grave that giveth never..."
On opening the book for the first time, I knew immediately I'd have to form some sort of intellectual solid ground to cope with it. I found a starting place on the back cover.
Un-Sight/ Un Sound (delirium X.) is a pose-poetic work in three sequences: "delirium X," "Meat Sequence (after Francis Bacon)," and "Ghost-Limb Tongue." In the first, quotations from various authors (Bataille, Beckett, Luca, Popa et al.) are used as springboards for surreal imagistic fragmentation. The second section, inspired by Deleuze's Francis Bacon, deals with the subject of flesh/meat and explores the concept of the human object divulged of identity / place, stripped of ego, and viewed from an externus. The third section addresses the conflict between sense and the real and concludes with a collection of aphorisms written with regard to words becoming a bankrupt form of expression in the conflict between language and the Post-Human world...
OK. Now I'm getting it. Here's where I can begin. Non-sense via the sensical. The powerhouse dissonance between poetry and prose. I'm even emitting an occasional chortle (I mean “meat Sequence” after Bacon - snigger). If you can't get the feelings directly, then use reason as an interpreter. (Another moment of dissonance resulting in something coherent and productive.)
“In the first, quotations from various authors (Bataille, Beckett, Luca, Popa et al.) are used as springboards for surreal imagistic fragmentation.”
Take the 4th offering in delirium X - the quote is from Georges Bataille.
hungry for fish hungry for rage
hungry for filth hungry for cold
This comes from The Oresteia - specifically from a piece called "Discord". Discord is 4 pages long but only runs to 27 lines. The title is on its own page. The next page has 3 lines - "Ten hundred houses fall / a hundred then a thousand dead / at the window of the nude". Then you need to turn the page and - "Belly open / head removed / reflection of elongated clouds / image of the immense sky". Another mostly blank page with a few centred lines and then the final one, with the relative dense presentation of 14 lines from which M has taken the quote to begin his own text. What Bataille is speaking of "The areole of my death / freedom / unspeakable / hopelessness of my death".
"...eclipse of violent meat foreign spasm clotted blood clot"
"...dense as shit the light-break stun of absolute"
There are 23 of these elliptical points in M's response to the opening quote.
What I understand because of this: It's a conversation. Without obvious (at least to me) sense or reason, but a conversation nonetheless. It's a conversation between speakers of a language built of passion and despair. Whatever its syntax, the rules will be built out of the limbic. This has me interested. What kind of language is this?
If you didn't know, The Oresteia is a trilogy of plays by Aeschylus that treats upon the movement from a revenge driven social ethic to one based on law. It is a tragedy; people die horribly. It is about curses on houses.
So, my mind goes - if this is an updated transition, we in our world are moving from the rule of law to what? A kind of anarchy brought about by the rise of the absurd?
If I'm correct about this then the conversation must be in the realm of the absurd. And, based on textual evidence, it certainly appears to be. So. Not inaccessible. In fact, didn't take all that much for me to form a bridge to the text and find it perfectly coherent within its own philosophical frame.
Aside: J'ai un nom is completely inaccessible if you refuse to recognize it is not an English sentence. Absurd if you are doing so for some reason or other, just stupid if don't recognize the possibility that it might be another language.
I'll continue to read – which is a different process in M's realm than it would be if I were reading Wordsworth. What I'll do (which is not to say what you should do) is open the book and commit bibliomancy.
Methodology: I'll hold the book closed in my left hand. I'll form some absurd (not to say silly) question. Absurd like “What does the steel table want for breakfast?” Then I'll take 5 shallow breaths and open the text, randomly point to a verbal phrase. I will not assume this is the answer.
Once I've done that - now in the appropriate mental frame - I'll do what I do well. I'll find the philosophical and historical traces that “delirium X” point to and follow them to some kind of understanding.
Over time, I'll continue until I can feel the cognitive map I'm building is complete. Once that is done, I'll have read the book.
Do you have to approach M's book my way? No. You might hate philosophy for one thing.
Can you still get there? Sure. It might even be easy for you. You might already live in the same map-zone as M.
Will it be worth the work if you don't? I can't answer that for you. For me it is.