1. I am referring to your remark about attempting to “account for all the facts” (if I remember correctly). This might be another attempt at doing just that; although I haven’t read the novel so I cannot say. Of course, the name Knausgaard sounds a bit like Kierkegaard so we shouldn’t be surprised.

      1. It is an interesting adventure I am on, not knowing what I’m gonna write or say, or what it really means.

        I’ll never know until after I write, but I am beginning to see how this exposure might come about. The facts, that is.

        This guy Karl Ove Knausgaard I looked on wiki. It does seem his withdraw and his candidness may be a feature of our time now. Like a compete divergence from standard ‘image conscious’ strategy. Maybe. I would say that his may be a bit premature. But it is interesting I do have an unfinished piece of writing where I tried to be absolutely free and open, but it doesn’t seem the right time. I suppose it seems I am involved in setting up the stage, so to speak, like there is an order to doing things. Which seems kinda the opposite of what I actually do, lol. I tend to leap before looking, and everything never turns out the way I thought. All I know is that projects come up and I do them as I can, engage as I can.

        perhaps we will get writers that set aside convention and be brutally honest, maybe that will be the next ‘cool thing’ to do in art. Just like the existential Berkeley type ‘theatre of the absurd’ of that time.

        A time for every purpose under heaven. :)).

      2. His work on angels is perhaps telling, since it seems to be caught up still in this mediation issue, i.e. the angel is usually a messenger of some kind. Another recent example of this is Michel Serres’ “Angels: A Modern Myth”. It does seem to be premature because it is not really a negotiation or renegotiation of things. Knausgaard’s approach seems perhaps still too solitary and withdrawn; it doesn’t quite involve or realize its involvement with others in the way this other process would. I think even he recognizes this, or was forced to recognize it owing to the effect his books have had on his family. This other process… as you say, it takes time to set the stage.

      3. As to the Angels: it is a very Romanitc notion. I suppose it is here that my work is doomed to fail, because part of my effort involves locating and or describing the conventional bias. Meaning, a discourse that accounts for all discourse, so to speak. The idea is that there is a basic substrate which I tentatively call ‘the scenario’, that may account for or perhaps describe a basis upon which all Romantic scenarios find their meaning. I’m not sure if such a discourse is possible, but we will see what arises.

        So theory seems a necessary discourse to tackle first, since theory is the disassociation of the human being from the significant experience. Discourse must arise in the proper condition for theory thus to expose itself. But I do not think that it will be heard, or ever heard – that is except maybe by those who have been come upon by the significant experience. Maybe. But it is not for me to decide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s