am i right in thinking that the anti-canon would be something like going to lhasa a the time tibet the place was closed to the outside world? there is no interzone, you either reach lhasa or are driven out before arrival. whatever the means or tricks used to advance, there is a starting point outside, a trajectory, an impasse where tibetans notice you are trespassing and a resolution where a) you are kicked out or b) you force your way in. the means and forms are secondary. what matters is reaching lhasa, all the rest is footnote and anecdote.
in contrast, the text above implies something will be different or better by somehow avoiding becoming identifiable and finished. that a rough draft mix of music, fiction, documentary dj-set and whatever where we can no longer discern each element is preferable to one final canonical form. in the context of the 19th century, the interzone would be in the different means and details of the journey as goal rather than the destination. a small anecdote would take on a significance eclipsing reaching a conclusion. travel would be something completely haphazard with no goal, or without memory of the final goal. the problem is that by losing sight of the objective this could also get you killed or make you forget why you are crossing the mountain, and ultimately bore the reader, which would defeat the purpose of voyage altogether.
la sonrisa es divina, la risa humana, la carcajada animal