nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Calvino, no I don't think so, maybe a bit of Invisible Cities.

Invisible Cities is exactly the Calvino I was thinking of, it's also my favorite work of his.

Well, D&G never wrote fiction, though they did ape Burroughs most of the time in an obvious and avowed way...
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Yeah, I'd basically agree with most of what you said there Mr Tea. Strangely enough I bought a record by Morricone off ebay called Pazuza today and then got stuck into the book on the bus journey here to read loads of banging on about the same deity.

Pazuzu is getting everywhere at the moment, sound installation at the ICA plus a sculpture of him/it

http://www.ica.org.uk/Roberto%20Cuoghi%3A%20%8Auillakku+17448.twl

oh and Gog Magog are the patron saints of the City of London, which is really fucking weird and random

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Pazuzu is getting everywhere at the moment, sound installation at the ICA plus a sculpture of him/it

http://www.ica.org.uk/Roberto%20Cuoghi%3A%20%8Auillakku+17448.twl
I just saw that a second ago! There's some kind of gig on there tonight that IdelRich told me about, went on to the ICA homepage and who should I see but...

And yeah, I'd heard of Gog and Magog in the sense of giants associated with London, very odd indeed, you'd think they were Celtic myths or something but it's all from some obscure book of the Old Testament or whatever.
 

sub-rosa

cannibal horses
I think that sounds about right. For me, sometimes it's best to keep something like that slightly at arms length as some kind of black box within the story where what goes on inside the box is not explained.

Yes shrouding the monster rather than describing it. I agree it works well for fiction. It is also a rule of thumb for good horror movies. But Cyclonopedia has an interesting tactic to deal with this problem. I think for the most part, it successfully manipulates the excessive description and turns it to its advantage. It has something to do with the book being "a work of theory-fiction". It means its theory and fiction poles are reversible. When the description overflows or the fiction becomes too self-conscious it shifts to theory because theory supports elaborate details. Also when theory gets too imaginative it switches into fiction so the work swings back and forth between theory and fiction. This again brings back the idea of double betrayal with the style of the book. True the overabundance of details doesn't necessarily make good fiction, but in this case it worked well with the theoretical side (at least for me:)).

Also the paranoid level of details adopts the idea of 'unspeakable' horror. There was a cool essay in the recent issue of Collapse comparing the technique of Lovecraft to Husserl's phenomenology. The essay argues that contrary to what some of Lovecraft's readers believe, Lovecraft always gives too much information about the space and objects. This level of details shroud objects under layers and layers of properties which create a menacing effect.

Here is a relevant passage from the online introduction to Collapse no. 4:

Turning to Husserl’s phenomenology as a test case, Harman suggests that reading its insistence on the excessiveness of intentional objects against Lovecraft’s descriptive delirium might provide some pointers towards the type of ‘weird realism’ he advocates.
Problematising a Kantian reading of Lovecraft, Harman concurs with Miéville that a hallmark of weird writing is that it takes on the ‘unspeakable’ with an ‘excess of specificity’ in description; adding that, rather than suggesting a noumenal ‘backworld’, this is the excess of a phenomenal realm pregnant with the menace of ‘malignant beings’ which are threatening precisely in so far as they stalk the very same web of experience whose threads we too clamber along, attempting to ignore their more ominous vibrations.
Using literature’s manufacture of unassimilable and inexhaustible objects as a model for the production of philosophical concepts, Harman insists that the latter’s excess over any definition makes them, too, excessive phenomena, intentional objects whose properties can never be exhaus¬tively enumerated – precisely the model proposed by Husserl’s sensitive and meticulous phenomenology.
 
Last edited:

sub-rosa

cannibal horses
What did you think of Begotten by the way? Only just realised that the director gave some positive blurb to the jacket or at least to some websites recommending Cyclonopedia - very cosy.

I kind of enjoyed it. It was boring but some of the scenes were beautiful. I liked the ambient noise more than anything. I can see the similarities between the book and Begotten: the idea of diseased creation and breaking things into their formless parts, etc.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think for the most part, it successfully manipulates the excessive description and turns it to its advantage. It has something to do with the book being "a work of theory-fiction". It means its theory and fiction poles are reversible. When the description overflows or the fiction becomes too self-conscious it shifts to theory because theory supports elaborate details. Also when theory gets too imaginative it switches into fiction so the work swings back and forth between theory and fiction. This again brings back the idea of double betrayal with the style of the book. True the overabundance of details doesn't necessarily make good fiction, but in this case it worked well with the theoretical side (at least for me:)).

Hey, I like that idea! I guess I've been mainly thinking about the ideas Negarestani is putting across rather than the style in which he does so, but perhaps I've been missing out by doing this - I certainly like the idea that 'form follows function' (or in this case, dysfunction).
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
this is the excess of a phenomenal realm pregnant with the menace of ‘malignant beings’ which are threatening precisely in so far as they stalk the very same web of experience whose threads we too clamber along, attempting to ignore their more ominous vibrations.

I think this particularly works when the fiction comes to life - as exacted by, y'know, my comment about wanting Reza to be trans, Mr Tea's T-shirt shock, Rich's Pazuzu thing, the fiction has stalked the same web of experience that we've been walking. As an act, the work is successful; that's all I'd really hope from 'art' is that it climbs out from its own space and takes on a specifically phenomenological existence.

I never read any Mieville but my mate met him at a conference recently and said he was really nice. I like the fact that he looks like a cybergoth.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I kind of enjoyed it. It was boring but some of the scenes were beautiful. I liked the ambient noise more than anything. I can see the similarities between the book and Begotten: the idea of diseased creation and breaking things into their formless parts, etc.
That is almost exactly what I thought. It looked great, I loved all those bits of the hooded guys dragging the gibbering fuck up across the landscape, the way they treated him as an object, not being cruel to him in any way but taking no notice of his distress or anything that he wanted or needed. I thought the music/sounds worked brilliantly as well but I thought it was too long and I can't imagine anyone (honestly) disagreeing.
No surprises about it being similar to Cyclonopedia, the similarities are pretty much acknowledged in the book aren't they?
Re Cyclonopedia, is it just me who would like to see something mentioned on dissensus that isn't linked to HP Lovecraft?
 

sub-rosa

cannibal horses
Re Cyclonopedia, is it just me who would like to see something mentioned on dissensus that isn't linked to HP Lovecraft?

LOL!
By the way, have you seen Trouble Every Day? From what I have heard it is a brutal cult movie. I watched In My Skin the other night which I enjoyed, very disturbing. It seems people compare these two movies with each other. Plan to watch Trouble Every Day this week.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"By the way, have you seen Trouble Every Day? From what I have heard it is a brutal cult movie. I watched In My Skin the other night which I enjoyed, very disturbing. It seems people compare these two movies with each other. Plan to watch Trouble Every Day this week."
I've not seen either of those two films but strangely enough I was watching a trailer for In My Skin less than ten minutes ago.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Re Cyclonopedia, is it just me who would like to see something mentioned on dissensus that isn't linked to HP Lovecraft?

Yeah totally seconded, I never really went for Lovecraft, but it's been interesting that he's been popping up everywhere.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yeah totally seconded, I never really went for Lovecraft, but it's been interesting that he's been popping up everywhere.
Dammit, I just read this in a completely unrelated book I'm reading:

"La R'lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn! La! La?" he aks. I stare at him wordlessly. Pete nudges me and says "N'ghai n'gha'ghaa, shoggog, y'hah, Nyarla-to, Nyarla-totep, Yog-Sothoth, n-yah, n-yah"

There is no escape.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
IdleRich said:
Re Cyclonopedia, is it just me who would like to see something mentioned on dissensus that isn't linked to HP Lovecraft?

Yeah totally seconded, I never really went for Lovecraft, but it's been interesting that he's been popping up everywhere.

It hit me by my first year of grad work in critical / digital theory that most professors and theoryheads are also huuuge on sci-fi, especially the upper middle brow sort. Spent many an hour behind in discussions because I've never read Lovecraft or Dick...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"It hit me by my first year of grad work in critical / digital theory that most professors and theoryheads are also huuuge on sci-fi, especially the upper middle brow sort. Spent many an hour behind in discussions because I've never read Lovecraft or Dick... "
One of my friends gave me an anthology of Lovecraft a month or so ago and I think it's now become a case of "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" so I read the first story a few minutes ago. It was ok, the second one seems more promising though.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
One of my friends gave me an anthology of Lovecraft a month or so ago and I think it's now become a case of "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" so I read the first story a few minutes ago. It was ok, the second one seems more promising though.

Does the anthology include The Colour Out Of Space? If not, throw it away and find one that does. I always thought it was his best story (and I've read a fair few of them), and was quite chuffed to later learn he thought the same thing.

Actually, check your (email) inbox, I've just mailed you the pdf.
 

you

Well-known member
Cyclonopedia is looking promising for me. Ive just started reading the first real chapter, about the cross - just relish it - im engrossed, its really getting under my skin. Checking out all the hyperstitional blogs and stuff online is fascinating too. The areas explored are interesting and up my street to start with but im finding the use of language is what really draws me in. Thank you dissensus.
 

jenks

thread death
So.. I've read a few more chapters and maybe I'm just not getting it but I have a distinct feeling that whilst this Emperor may not be entirely naked he certainly isn't as well dressed as some would have us believe.

It's bloody hard work and at times it just feels unrewarding - I am not siding with those who claim that all theory heavy stuff is some practical joke but I do feel that for the tiem and effort taht I am putting in I am not getting much in return.

Cue howls of protest from others I am sure.:slanted:
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
So.. I've read a few more chapters and maybe I'm just not getting it but I have a distinct feeling that whilst this Emperor may not be entirely naked he certainly isn't as well dressed as some would have us believe.

It's bloody hard work and at times it just feels unrewarding - I am not siding with those who claim that all theory heavy stuff is some practical joke but I do feel that for the tiem and effort taht I am putting in I am not getting much in return.

Cue howls of protest from others I am sure.:slanted:

No, I can totally see where you're coming from - all I'll say is that some of the later chapters are not quite as theoretical and deal with ever-so-slightly-more-concrete concepts such as the Middle East's supposedly unique approach to war, a psychoanalysis of ancient Assyrian demonology and the sun's influence on the earth's magnetosphere. Plus the sub-plot type bits and pieces about a rogue American colonel and an obscure modern-day cult led by a female oil smuggler - though I thought both of these, especially the latter, were kind of tantalising as they weren't used to their full potential.
 
Last edited:

jenks

thread death
No, I can totally see where you're coming from - all I'll say is that some of the later chapters are not quite as theoretical and deal with ever-so-slightly-more-concrete concepts such as the Middle East's supposedly unique approach to war, a psychoanalysis of ancient Assyrian demonology and the sun's influence on the earth's magnetosphere. Plus the sub-plot type bits and pieces about a rogue American colonel and an obscure modern-day cult led by a female oil smuggler - though I thought both of these, especially the latter, we kind of tantalising as they weren't used to their full potential.

Thanks T - there is so much love for this on here that I am awaiting a flaming for my antipathy towards the thing.

Maybe it's a lack of love for Lovecraft et al - lots of his stuff does feel a bit silly. I tend to think he is best read one story in isloation rather than in a collected works - all that does is reinforce the similarities between tales and heighten the creaky and bad bits of writing (and ideas) at work.
 
Top