��Illog

ic o

f S

ense

the Gregory L. U

lmer R

emix

Edi

ted

by D

arre

n To

fts &

Lis

a G

ye

��

Illogic of Sense: the Gregory L. Ulmer RemixEdited by Darren Tofts & Lisa Gye

Preface: Gluetube page2

Introduction DarrenTofts&LisaGye page3

The King and I: Elvis and the Post-Mortem or A Discontinuous Narrative in Several Media (On the Way to Hypertext)NiallLucy page12

StudioLab UMBRELLAJonMcKenzie page22

Surface to Surface, Ashes to Ashes (Reporting to U)LindaMarieWalker page28

The Two Ulmers in e-Media Studies: Vehicle and DriverCraigSaper page42

DiagrammatologyRowanWilken page48

From Mystorian to Curmudgeon: Skulking Toward FinitudeMarcelO’Gorman page61

Soliciting Taste: How sweet the lips of salted breamTeriHoskin page67

On Hip-Hop, a RhapsodyMichaelJarrett page68

Appendix page77

Bio Notes page78

Con

tents

��

Preface: GluetubeClick images to play videos.

Preface: G

luetu

be

ExcerptsfromTheUlmerTapes,reproducedwithpermissionofJohn(Craig)Freeman[Checkitout]

��

Focusfornowontheconcreteexperienceofthisstory,asasimulationofamoreabstractpracticetobetestedatanothertime’(Ulmer,1990:96)

GregoryUlmerhasbeenattheforefrontofthink-ingaboutnewculturalformationsastheparadigmofliteracyconvergeswithdigitalculture.Hisworkhas,andcontinuestobe,centraltocontemporarythinkingaboutthefutureofwriting,ofschoolingandparadigmsoflearning,thedynamicsofcreativ-ityandthepoeticsofinvention.Abarometerandforceofculturalchange,Ulmerhastakentheverynotionofcreativityintothe21stcentury.

Asaneducator,theoristandpractitionerofexperi-mentalapproachestowriting,Ulmer’sworkhasin-fluenced a generation of students, academics and artists,whoseworktraversesthevectorsofwritingasithasmergedwithvideo,thecomputerappara-tusandtheInternet.Hisworkincorporatesculturalstudies,informatics,cybernetics,post-structuralisttheoryandtheavant-gardearts.Ulmer’sprojectdemonstrateshowallformsofknowledgeandinscription(painting, dance,installation,literature,film) relate to writing and the convergent apparatus ofalphabeticandelectronicliteracy.

Ulmer’stheoreticalexpositionofatransitionfromliteracyto“electracy,”touseoneofhismanyneologisms,enablesustoglimpseandunderstandtechnologicalconvergenceasasceneofwriting.ForUlmer,electracyisnottheendoftheliterateparadigm, but rather an extension and re-definition ofit.Histheoreticallyinformedcoinageshavegivenusalexiconofconvergenceforthepossibilitiesof

IntroductionDarren Tofts & Lisa Gye

writingbeyondthebook.Moreover,theygesturetowhathehascalled‘anticipatoryconsciousness,’theintuitionthattheapparatusofwritingentailsadifferentkindofsense,anillogicofsenseappositetotheageofhypermedia.

Termssuchasappliedgrammatology,mystory,heuretics,post(e)-pedagogy,textshop,chora-graphy,areofferedasgenerativeconceptsforthemakingofnewandexperimentalwork,orwhatUlmerhascalled‘electronicrhetoric.’Ulmerdemonstratesexamplesofpotentialcompositionalpracticesthatareuniquetothecomposerandtotheplaceorspaceoftheirinvention.Healwaysshowsratherthantells,performingchoralwritingormakingmystories,rather thanexplainingthem.Theconcept of the finished work is always, in advance, unknowable,sincethelogicofinvention,theillogicofsense,takestheperformerandtheperformanceinunexpecteddirections.Chancepresidesoverchoice,abductionoverdeduction,metaphorandmetonymy fuse into the flow of syncopation and collage.Associationandtheaudaciousconduc-tionofitsthreadsguidethecreativeactasanongoingprocessofdiscoveryandassemblage.Whatever the finished work might be, it is osten-siblyanarchiveofthecreativeactitself.Ulmerhasneveradvocatedtheprescriptionofamethodtobemimickedorsimplyemulated.Rather,hisideasareofferedasameansforenablingotherstomakecreativeworkoftheirown,tousehisworkasrawmaterialforinvention.Itisthissolicitationofinventionthatinspiredthisbook.Theeightauthorsassembledinthiscollectionhaveeach,intheirownway,respondedtothecallofUlmer,totreathisworkasarelayratherthanamodel.Theyhave

Introd

uction

��

beenencouragedbyhisexampleto‘turntotheirownarchives’anddiscovertheirowninventio.

ForthepurposesofanIntroductiontothisbook,theeditorshaveinterpretedUlmer’sworkasacon-temporaryre-makeoftheRosettaStone.Ulmer’sinterestintheRosettaStoneismulti-facetedandreferencestoitrecurthroughouthiswritings,par-ticularlytoits‘intertranslatability’ofdifferenttypesofwriting.Principally,heisinterestedinitasakindofliterarymachine,ormoreappropriatelyavehicleofliteracythatunlockedpreviouslylostknowl-edgeofhieroglyphictexts.ThekeytotheStoneofel-RashidwasitstransliterationofthesamePtolemaicdecreeindifferentscripts(hieroglyphic,demoticandGreek).ItwasthisunderstandingofthetriscriptthatenabledJean-FrançoisChampol-liontocrackthecodein1822andrevivethelostartofreadinghieroglyphics,therebyopeninguptheancientworldtothemodernage.Inasimilarapplicationofmethod,wecansituateUlmer’s‘popcyle’(theinterrelationsbetweenpopular,ex-planatoryandexpertknowledge)asatriscript.

ThetriscriptstructurewillbeusedasamethodforintroducingIllogic of Sense.Allscholarlytextsarepalimpsests,archivesoftheirauthors’engage-mentwith andintertranslationsofthediscoursesofacademicinquiryandeverydaylife.Theyarealsoprovisional,writtenoutofthecontextofaspecific time and place in the author’s life; or what Ulmerdescribesastheir‘personalperiodictableofcognitiveelements,representingoneindividual’sintensivereserve.’(Ulmer,1989:vii)Thisrelationbetween living and artificial memory is rhetorically woven within a space, or chora, of significance to thecomposer(hencechoragraphy).Theprovision-alityofchoraanditsemphasisonunforeseeableprocessesofdiscoveryandassociation,echoesthecontingentnatureoftheRosettaStoneitself,whichisaproductofchanceoperations,inthiscaseaccidentalbreakagesanddamageovertime(abighunkofquartz,itis,intheDuchampiansense, definitively unfinished). Residing in the Brit-ishMuseum,TheRosettaStoneisaremainder,anirregularfragmentofalarger,monolithicstelathat

oncefeaturedaroundedlunetteatitspeak.Itisboththememoryofawholeandanarchiveofitsfragmentation.Aswiththecompiledelementsofanychoragraphic inscription,theRosettaStoneisafoundartifact,adiscoverythatyieldedvariousprocessesofinvention,themostfamousbeingthetechnethatenabledscholarstoreadAncientEgyp-tiancultureasacode.Perhapslesswellknown,untilnow,isitsintimationofthepresentvolumeinthetitleoftheactualtextfeaturedontheRosettaStoneitself,knownhistoricallyastheMemphisDecree.

This first section of the Introduction is written in theexplanatoryregister,describingthecontextoftheprojectanddiscursiveframeworkofUlmerassubject.Thesecondsection(popular)drawsontheeditors’encounterswithUlmerandisanecdotalintone.Thethirdsectionofthetriscriptdealswithexpertknowledgeandpresentsbriefdescriptionsoftheassembledessays.Thesearenotsomuchsummariesasoverdubs,thelayeringofmultipletracks,asinaprocessofaudio-visualediting.Theyaddafurtherstratumofdisciplinarywritingtotheauthors’inscriptions,extendingaswellasenfram-ingtheminIllogic of Sense.Andperhaps,inthecontextof thisplace,thissceneofwriting,theytooarebestconsideredasfragments,chipsofftheoldblock.

Introd

uction

��

Fragments, or the year I went back for the chocolateDarren Tofts- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - —

To: Darren DTofts@buster.swin.EDU.AU

From: Greg GLULMER@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu

Subject:re: Re: Address

Date: Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 8:52:46 am

EDT

Attach:

Certify: N

Forwarded by:

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - —

Hi Darren

about the shared ‘heuretics’ — - I jumped a bit

when I saw it in your essay, and I took it as

a sign that the time is right for this supple-

ment-alternative to hermeneutics. I used it in

teletheory, but spelled ‘euretics.’ The re-

viewer for the press complained that the name

evoked something vaguely urinary (which i

thought was ok, in the line of Diogenes — - the

scandal of urine in the academy).

Heuretics has just now appeared in the states,

and is supposed to be published simultaneously

in England.

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - —

Thepost-criticalessay,especiallyinitsheureticform,isusefulonlyinsofarasitdramatizesaprocessofengagementwithconcepts,texts,practices,contexts.Asanexemplarofapost-modernizedpedagogyitcanalsohaveben-efits. (Tofts, Kinnane & Haig, 1994: 257)

Thomas“Phenomenon”YoungbeganworkingontheEgyptianscriptin1814.InthesameyearJean-FrançoisChampollionwrotetoYoung,thenForeignSecretaryoftheRoyalSociety,requestinga cast of the Stone. Both Young and Champollion workedfromfacsimilesintheirrespectiveeffortstodeciphertheelusivecode.Copies,intheformofpapyrus scrolls, engravings and the official French Description de l’Égypte (1809),stoodinfortherealthing.TheStonehadcommenceditshistoricalduplicationanddissemination.

In 1999 the British Museum staged a major exhibi-tiontocelebratethebicentenaryofthediscoveryoftheRosettaStone.ItwascalledCracking Codes: The Rosetta Stone and Decipherment.Thisin-cludedanewinstallationoftheStoneinanuprightposition,whichrestoreditsgrandeurasamonu-mental stela. A fine volume was published by the British Museum Press to accompany the exhibition. Rigorous,seriousandauthoritative,theassembledessaysandexegeticalchaptersrepresentedthebesttraditionsofepigraphicscholarship.Anap-pendixfeaturedatranslationoftheDemotictextbyR.S.Simpson,authorofDemotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees(Oxford,1996).Thefinal lines of text offer an astonishing insight into theconceptionofthetriscriptandtheveryfounda-tionsofliteracy:

[…]andthedecreeshouldbewrittenonastelaofhardstone,insacredwriting,documentwrit-ing,andGreekwriting…(SimpsoninParkin-son,1999:200)

Thisweightytomewascomplementedbyanarrayofmerchandise,fromscarabbeetlepencilcasesandmockEgyptianjewelry,tocartouchecoloringbooks and postcards of the higher gods. But by far the most striking item in the British Museum shop thatstoodoutamidthisoverwhelmingspectacleof pop was the Rosetta Stone chocolate; a 100 gramblockofmilkchocolatewithalmondsandraisins. But this Rosetta Stone chocolate tran-scendedkitsch.Itwasanemblemofthemalleableintertranslatabilityofhistoryandpopularculture.Tothisdayitremainsunopenedandun-tasted.Ithaspasseditsusebydate(28thApril,2001)andsitsonabookshelfinmyhomeasamonumenttothecommercialismofantiquity.IintendtoendowitwiththeauraticgrandeuroftheRosettaStoneitselfbykeepingitimmersedanduntouchedinitscasing; a postmodern age mastaba to be plun-deredatanothertime.Icanfeelsomethingthatmightbebas-reliefhieroglyphicsonthesurfaceofthechocolatethroughtheoutercoveringofstiffpaper.Orperhapsitisacartoucheofindetermin-ableimport,orworse,acurseawaitinganyone

Introd

uction

��

who gazes upon it. But these tactile impressions remainvague,undecipherableandmysterious.Forallintentsandpurposes,itistheRosettaStoneasitwasfoundandexcavatedbyM.PierreFrançoisXavier Bouchard at Fort St Julien on the west bank oftheNilein1799.Itssecretsonceagaincon-cealed,itawaitsitsChampollionandhisavatars,aswellasunknownfeatsofinventiontocome.

On that visit to the British Museum in 1999, for some reason I find now unfathomable, I failed to actuallybuythissublimeblock(perhapsitwasthe£3.99pricetag).OnareturnvisittoLondonin2000I made a pilgrimage to the British Museum in the hopethatthisstellarobjectwouldstillbeavail-able,nodoubtmademorepreciousbythepassingyear.TomyabsolutedelightIfounditinabasketofremaindereditems.

Introd

uction

��

Lost in TranslationLisa Gye

My first encounter with Ulmer’s work in 1992 coincided not only with my first academic ap-pointmentbutalso,asIhaveonlylatelydiscov-ered,withthereleaseoftheRosettaStone®.TheRosettaStone®isapieceofsoftwarethatclaimstobeabletoteachusersanewlanguagewithoutrecourseto“tedioustranslationormemorization.”“WithRosettaStone,learninganewlanguage iseasierthanyoueverimagined,”themanufacturersassert.Thisis,theysay,becauseofthetrade-marked“awardwinning”techniqueofDynamicImmersion™employedbythesoftware.Unlikethepartialplinthofantiquity,thisRosettaStone®letsyoucrackthecodeofnotonelanguagebutthirty!

Despitethedisdain withwhichtheRosettaStone’s®makerstreatmemorizationandtransla-tion,theycomprisetwokeyprinciplesofcom-puting.Yet,whilecomputershaveundoubtedlyexcelledatmemorization,precisetranslationhasalways been difficult. The use of computers for translationcan betracedbacktothelate1940’swhenWarrenWeaver,anAmericanscientistworkingattheRockefellerFoundation,inalettertocyberneticistNorbertWiener,proposedusingcryptographictechniques,statisticsanduniversalsoflanguagetomechanizethetranslationprocess.Thisledtothepublicationofamemorandumentitled“Translation,”whichhewroteinJuly,1949.This memorandum was the single most influential publicationintheearlydaysofmachinetransla-tion.

Weaver’smemorandumarguedthatasimplisticword-for-wordtranslationapproachhadgravelimitations.Hearguedthatanyformofmachinetranslationneededtotakeintoaccountthefol-lowingfourfactors:thattheproblemofmultiplewordmeaningscouldbecounteredbyexaminingthe immediate context of any communication; that there are logical elements in language; that cryp-tographic methods were possibly applicable; and thattheremayalsobelinguisticuniversals.

Attheendofthememorandum,Weaverempha-sizedtheimportanceofthefourthfactorwithwhatisoneofthebest-knownmetaphorsinthelitera-tureofmachinetranslation:

Think,byanalogy,ofindividualslivinginaseriesoftallclosedtowers,allerectedoveracommonfoundation.Whentheytrytocom-municatewithoneanother,theyshoutbackandforth,eachfromhisownclosedtower.Itisdifficult to make the sound penetrate even the nearesttowers,andcommunicationproceedsvery poorly indeed. But, when an individual goes down his tower, he finds himself in a greatopenbasement, commontoallthetowers.Hereheestablisheseasyandusefulcommunicationwiththepersonswhohavealsodescendedfromtheirtowers.(Weaver,1955: 18)

Machinetranslationstillfallsalongwayshortintermsofanaccuraterenditionofafacetofaceexchange, as anyone who has used Babeliser or Babelfish can testify. Getting language and those thatuseitoutofthetowersandintothebase-ment has proved to be more difficult than Weaver believeditcouldbe.Take,forexample,Simpson’stranslation of the final lines of the Demotic text of theoriginalRosettaStone:

[…]andthedecreeshouldbewrittenonastelaofhardstone,insacredwriting,docu-mentwriting,andGreekwriting…(SimpsoninParkinson,1999:200)

Run it through Babelfish, from English to French to GermantoJapaneseandbacktoEnglishandyougetthefollowingtranslation:

Ifandwiththestonewhose1stelawhichcoronationaredonearehard,theletteriswrit-ten,theletterofwritingandGreeceofruleandthedocument.

Whilenotstrictlyaccurateintermsofsense,thereisakindofpoetrytothis.Computersmaynotbeabletoaccuratelytranslateyetbuttheyare

Introd

uction

��

capableofthemostremarkabletransformationsbybringingtogethertheseeminglydisparatede-terminateelementsinunexpected,aleatoryways.Thesetransformationsarestillakindoftranslationinthesenseofthings(ideas,words,bytes)beingborneacrossfromonerealmtoanother.It’sjustthatintheprocesstheybecomesomethingother,somethingunexpected.

Ulmer’sworkdemonstratestousthewaythatcomputers,bydistributingratherthanstoringmemories,allowforarecombinatorypoeticsthatfavorsillogicoverlogic,ambiguityandsurpriseoverclarityandsurety.Thismustbewhythemak-ersoftheRosettaStone®eschewtranslationinfavorofimmersion.Theyrecognize,likeUlmer,thatthecomputinginterfacefunctionsmoreef-fectively‘bymeansofpatternmaking,patternrec-ognition,patterngeneration’(Ulmer,1989:36)andthatwecannolongerexpecttobeableto controlillocutionaryforce–‘topreserveintacttheintentoftheauthorduringtheeventofcommunication’(Ulmer,2002:113)–aswecouldduringtheeraofprint. Ourtranslationsdonotcompute.AndintermsoftheLatintranslationoftranslation(trans,cross…latus,tobear),thisisourcrosstobear–tolearnnotwhatthingsmean,whatwemakeofthem,butratherwhatcanbemadewiththem.

Introd

uction

��

Essay Overdubs

Itisimportanttostressattheoutsetthatthefol-lowingtextshavenotbeenwrittenaccordingtoanUlmerianformulaorprescription.Asindicatedpre-viously,Ulmer’sworkisaninvocationtoinvention,anessayonmethoddesignedtoinspireotherstopursueactsofinvention.TheonlycommonfeatureamongthemseemstobetheapplicationofwhatUlmerhascalled‘compilationscripting,’astruc-turallanguagethateschewsbeginnings,middlesandends,andinsteadprioritizestheorganiza-tionofdifferentkindsofmaterialbyjuxtaposition,analogyandthematicextension.Itisanappropri-atelogicforanagecontouredbyrecombinantmedia.Thefollowingobservationscanbereadaslinernotestoaneclecticcompilationalbumofmixed-mediaworks.Thetextsthemselvesmust,ofcourse,bereadatmaximumvolume.

Niall Lucy’sThe King and I: Elvis and the Post-Mortemenactsakindofwritingthatweavescriticalandtheoreticalspeculation,rockjournal-ism,hagiographyandautobiography.Asustainedspeculationonthequestionofidentityanditsother,orinthiscasemistakenidentityanditsfetish,Lucy’stextengageswiththeproblematicrelationsbetweenoriginalsandcopies,originsanddestinations.Inthisitisanincursionintowritingandsubjectivity,withitsproblematicinterplayofpresence and absence finding its analogy in the author’s chance identification as a reluctant suc-cessortoadeadKing.Thepost-mortemofLucy’stitleelicitsnotonlysuggestionsofactivityafterdeath(beitpathologicalexamination,resurrec-tionorhallucination),butalsoinvokesallpostalsystemsoftransmissionandthesignalstheyarecapableofcirculating.Thereliabilityoftheirreach-ingtheirdestination,aswellastheculturalfalloutoftheirissue,isindeterminate.Consequently,theauthorsuccumbstoNiallismandisdriventotheedgeofapocalypse:theKingisdead.LonglivetheKing.

Jon McKenzie’sStudioLab UMBRELLAtracesthe relations of influence and mentorship. A former

studentofUlmer’s,McKenzie’sautobiographicalreflections on his time spent with him studying at theUniversityofFloridarevealthetruemeaningofwhatitmeanstofollowsomeoneelse’sex-ample.Thepupil/aspirantandteacher/sagecrosstheroadinsearchofaKing,anamalgamofanentiremythictraditionofquestnarratives.Duringthisconversationmuchwisdomisimparted.Itsapplicationisnomerecopy,butratheranorigi-nal creationthatextendsthoseideasintonewformations.McKenzie’sStudioLabisonesuchformation,anapproachtopedagogythatadoptsacollectivepracticeakintoperforminginabandorbeingamemberofaguild.Thismulti-spatialapproachtolearningsuitedMcKenzie’schallengeofteachinganelectronicperformancecourseatNewYorkUniversity.Inasubsequentvolumetothepresentone,weshouldnotbesurprisedtoseeMcKenziecastasOldLodgeSkinshimself,lead-inghisstudentintounchartedterritory.

Linda Marie Walker’sSurface to Surface, Ashes to Ashes (Reporting to U)isaninvolvedmedita-tionontheconceptoftheinterfaceanditsrela-tiontoplace.ForWalkertheinterfaceisawayofconjoiningplace,orchora,andsubjectivity.Sheisinterestedinthestrangenessoftheeveryday,ofthatwithwhichwearesurrounded.Implicitly,sheisfascinatedbyhowthisisperceivedbyanotherpersonwithininterfacedsituations.Thisotherperson, this unidentified U, is at times anonymous, unknowable,anambiguouspresenceonshiftingground,whichisthere,alwaysnothere.AttimesitisunmistakablyUlmer,whoisalsoyou,intimateyetdistant,inactsofexchange.WritingforWalkeristhefragileyetcapablemediumofthisexchange,theprovisionalsignofthedesiretosupplementpresence,toenableUtoseewhatshesees,andviceversa.

Craig Saper,inThe Two Ulmers in e-Media Studies: Vehicle and Driver,ingeniouslyinterpretsUlmerasanobjectofstudy,asbothavehicleanddriver of signification. Ultimately Saper’s goal is to offeracriticalapproachtounderstandingUlmer’swork,particularlyinrelationtoitshistoricaldevel-

Introd

uction

�0�0

opment.HowhedoesthisisanactofinventionthatadaptsUlmer’speripatetic‘philosophyoverlunch’motif(alsoglimpsedinJonMcKenzie’spiece)asawayofanalyzingUlmerasUlmeranalyzeshissubjectmatter.Writteninthestyleofaschoolhandbook,Saper’sdiscussiontakesthereaderthroughaseriesoflessons.Thereisguid-anceanddidacticism,butthisiscomplementedbydramaticcuesandpromptsthatrequireamoreactive,performativeengagementwithSaper’sassemblageof‘intellectualmontage.’Infollowinghisleads andmakingconnections,thereaderwillmaketheirownjourneyandgettoknowthetwoUlmers.

Rowan Wilken’sDiagrammatologytakesitsleadfromJacquesDerrida’smaximthatdeconstruc-tion‘isinventiveoritisnothingatall.’FromthisprovocativenonsequiturWilkensetshimselfthechallengeoftheorizingtheunrepresentableinrelationtothearchitecturalmodelofthediagram.Likeninghisprojecttopoeticthinking,Wilkenisinterestedinawayofthinkingthatisdiagram-matic.Thischallengebuildsupontheinfrastruc-tureofliteracyitself,sinceitpositsthatconceptionisasmuchanactofconstructionasitisasceneofwriting.DrawingonUlmer’suseofDerrida’s‘choralgrid,’Wilkenproffersaheureticinterpreta-tionofdiagrammaticthinkingthatisconcernedwithdiscoveryandprospectingratherthanproofandexactitude.Thisinterfacebetweenspeculativethoughtandthediagram’swilltorepresentation,allowsWilkentotakehisinquiryintothebroadertechnoculturaldiscussionoftherelationsbetweenactualandvirtualstatesofbeing.

Marcel O’Gorman’sFrom Mystorian to Curmud-geon: Skulking Toward Finitudeoffersacandidaccountofwhatitmeanstointroducethecom-puterapparatusintoteachinginthehumanities.O’Gormanmixesmemory,anecdoteandtheo-reticalspeculationinsmall,measuredlexiasthatresemblepossibleentriesinsomeasyetunwrittenDictionnaired’Ulmer.Thisprovidesarudimentarynavigationalguideforthereadertoexplorehissense of exhaustion with the infinitude of hypertext

asacompositionalmode.Theallureofhypertextasunboundedterritorypromptsaverypersonalaccountoftherelationsbetweenthebodyandtechnology,thethingsweforgetandhaveforgot-tenduringalltheyearsofourprosthetictechno-embrace.ForO’Gorman,mystoriesmaybearthe traces of the electrate paradigm. But they are always, to use a very Beckettian phrase, frescoes oftheskull.

Teri Hoskin’sSoliciting Taste: how sweet the lips of salted breamapproachesthequestionofwritinganddesign,ofwritingasdesign.Thephrase,aschancewouldhaveit,isHoskin’screativeprin-ciple,assheisinterestedintheinterplaybetweendesign(ofthought,writing,visuality)andaccident(intuition,inspiration,intrusion)asacomposi-tionalmode.Themotifofthemoirepattern,asaninevitableconditionofthescannedimage,cap-turesforHoskintheprecariousbalancebetweenwillandinterferenceinallcreativeandconceptualpursuits.HoskindeftlyuseshypertexttoenactUlmer’scontentionthattheelectronicapparatusistheperfectvehicletodramatizepoststructural-istthought,sinceitisamatterofsolicitation,ofinvokingthepossible.Hoskinmakesinventiveuseofthecharged,poeticforceoftheaphorismtocreateamatrixofsolicitation,ofunexpectedpathsanddivagations.

Michael Jarrett’sOn Hip-Hop, a Rhapsodyrevelsinthepossibilitiesofappropriationandsampling.Jarrettisinterestedinthecreativepotentialoftheready-made,theinventivesuturingofavail-ableculture.Rapandhip-hoparehisostensiblesubjectsandhewantstotakeusonajourneytoencountertheirvalencesasahistoricalcompo-sitionalstrategy.Anappropriatorhimself,Jarrettdoeswhathesays,showswhathetells.Jarrettdevelopsastreamofinspiredconsciousnessthatlinkstheepicstory-tellingoftheclassicalrhapso-dists,theartofmemoryanditsmnemonicdevicesandcontemporaryhip-hopfreestyling.Outofthisjaggedwallofsound,JonathanSwift,erstwhileDeanofSt.Patrick’sCathedralinDublin,emergesasGrandmasterRapp,thegodfatherofhip-hop.

Introd

uction

����

References

Simpson,R.,(trans)“TheDemoticTextoftheMemphisDecreeon theRosettaStone,”inRich-ardParkinson,Cracking Codes: The Rosetta Stone and Decipherment (London: British Museum Press,1999).Tofts,Darren,Kinnane,Ray&Haig,Andrew,“Iowethediscoveryofthisimagetotheconvergenceofastudentandaphotocopier,”Southern Review,SpecialIssueonTeachingthePostmodern,(1994):252-260.Ulmer,Gregory.Teletheory. Grammatology in the age of video(London:Routledge,1989).____.“TheoryHobby:‘How-ToTheory,’”Art & Text,(37,1990).____.Heuretics: The Logic of Invention (Baltimore: JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1994).____.“RealityTables:VirtualFurniture”inTofts,D.,Jonson,A.andCavallaro,A.,Prefiguring Cyber-culture: An Intellectual History(Cambridge,Mass.:M.I.T.Press,2002),110-129.Weaver, Warren. “Translation” in Locke and Booth, (eds.)Machine Translation of Languages(NewYork: Wiley, 1955), 15-23.

Introd

uction

����

TheotherdayIpickedupthephoneandavoicesaidhelloisthatPeteandIsaidnoyou’vegotthewrongnumberandthevoicesaidhowdoyouknowI’vegotthewrongnumberandIthought,wow...amediatheorist!

Music: The Black-Eyed Susans, Viva Las Vegas[Check it out]

Ican’tsleepnightsforfeelingparanoid.Iusedtothinkitwasjustthesideburns,butnowI’mnotsosure.Notafterputtingittothetest.

Itriedtoleavenothingtochance,evendecid-ingtoordermacchiatosinsteadofmyusuallongblacks.TodisguisemyselfIwentbarefootinapairof loose-fitting Yakka trousers (green) and sloppy T-shirt(black),andboughtapacketofDrum.ItookwithmeaKathyAckernovelandanotepad,for

The King and I: Elvis and the Post-Mortem or A Discontinuous Narrative in Several Media (On the Way to Hypertext)Niall Lucy (For David McComb)

myownwriting,andsataroundatGino’swaitingtoseewhetheritwouldhappenagain.[1]

Itdid.

I hadn’t finished my second mac when someone, astrangerlikealltherest,walkedovertomytableandaskedforalight.InoddedattheZippoinfrontofme.SuddenlyIwasangrywithmyselffornot having bought a Bic, but I couldn’t imagine a cigarettelighterastheobjectofmyundoing.IthadtobesomethingmoreessentiallyconnectedtowhoIam...somethingaboutmethatnodisguise,howevercareful,couldconceal.

Thenithappened.

The stranger lit his cigarette, a Winfield, handed backmyZippoandsaid:‘Greatlighter,Elvis.Thanks.’

Elvis?Icouldn’thavelookedmoreFremantle,Ithought,buttheremusthavebeensomethingaboutmethatwassaying“LasVegas”.Tothestranger,atanyrate,whowasdressedindistin-guishablyfromme.EvenwhenIlookedlikeawriter,somehowIstilllookedliketheKing.

Ican’tsleepnightsforfeelingparanoid.

ForsometimenowI’vebeenthesubjectofElvissightings,inandaroundFremantle.EitherIdon’tknowwhoIamanymore,orthepeoplewhothinkI’mElvisdon’tknowwhoElvisis.OrI’mimaginingthatI’mthesubjectofElvissightings—inwhichcaseImightbeinneedofananalyst.Orthere’sa

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

conspiracy,among(some)peopleinFremantle,tomakemeimagineI’mthesubjectofElvissight-ings.OrI’mimaginingthere’saconspiracyamongsomepeopleinFremantletomakemeimagineI’mthesubjectofElvissightings.Thosearemychoices,tormentinglyliketheonesputtoOedipaMaasinThe Crying of Lot 49.

Oedipacallsthem‘thosesymmetricalfour.Shedidn’tlikeanyofthem,buthopedshewasmen-tally ill; that that’s all it was.’ (Pynchon, 1979) Of coursethat’swhatshehopeditwas,apsycho-logicaldisorder.FarbettertheOedipusthantheOedipa complex, after all. Better that your mind be bentbypatriarchy,orsomeotherdisturbingforce,thantodiscoverthepatriarchalasadiscoursewithnooutside.Ifallplotsareboys’games,andplotsareeverywhere,howcouldtheybeunravelled?Indeed,howcouldtheyevenberecognisedasboys’ games in the first place? How to get outside thepatriarchial,ifpatriarchyisthesourceandmeansofyouroppression,inordertobecriticalofwhat’sdeterminedtherangeandfacility,andsettheagenda,ofyourthinking—ifyou’vebeentaughttothinkyourself(alwaysunknowingly)onlyastheoppressed?

How,inotherwords,tothinkotherwise?

Whichisn’tquiteOedipa’sdilemma,ofcourse.But close. Her problem is that she can’t decide whetheranoccultpostalsystemcalledtheTrys-tero,whoseoperationsmayhavedeterminedthecourseofWesternhistory,isrealornot.Ifit’sreal,thenourhistoryisn’t—forwhatwethinkofashistoricalrealitywouldneedtoberewritteninthelightofOedipa’s“discovery.”If,ontheotherhand,theTrysteroisn’treal,thenOedipamusthaveimagineditintosomekindofdeterminateexis-tence,atleastinsideherhead.Eitherit’soutsideherheadandreal,then,ornotandthereforeafantasy.Ontheotherhand,again,itmightbeout-sideherhead,butassomeone’sideaofapracti-caljoke.Afterall,it’sinherroleastheexecutrixofherex-loverPierceInverarity’sestatethatOedipafirst comes across the Trystero as plot. So if the

plot’sapracticaljokeitmustbeofPierce’sdoing,requiringthecollusionofhisfriendsandlawyerstomakeitwork.Aconspiracy,then,togetOedipatobelievetheTrysteroisreal.Ontheotherhand,yetagain,shecouldbeimaginingsuchaconspiracy.Hence‘thosesymmetricalfour’.

By the same token there would be nothing to stop thissequence(‘thereisaplot...thereisaplotthatthereisaplot’...andsoon)fromrepeatingandmultiplyingitself,althoughOedipa’smadetofeelparanoidenoughwithouthavingtoputthattothetest (Thwaites, 2000: 269). She finds just four alter-natives quite sufficient to be unable to decide.

Me,too,forthatmatter.Youtrygettingtosleepatnightnotknowingwhetheryou’vebeenmistakenforElvis,orwhetherthere’saplot,oryou’veimag-inedthere’saplot,tomakeyouimagineyou’vebeenmistakenforElvis.Seemssimpleenough:theElvissightingsarereal,orthere’saplot.It’shappening,orI’mcrazy.Cross-paired(real/imag-ined; Elvis sightings/plot), these four terms consti-tuteaclosedsystem,achoicebetweenopposites:either the real or the imagined; either the sightings or the plot. But what if the sightings themselves arepartofaplot,evenifthey’re‘real’(howeverhopelesslyinadequatethattermhasbecomeinthepresentcontext)?SurelyifIambeingmistakenforadeadman,whatelsecanIbebutthesubjectofagraveplot?Acaseofthepostmodernasthepost-mortem,perhaps.

Music: Elvis, Edge of Reality[check this out]

ChancesarethatthoseinFremantlewhokeeponmistakingmefortheKingnevermetElvisperson-ally.NorcoulditbeverylikelythatmanypeopleinFremantleeversawElvisinconcert.WhateverstandsinforaknowledgeofElvisbysuchpeoplecouldn’thavederivedfromoutsiderepresentations—let’scallthemmediarepresentations—intheformofrecords,movies,posters,calendars,greet-ingcards,interviews,TVshows,concertfootageandthelike.

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

That’showmostofus“know”anypopstar,ofcourse. But we’d hardly call Elvis Presley just another pop star, if only because the fluidity (or perhapsthevectrality)throughwhichhisnamecirculatesacrossdivisionsofclass,gender,age,ethnicity(there’saChineseandaHindiElvisimpersonatordoingverynicelyinLondonatthemoment,apparently),education,tasteandsoonputshim(orshouldthatbe“it”?),like“WilliamShakespeare,”inacategoryapartfromhispeers.[2](OnwhichscoreI’mremindedof a“test”onceperformedinanundergraduatelectureIattendedinacourseonJacobeandrama.Thetestwasde-signedto‘prove’thatShakespeareisthegreatestdramatistofalltime.Itwentlikethis:askaRus-siantonametheworld’stwobestplaywrightsandhe’lltellyouChekovandShakespeare.AFrench-manwillsayMoliéreandShakespeare.AGerman,GöetheandShakespeare.SomeonefromScan-dinaviawillsayIbsenandShakespeare...andsoon.Ergo,Shakespeareisthegreatestdramatistofalltime.Endoflecture.)

The conflation of the best known with the best is acommonplaceofculturalcriticism.Let’sfaceit,50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong, and all those high-schoolcourseseverywheredevoted toanap-preciation of the Bard just go to show the timeless qualityofhisplaysandtheessentialgeniusofthemanhimself.Sotheargumentruns.Paradoxically,however,itcanalsobemadetoruntheotherway—againstanartistoranobjectconsideredtobetoopopulartobeofgenuineaestheticworth.Those 50 million Elvis fans, for instance, precisely becausetheydotransgresssomanydemograph-ics,servetodemonstratetheephemeralityofElvis’sappeal,basedasitmustbeonanalltoocommonaestheticdenominatortowarrantseri-ousintellectualandmoralattention—exceptbywayofdisapprobation.Whichhasnothing todowith Elvis, either. Before Elvis, straight society was freakingoutatFrankSinatra—justas,beforeSinatra,ithadgothystericalaboutjazz.Nowa-daysthefearandloathingbrigadeismadetofeelrighteousbyhiphopandheavymetalbands—notbyElvis,whoreallyhasn’tscaredanyone

(exceptduringthehour-longbroadcastofhis1968 NBC-TV special, often called his ‘comeback’ special)sincehecameoutofthearmyin1960.By that decade’s end, his audience lost to Dylan, theMerseybeat,andthepsychedelicsoundsofSanFrancisco,EPwaswellandtrulyoutoftouchwiththeWoodstockgeneration.He’dbecometoorich to be radical, too much of a public figure to be hip.Worstsignofall,perhaps:everyoneknewthenameofElvis’smanager,Col.TomParker.

Dream sequence . . .

I’m alone inside Gino’s at night. Only it isn’t Gino’s: it’s what Gino’s would look like if Salvador Dali had been hired to do the decor. Everything’s liquid and warped. Suddenly, a man wearing a gold lamé suit walks in and sits at my table. I start feeling paranoid. I can sense that he wants me to look into his eyes, but I look down at my hands instead. Then he starts to sing. He’s got a powerful voice but I have to strain to hear the words. ‘I must have been mad’, he’s singing like he means it. ‘I didn’t know what I had/Until I threw it all away.’ I recog-nise the song from Dylan’s Nashville Skyline, but the voice is pure Elvis. I stop feeling paranoid. My body shivers in pain and delight. The voice has me enraptured. My God, I’m listening to the greatest Elvis impersonator on earth! I look up to see his face, and find myself staring into the vacuum of a woman’s eyes.

Iwakeallnervousandexhaustedinapoolofsweaty fluids.

There’sagreatstoryaboutCol.Tom,surroundingoneofthemostbizarremomentsinAmericanpoli-ticsof1970:ElvisbeingmadeanhonoraryFed-eralnarcoticsagentbyRichardNixonintheOvalRoomoftheWhiteHouse.Thatpart’strue.Thestory’stoldbyrockcriticStuWerbin,butIknowitonlyfromafootnoteinthe‘Presliad’chapterofGreilMarcus’sMysteryTrain:ImagesofAmericainRock‘n’RollMusic—stilloneofthebestthingsevertobewrittenonElvis:

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

ItseemsthatthegoodGermanwhoarrangestheWhiteHouseconcertsforthePresidentandhisguestsmanagedtotravelthemanychannelsthatleadonlyinrareinstancestoCol.TomParker’sphoneline.Onceconnect-ed,hedeliveredwhatheconsideredthemostprivilegedinvitation:ThePresidentrequestsMr.Presleytoperform.TheColoneldidalittlequick figuring and then told the man that Elvis wouldconsideritanhonor.ForthePresident,Elvis’sfee,beyondtravelingexpensesandac-commodationforhisback-upgroup,wouldbe$25,000. The good German gasped. ‘Col.Parker,nobodygetspaidforplayingforthePresident!’ ‘Well,Idon’tknowaboutthat,son,’theColonelrespondedabruptly,‘butthere’sonethingIdoknow.NobodyasksElvisPresleytoplayfornothing.’(Marcus,1976:137-8)

Apocryphalornot,suchstorieshadaveryrealeffectonwhatElvishadcometomeanbythemid-1960s.Theyservedtoreproduceforhis“life”whatthehippublichadcometounderstandofhiswork:thatitwasemotionallycrassanddrivenbyalustforpowerandmoney.ListentothisdescriptionofGraceland,forexample,assenttomebymyfriend Rob Snarski, from the Black Eyed Susans, onapostcardofElvis’sgrave:

Dear Niall,Well I’ve seen it. The King’s final resting place and his home of twenty odd years. In fact Ja-son, Mark & I spent a good 6 hours at Grace-land & the various museums and giftshops. The “jungle room” filled with Hawaiian furnish-ings which the big E chose and purchased in 30 minutes and the very same room he re-corded ‘Moody Blue’ was particularly tasteful. The T.V. room with 3 wall-mounted television sets, so as ‘Tiger’ (as his closest friends called him) could watch three football games simulta-neously had a rather striking color combination of yellow and blue and a delightful mirrored ceiling. And who could forget the gorgeous white ceramic monkey on the coffee table?! The music room, the pool room, his living room, The Lisa Marie (the very same plane he took some buddies to Denver in to eat peanut butter sandwiches) and his automobile collec-tion ... yep we saw it all. Then the following day we visited Sun studios and drove to Tupelo to see E.P.s birthplace. O.K. I think Graceland is a zoo but Sun was really enjoyable, especially hearing snippets of conversation between the ‘Million Dollar Quartet’ [that’s Elvis, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, and (although there’s some debate about it) Johnny Cash]! Then to hear The King imitate a black man he heard singing ‘Don’t be cruel’...

Andsoitgoes.TheonecalledMark,Rob’sbroth-er,alsosentmeapostcardfromGraceland—apictureofElvisandPriscilla’sweddingcostumesdisplayedmuseum-style:sansheadsandbod-ies.Ghostlysimulacraofthereal.Ithinkevenmyfriendsaretryingtotellmesomething.

Toreturn thoughtothepostcardofthegrave.WhatexactlydoesElvis’sgraveplotcommemo-rate?Whymustvisitingittaketheformofa

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

pilgrimage?Whyisamanwhosecorpseissaidtohavecontained14knowndrugs,whosoclearlyseemsnottohavetreatedhisbodylikeatemple,buriedinsacredground?(Thinkaboutthat:youstartlosingcountafterawhile.Imean,howmanydangeroussubstancesarethere?Coffee,alcohol,cigarettes,uppers,downers,dope:that’sonly six.AtElvis’spost-mortem,theyfoundanothereight.)

Easy. Because the fucking hippies killed him. Elvis died,notforbeingapoetbutfornotbeingapoet.Hediedbecausehecouldsing.

Video: Elvis, If I Could Dream[Check this out]

Nevermindthatwhatwe’vejustseenandheardisn’trockandrollinanypurestylisticsense,thatit’smoreindebtedtoblackgospelthanwhitehillbilly:itsmassentertainmentstatusisenoughtocondemnit,incertainquarters,forbeingtrivialandsentimentalinsteadofexudingarichnessoffeeling,complexityofthoughtandperformance,andaseriousmoraltone.Noristhisaccountofrockastrivialandtrivializingaloneinitsarticula-tionofalostorigin,itsnostalgiaforthereal,foralostorganiccommunitybasedonauthenticandauthenticatingexperiencearisingfromastablemoralorder.Oldstylelefties,too,condemnrockas“false”culture.

Somuch,inotherwords,forElvis’sutopiandreamof ‘a better world’ in the clip from his NBC TV spe-cial.Proofpositiveofthefalsityofhispolitics,per-formanceandart,indeed,camewiththesinglere-leaseof‘IfICouldDream’inlate1968whichsoldenoughcopiesforElvistoreachnumbertwelveontheUScharts,hishighestpositioninyearsandasuresignthathewasbackincommercialaction.Hisverypurposeinrecordingthesong,andtheTVspecialitclosed,wasthereforetoboostanail-ingcareer,acareermadetosufferfromaseriouslackofrecognition-effectbetweenperformerandaudienceasaresultofallthoselousymoviesElvishadbeenchurningoutfornearlyadecadewithallthosewould-bestarletbimboswhosenamesnoonecouldrememberandwhosecleavagesalllookedthesame.Howcouldtheexpressionofthat dream, to refacilitate the profit-turning wheels ofhissellingpower,tomakemoneyatthecostofconsumerexploitation,nottomentionatthecostoflabour—howcouldthatdreambedemocratic,utopian,shared?

Here,ifitwereneeded,istheproofthatitcouldnot:

InthisphotographofElvislookingalotlikeCountDraculaoncheapspeedandNixon,asalways,lookingshifty,iscommemoratedoneofthemostbizarreeventssurroundingAmericanpoliticspriortoWatergate.On21December1970ElviswasshownintotheOvalRoomattheWhiteHouse,bearing gifts for the President of a Colt .45 hand-gunandasupplyofsilverbullets.Inreturn,Nixon

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

gave the King a pair of White House cufflinks. Elvis,whoisreputedtohavebeendruggedtotheeyeballsatthetime,totallyoffhisfaceonsomechemicalcocktailofotherwiselethalproportiontocommoners,thenenteredintoconversationwithNixononthedangerstoAmericanyouthofdrugs, communism ... and The Beatles; and finally revealedthepurposeofhisvisit.Hehadrecentlygothimselfappointedasanhonoraryagentofthe Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,andwhathewantedfromthePresident— all he wanted — was a Bureau badge. So Nixon gavehimone.Theirmeetinglastedonlyhalf-an-hour,enoughtimefor28photographstobetakenofoneofthemostsurrealmomentsinAmericanhistory.Addingtothesurrealismofthatevent,orperpetuatingit,isthefactthatcopiesofthosephotographsarenowthemostrequested,bytour-istsandvisitorstoCapitolHill,ofthetenmillionpicturesintheUSNationalArchives.

Dream sequence . . .

I’m standing outside the Fremantle Markets, my attention caught between two buskers. Only it isn’t me. I’ve got a Scouse accent and the twisted brain of McKenzie Wark, but thankfully it’s my own hair. One of the buskers is singing Elvis songs, the other is reading Derrida out loud. They’re both women. ‘Genres are not to be mixed’, the Der-rida busker reads. ‘I repeat: genres are not to be mixed.’ A small crowd is gathered in front of the Elvis singer, thrusting copies of Catharine Lumby’s Bad Girls at her and screaming: ‘Traitor! Traitor! Woman hater!’ But she just keeps right on singing. Her voice is filled with love and passion, although it has no strictly musical qualities to recommend it — and she’s one hell of a lousy guitar player. Meanwhile, the woman reading Derrida has gone on to ‘Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy’. ‘Kant speaks of modernity’, she reads, ‘and of the mystagogues of his time, but you will have quickly perceived in passing, without my even having to designate explicitly, name, or pull out all the threads, how many transpositions we could surrender to on the side of our so-called

modernity. Not that today anybody can be recog-nized on this or that side, purely and simply, but I am sure it could be shown that today every slightly organized discourse is found or claims to be found on both sides, alternately or simultaneously, even if this emplacement exhausts nothing, does not go round the turn or the contour of the place and the sustained discourse. And this inadequation, always limited itself, no doubt indicates the thick-est of difficulties.’ [3] She, too, has attracted a grim crowd of protesters, equally determined to shout her down. Still she reads on, against her would-be interlocutors, dispatching her apocalyptic words in a tone of voice that’s pathological. But the crowd noise prevents me from receiving the full text of her delivery, and what I hear is filled with gaps: ‘... as soon as we no longer know ... who speaks ... the structure of every scene of writing ... of all experience itself ... it is first the revelation of the apocalypse ... of the divisible dispatch for which there is no ... assured destination....’ Straining to hear, even so I feel I’m on the brink of an epiphany, of some great revelation scene about to be; at last, the coming of the end, the moment of demystifica-tion. Beyond philosophy, outside writing, past play: Truth laid bare! But not yet. The Elvis singer, who’s been marked by her absence for awhile, suddenly starts into a new song. Just as suddenly, the crowd goes quiet. ‘If you don’t believe I’m leaving’, the El-vis singer sings, ‘You can count the days I’m gone’ — and disappears in a mushroom cloud of smoke. Suddenly, at last ... the end approaches. The very end. Not a moment of epiphany after all, but of es-chatology. I wake up feeling paranoid and, cursing my luck in a voice that isn’t mine, fall out of bed.

Fallout.Theaftermathofthatevent(thatplot?)thatwillsendusalltoourgraves.Thepost-mor-tem, perfectly. The final end awaited as if it were the realest real. The realist real? A fiction, then; as morphologicalasanymyth?Fornuclearwar,asDerridaremarks,‘hasnottakenplace:onecanonlytalkandwriteaboutit[...]somemightcallitafable,then,apureinvention:inthesenseinwhichit is said that a myth, an image, a fiction, a uto-pia, a rhetorical figure, a fantasy, a phantasm, are

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

inventions’ (Derrida, 1984: 23). But, at the same time,veryseriousshit.Afterall,noone’sgoingtowanttopushtoohardforastrictequivalencebe-tween nuclear war and narrative fiction. (Between missilesandmissives, there’sjustgottabeagap.)Achoice,then,asitwere,betweendeterringanddeferring. Deténte versus denouément. But not quite,ornotquiteyet.Upagainstthelimitsofreason,caughtinamomentofperpetualparalysisengenderedbythenuclearthreat(theendoftheColdWarnotwithstanding),thelogicofnucleardeterrenceisunthinkablewithinasystemgiventoproducingsensethroughcontext.Simply(mon-strously), the fiction stakes increase each time thatonesideortheotherinventsanewweapon,some new (however trifling) device, that continues todefertheendfromhappeningbutalsobringsitendlesslycloser.Deterrenceanddeferralatthesametime.Accordingtothisgame,what’srealiswhatismostfantastic:agameplayedoutbetweenstorytellers,storytellings.It’snotaquestionofscientific know-how, military might, political clout, ordiplomaticbargainingbut(andthisisthegrav-estplot,themostheavilyweighted)ofallofthesecompetenciesatonce,andmore.AndsoDerridawrites:

Thedividinglinebetweendoxaandepisteme[betweenopinionandknowledge,thatistosay]startstoblurassoonasthereisnolongeranysuchthingasanabsolutelylegitimizablecompetenceforaphenomenonwhichisnolonger strictly techno-scientific but techno-mil-itaro-politico-diplomaticthroughandthrough,andwhichbringsintoplaythedoxaorin-competenceeveninitscalculations.(Derrida,1984:24)

The final end is thus the ultimate simulation, the perfectmediaevent...theabsolutereferentofeverythingthatis,suspendedbeforeoureyesinwriting,throughtexts.This,though,asDerridawrites,istheconditionofallwriting:

assoonaswenolongerknowverywellwhospeaksorwhowrites[hewrites],thetextbe-

comesapocalyptic.Andifthedispatchesal-waysrefertootherdispatcheswithoutdecid-abledestination,thedestinationremainingtocome,thenisn’tthis[...]thestructureofeverysceneofwritingingeneral[...]:wouldn’ttheapocalypticbeatranscendentalconditionofalldiscourse,ofallexperienceitself,ofeverymarkoreverytrace?Andthegenreofwritingscalled‘apocalyptic’inthestrictsense,then,wouldbeonlyanexample,anexemplaryrev-elationofthistranscendentalstructure.Inthatcase, if the apocalyptic reveals, it is first the revelationoftheapocalypse,theself-presen-tationoftheapocalypticstructureoflanguage,ofwriting,oftheexperienceofpresence,eitherofthetextorofthemarkingeneral:thatis,ofthedivisibledispatchforwhichthereisnoself-presentationnorassureddestination.(Derrida,1982:87)

Writing is always threatening to arrive at an end; itisalways,inthissense,apocalyptic.Itisalwaysintheactofansweringthenuclearquestion.Whatcountsintheweighingupofwhatkindsofwritingmatter,then,isnotsomuchtheputativediffer-enceswithinwritingitself(itcan’tbethat)butwhodoesthecounting.Toughshit,inotherwords,ifyouhappentowritelikeapostpoliticalwhiteboy—ifwhatyouwriteisupitselfratherthanoutsideitself.

Me?I’magreenie,I’mafeminist,I’mawoman,andI’mblack.Christ,I’mafuckinggoddamngermliberationist!AllGod’screaturesshouldbefree.I’malsoanigger-baiting,bible-thumping,mother-fuckingbastard.That’sjustthekindaguyIam.Iwear secondhand clothes and drink VB, like the restofthehipcrowd,andlistentoalotofElvisrecords:suresignsthatI’mastyleNazi,notanactivist.Youguessedit:I’maNiallist.Onthebrinkoftheapocalypse,Ipreachthefetishizationofaself-madeking.

Inside narrative

IrememberwhenIlivedintheinner-Sydneysub-

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

urbof Newtowninthelate1980stherewassomegraffiti that always caught my eye as I walked alongthetopofErskinevilleRoadtoKingStreetandtheshops,whichIdidvirtuallyeveryday.Itwasjustthreewords,butasmuchapartofNew-townformeasthecafés,theweirdnessandthetrainstation.Thewordsweredonotfrolic,paintedinblackfoot-highletters,allinlowercase,ontheback wall of a women’s clothing store, I think. But justthat:donotfrolic.Iusedtotakefriendstheretoshowthemthe words,ortellthemtogotherethemselves.Andinallthistimeit’sneveroccurredtometowonderaboutwhowrotethemorwhatthey mean. Because what they mean is not only whattheyare,butwhere theyare,andwhereIwasthen.Asforwhoputthemthere,Icanwellimaginewhattheywerewearingatthetimeandwhatthey’dbeendoing:opshopclothesfromKingStreet,drinking.That’swhateverybodyworein Newtown and we all did a lot of the other. But apartfromthisverygeneraldescription,whichismore or less a pure fiction, I know nothing about theirauthororwhatheorshemighthavemeantbythewords.That’sprobablywhyI’vealwayslikethem,andalsobecauseIlikethesoundoftheword‘frolic’.Inrun-downcome-aliveNewtown,‘frolic’wasawordthatseemedbizarrelyoutofplaceandold-fashioned,asardonicreminderthatthegrandoldbuildingsofKingStreetstoodnowindecayinghonourtoalivelypast,whenwholefamiliescametoNewtownatweekendstovisitthecineramasandamusementparlorsandthevastindooraquarium(youcanstillseetheorigi-nal façade of moulded fish and seashells above asecondhandfurniturestore,attheChippendaleendofKingStreet),andmencameeverydayandatallhoursofthenighttovisitthebrothels.ThereusedtobequitealotoffrolickinginNewtownbackthen,and soIalwaysthoughttheadmoni-tionnottofrolic,ifthat’swhatitwas,waswistfullyironic.AndIalwayslovedthefactthatitappearedtohavenocontext,evenwhileitwassteepedinacontextoftheeverydayandthenotsoverylongago.

I’veheardarumourthatDavidMalouf,whospendshalfhisyearwritinginanoutofthewayvillageinFlorence,Italy,returnstoNewtownforthe final draft which he finishes (according to the rumor)inarenovatedfour-storeymansionthatused to belong to an ex-officer of the Parramatta Regiment,granted,aswasthenthecustom,forapittanceonretirementfromthemilitary.

Thereisno“pure”Elvis.It’sjustamythtosupposethatElvissoldouttoColonelTomandHollywood,leavinghisrootsbehind.What’ssobadaboutHollywood,anyway?WhyiswhatElvisrecordedforSunmore“authentic”thanhisrecordingsforRCA, or his movie soundtracks? Blame it on the hippies.AsGreilMarcuswrites:‘AtRCA,wherethecommercialhorizonsweremuchbroaderthantheyweredownatSun,Elvisworkedwithfarmore“artisticfreedom”thanheeverdidwithSamPhil-lips.’(Marcus,Tellittothe1960s,becausethat’swhensellingrecordsbecameadirtybusiness.Everyonegotsogoddamnseriousinthe60s(andthe90swerejustthe60supsidedown,ifyoulivedinFremantle),thatcommercialsuccesscametorepresentcreativelossofcontrol.Therewereex-ceptions,ofcourse,orblatantcontradictions:like,itwasOKforDylantogotonumberonewithLike a Rolling Stoneandstillbehip,butallthosedatesthatElviswasplayinginVegas,man—thatwasveryuncool.Ofcourse,Dylanwrote‘LikeaRollingStone’ from the heart and for himself; whereas Elvis was performing for the masses. Besides, the moneyDylanmadedidn’tshow:hestilldressedlikehedidn’tcare—infadedjeansandworn-outboots,hishairdoneuplikeafrightwig.Elvis,ontheotherhand,wasgoingcamp,thuscommittingthemostunpardonableof60s’sins:hedidn’tlooklikehisaudienceanymore.Heworestageclothes,not street clothes; and all those fake jewels and sequinscouldmeanonlyonething:hewasfak-inghisemotions,too.Like,allyouhadtodowaslisten:

Music: Elvis, An American Trilogy[Check this out]

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

�0�0�0�

Thismorning,whileIwasstillwritingthis,Ihadacrisisintheshower.JustasIwasabouttostepout,Icouldn’tdecidewhetherI’drememberedtowashmyfeetornot.Rightaway,Igotparanoid.ShouldIpostponereturningtothecomputerinordertomakesuremyfeetareclean,thusrunningthe risk of not finishing my paper in time for this volume’s deadline; or do I step out of the shower nowandriskoverpoweringallIencounterwithfootodorlateron?IntheendIdecidedtostayundertheshowerandwashmyselfalloveragain,beingespeciallycarefultowashmyfeet.Thatwayonlymyprosewouldstink.Afterwards,mybody purified, I went next door to my neighbor’s house to borrow a couple of Bob Marley records and purify my mind. But then I remembered that Bob Marley belonged to a religion (of sorts) that believesthatmenstruatingwomenareunclean.Somuchfortribalpurity.Itoldmyneighborthatifheever played a Bob Marley record again, I’d set fire tohiswife’shairwithmyZippoandburnsome-thingblasphemousinthebelliesofhischildren.ThenIwenthomeandplayedElvisrecordsforanhour,feelingreallygoodaboutmyself,andwroteapostcardtoRob:

Dear Rob,Tell Mark he’s a bastard. What do you mean, ‘Graceland is a zoo’? You were expecting an opulent palace after the fashion of Versailles, perhaps? When was the last time you took a visit to the Western Suburbs? Maybe they don’t have mirrored ceilings, but they’ve got mirrors in more rooms than just the bathroom and more TVs in the house than you or me. Graceland city, mate. Poor white trash made good. Earth rapists. Environmental vandals, all. Elvis is their god — they just don’t know it. Why wouldn’t he be? The hippies killed him, which is what they want to do to them....

Therestispersonal.

No,nottheend.Notquite,notyet.TheremustbesomethingmoreIcansayaboutamanwho’ssoldmorerecordsthananyoneelse,made33

Hollywood films, and during his lifetime was the highestpaidperformerinthehistoryofLasVegas.EveryoneknowsthatthesongsElviscutforSamPhillips at Sun studios in 1954, with Scotty Moore playing guitar and Bill Black on upright bass, are rock’smostpreciousartifacts:becausethey’reitsorigin.Therealthing,anabsolutebeginning.AllyouhavetodoisseeJimJarmusch’sMysteryTrain to find this out. But you might remember an early scene from that film, set inside Memphis Centralstation,whereanoldblackmanhold-ingacigarcomesovertotheJapanesecouplewho’vejustgotoffthetrainandasksforalight.The boy, pure rockabilly stylist, obliges with a flick ofhisZippo.HeandhisgirlfriendhavecometoMemphisonapilgrimage,tovisitthesacredsitesofrock’sorigin—especiallySunstudios(ortheMemphisRecordingServiceasitwasknownbe-fore 1952) where Elvis and Carl Perkins first sang infrontofamicrophone.Itisn’tuntilthecreditsroll(or perhaps until long after), however, that we find outtheoldnegrointhetrainstationwasRufusThomas,who’dbeencuttingdiscswithSamPhil-lipsattheMemphisRecordingService,andlateratSunstudios,forquiteawhilebeforeElvisorCarlPerkinsshowedup.Shouldweask,then:howcanrockhaveabeginningifthat“beginning”isn’toveryet?Fortheretobearockabilly“revival”,forinstance, doesn’t rockabilly first of all have to have passedaway?

So...nobeginning:nopost-mortem.Noafterwords.Imeanit.Ifyouwanttoaskquestions,you’rewelcometocallmeathome.JustaskforPete.

1968 revisited

Thoseofyouwho’veseenSteveMartin’sRoxannemightrecallagreatsceneatthebeginningofthefilm in which Darryl Hannah, who’s completely nakedatthetime,locksherselfoutofherhouseone night. Briefly: Steve Martin, the local fire chief,agreestobreakintoherhomeandasksifmeanwhileshecoulduseatowel.Lookingutterlysurprised,DarrylHannahsaysno.Afewminutes

Th

e Kin

g an

d I: E

lvis and

the P

ost-Mortem

or A D

iscontin

uou

s Narrative in

Several M

edia

(On

the W

ay to Hyp

ertext)

����

latersheaskshim:where’sthetowel?‘Youtoldmeyoudidn’twantatowel’,SteveMartinsays.‘Iwasbeingironic’,DarrylHannahreplies.‘Oh...irony’,SteveMartinsays.‘Ohyeah.Wedon’tdothatanymore.Therehasn’tbeenanyironyaroundheresince1968.’

Notes

[1]Gino’sCaféinFremantle,WesternAustralia—favoredhauntofthelocalhippiesandthealter-nativeset.[2]SeeWark,McKenzie.Virtual Geographies: Living With Global Media Events(IndianaUniver-sity Press: Bloomington, 1994) — and everything since.[3]JacquesDerrida,‘OfanApocalypticToneRecentlyAdoptedinPhilosophy’,Semeia,Vol.23,1982,p.78.

Bibliography

Derrida,Jacques.‘TheLawofGenre’,trans.AvitalRonell,Critical Inquiry,vol.7,(Autumn,1980).

____.‘OfanApocalypticToneRecentlyAdoptedinPhilosophy’,Semeia,Vol.23,(1982).

____.‘NoApocalypse,NotNow:FullSpeedAhead,SevenMissiles,SevenMissives’,Diacritics,Vol.14,No.2,(1984).

Pynchon,Thomas.The Crying of Lot 49(Picador:London,1979).

Thwaites,Tony.‘Miracles:HotAirandHistoriesoftheImprobable’inNiallLucy(ed)Postmodern Literary Theory: An Anthology (Blackwell: Oxford, 2000).

Marcus,Greil.Mystery Train: Images of America in Rock’n’Roll Music(E.P.Dutton:NewYork,1976).

Wark,McKenzie.Virtual Geographies: Living With Global Media Events(IndianaUniversityPress:Bloomington, 1994)

����

Ulmer: who (or what) else?

Onedayinthemid80’s,UlmerandIsetoutacrosstheUniversityofFloridacampus,headedforlunch.WewalkedalongthePlazaoftheAmeri-cas,thenpastLibraryWest,talkingtheoryandlifeaswedid.PrettysoonallthatlaybetweenusandBurger King (his choice, as I recall) was University Avenue,oneofthebusieststreetsinGainesville(which also happens to be my hometown). Before us, traffic whizzed by left and right, but Ulmer steppedrightoutintoit,andIfollowed,incredu-lously.

Suddenly,I’dbecomeDustinHoffman’stitlecharacterinLittle Big Man,the1970post-West-ern film epic by director Arthur Penn. One scene isbasedonGeneralGeorgeCuster’sinfamous1868surpriseattackonaCheyennewintercamplocatedonthebanksoftheWashitaRiver.Asthe

StudioLab UMBRELLAJon McKenzie

Stu

dioLab

UM

BR

ELLA

attack unfolds, Little Big MansitsinatipiwithOldLodgeSkins(playedbyChiefDanGeorge),hisadoptedCheyennegrandfather,nowblindfromoldage.Withsol-diersmassacringmen,women,andchildrenallaroundthem,OldLodgeSkinscalmlystatesthatthey’llescapebysimplywalkingdowntotheriver. ‘But Grandfather,’ I

say,‘they’llshootus!’‘It’sokay,’heresponds,‘I’mblind,sotheywon’tbeabletoseeus.’

Somehow,wemadeit.UlmerorderedaWhopper.‘Makeittwo.’

My_story? StudioLab.

I first encountered Ulmer as an undergrad paint-ingstudentin1983orso.I’dheardaboutthese“theory”coursesoverintheEnglishDepartmentand signed up for a film class with Robert Ray. It wasfull,sobychancetheregistrar’scomputerplacedmeinUlmer’ssection.Thisclasschangedmylife.I’dstudiedtheavant-garde“arthistori-cally”(effectively,fromaformalistperspective)butneverascasesofexperimentalresearchinformedbytheoriesofrelativity,psychoanalysis,Marxism,etc. Soon I was immersed in Barthes, Lacan, and mostimportantly,thedeconstructiveandgram-matologicalprojectsofDerrida.AnMAinEnglishsoonfollowed.

����

WhatIdidn’tknowatthetimewashowuniquethisFloridianimmersionwouldbe:Ilaterreal-izedthatelsewhere,mostfolksstudiedtheoryasexclusivelyconcernedwithcritique,whereasIwasalsotaughttoapproachtheorycreatively.Oneofthe first “lessons” Ulmer taught me was that even the most critical of theories must first be invented: Marx, Freud, de Beauvoir — all had to first create theircritical,analyticaltheories.Theoryhasthusbecome,forme,aformofappliedconceptualart:theorycreatesconceptsapplicabletothecriticalproblemsofourtime.ToparaphraseDeleuzeandGuattari:ifyou’renotcreatingconcepts,you’renotdoingtheory.AndtoparaphraseMarx:theoristshavethusfarcritiquedtheworld,thepointistochangeit—tocreatesomethingelse.

Asecond“lesson”Ulmertaughtmewastoap-proachtheclassroomasaperformancespace,asitewherematerials(bodies,ideas,media)canmixtocreate pedagogicalevents,eventsregisteredby‘ah-hah…,’‘wow!’andsometimesashrugor‘whatthe-?’(Experiments,afterall,entailrisks:theysometimesfail.)AfterreceivingmydoctorateinperformancestudiesatNewYorkUniversity,Una Chaudhuriinvitedmetoteachanelectronicperformancecourseinundergraduatedrama.ItwasherethatIbegantoformallyarticulatemyownpedagogy,tryingoutthingsI’dlearnedatbothFloridaandNYU.I’vecometocallthispeda-gogy“StudioLab.”

Asthenamesuggests,StudioLabisdesignedtotakeplaceinbothstudioandcomputerlabenvironments,allowingstudentstodevelopcritico-creativeprojectsanddigitalskillsusingmodelsdrawnfromculturalperformance:theater,performanceart,ritual,andpracticesofeverydaylife.Here’showitworks:Instudio,studentsworkin“bands”tocollaborativelyconceiveandde-veloptheperformativeaspectsof theirprojects.Likerockbandscomposedofdrummer,bassist,andguitarist,StudioLabbandscontainspecial-ized players; one student might focus on imagery, anotherontext,anotheroninteractiveelements.Inthelab,however,thesamestudentsworkin

differentgroupingscalled“guilds”todeveloptheelectronicelementsneededbythebands.Guildsaretechnicallymonochromatic,asitwere,com-posedofsimilarlyspecializedplayers,suchasPhotoshoppers,Hypertextualists,andInteractiv-ists.Herespecialistsworktogethertohonetheirrespectivetrades(muchasdrummers,bassists,orguitaristsofdifferentrockgroupsmightgettogethertosharelicksandtricks).Individualguildmembersthenbringtheirskillsbacktotheirbandsinstudio,integratingthemintotheprojects.Mov-ingbetweenstudioandlab,bandandguild,theseprojectsunfoldthroughtheinterlacingofbodies,ideas,andmedia.

Insum:StudioLabischaracterizedbythecircu-lationbetweenstudioandlabenvironments,bycollaborativelearningindifferentsociotechnicalgroupings, and by the mixing and fine-tuning of physical, conceptual,andmultimediaelements.

Brecht and CATTts Forever

InanearlyElectronicPerformancecourse(1996),I combined Brenda Laurel’s Computers as TheaterwithUlmer’sHeuretics: The Logic of Invention.Thechallengeformyundergraduatetheaterstudents:inventand embodyapoeticsofelectronicper-

Stu

dioLab

UM

BR

ELLA

����

formancebyreplacingLaurel’sguidingtheorist(Aristotle)withamodernorcontemporarytheaterdirector.Iassignedeachbandofstudentsoneof six directors: Artaud, Boal, Brecht, le Compte, Novarina,andSchechner.Forfurtherguidance,weusedUlmer’sCATTt,hismetapoeticsforgenerat-ing new manifestos or analyzing old ones. Briefly put,theacronymruns:

C (contrast), A (analogy), T (theory), T (target), t(tale)

OnebandastutelytookastheirContrastthepremiere Broadway show of the time, Cats.Itwasalreadyalong-runninghit,andNewYorkwasplas-teredwithadvertisementsthatproclaimed‘CatsForever.’Needlesstosay,thesestudentshadother ideas and fattened their CATTt with Brecht’s theory of epic theater. To embody Brecht’s conten-tionthatscenescouldfunctionontheirown,asifcutupandperformedinanyorder,theyhadtheaudiencepulllettersoutofahat,letterscorre-spondingtoasignstrungacrosstheperformancespacewhichspelled‘CatsForever’onindividualsheetsofpaper.Whenaletterwascalled,astu-dentwouldgrabthecorrespondingpieceofpaper,onthebackofwhichwasthetitleofashortscene

they’dwritten.Thestudentwouldreadoutthetitle,andthenthegroupimmediatelyperformed it.‘O!’‘T!’‘C!’‘V!’Thepacewasfrantic,asthestudentsbouncedaroundthespacerecallingandperform-ing scenes on the fly. A mainstream musical made epic.

Ray

After having settled for Ulmer in that first film class, IeventuallystudiedwithRobertRay,whowasalsoteachingtheoryexperimentally.Thoughhisfirst book, A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema,hadbeenanideologicalcritiqueofHol-lywood cinema, he would later embrace the filmic pleasureshecritiquedthere,writingThe Avant-Garde Finds Andy HardyandHow a Film Theory Got Lost,twobooksthattheorizeandpracticeexperimental film theory using techniques drawn fromtheavant-garde,especiallytheSurrealists.He readily admitted that Ulmer had influenced this transformationofhiswork.

Ray’scourseswereamazing,forheenthralledstu-dentswiththeintensityofhisintellectandteach-ingstyle,andalsobecauseheincorporatedmusicintothecurriculum,handingoutcassetteswithmixesofErikSatieandtheVelvetUnderground.He later joined the Vulgar Boatmen, a rock band startedbysomeofmyartschoolfriends(WalterSalas-Humara,CareyCrane,JohnEder,andRickEllis).Aprofessorwitharockband—everycollegekid’sdream.

UlmerandRaywereapedagogicaltag-teamformeandmanyotherstudents.We’dstudywithUl-meronesemesterandRaythenext,theonecool,theotherhot.Raytookthingsinadifferentdirec-tion: more Marx and Brecht, less Heidegger and McLuhan. Both, however, were mainlining Barthes (whooftenwrote fragmentsbasedonlettersofthe alphabet) and reflecting on teaching while teaching. Today, it’s difficult for me to separate the UlmeRaystrandsofmyownpedagogy.

Stu

dioLab

UM

BR

ELLA

����

EPCOT 21

AnotherStudioLabcourse(1997),thisonetaughtasagraduateperformancestudiesseminaratNYU, was called ‘Performing Bureaucracies.’ Here thegoalwastoactualizeideasaboutotherperfor-manceparadigmsthatI’dbeguntoresearchinmydissertation,researchIlaterexpandedinmybookPerform or Else: From Discipline to Performance.Alltooquickly:inadditiontotheculturalperfor-mancesstudiedby performancestudiesscholars,thereareorganizationalperformancesstudiedbymanagersandorganizationaltheoristsandtech-nologicalperformancesstudiedbyengineersandcomputerscientists.Whileculturalperformanceresearchconcernsactivitiessuchastheaterandritual and stresses their efficacy, their potential to maintainortransformsocialstructures,researchoforganizationalperformancefocusesonsuchthingsastheperformancereviewsofindividualworkersandimproving theperformanceofentireorganizations. Here the guiding value is efficiency, theminimaxingofinputsandoutputs.Researchoftechnologicalperformanceconcernssuchthingsashighperformancestereosandmissilesystems,anditspractitionersvalueeffectiveness,thesheertechnicalcapabilityofadeviceorsystem.

Lookingback,thismulti-paradigmaticresearchcanbeseenasfollowingoneofUlmer’ssug-gestionsinTeletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video.That“lesson”istowriteusingallthemeaningsofagiventerm,howevercontradictoryor nonsensical the results might first appear. This directive,basedonDerrida’snotionofthegram,

regularlyproducesuncannyresults:throughitera-tion,arbitraryassociationsbecomemotivated,nonsensebecomessensible(andviceversa).ThePerforming Bureaucracy class explored what can happenwhencultural,organizational,andtech-nologicalsensesofperformancearerecombined,when efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness get remixed,whenperformativevalues are revaluated.

Laurie Anderson I remember the first time I heard her music: a stu-dent of Ray’s had created a short film, a close-up ofsomeoneturningthepagesofabookornews-paper,shotinslowmotion.ThesoundtrackwasAnderson’sBorn, Never AskedfromUnited States Live.Itwasmesmerizing.

Itwastheearly-mid‘80s.I’dneverheardofper-formanceart,butsoonwasimmersedinitandrealizedI’ddonesomealreadyforavideopiece.But the complexity and simplicity of Anderson’s workfascinatedme:smallpieces,oftencomposedofastory,someimages,andasong,piecesthatbitbybitcreatedcomplexpatternsofideas,emo-tions,andimagery.Theelementsweredrawnfrompersonalstories,philosophy,popculture,artandliterature.

UnderUlmer’sdirection,Iwrotemymaster’sthesisonAnderson’sUnited States: Parts I-IV.Ulmerforgottotellmethatmaster’sthesesgenerallyrunabout70pages:Irambledonforover200,but

Stu

dioLab

UM

BR

ELLA

����

alongthewayIexploredAnderson’smultimediaperformanceartusingDerrida’snotionofgram-matological,generalizedwriting,whilealsotryingexploringtherelationofexperimentalperformanceandthehighlynormativetheoryofperformativityarticulatedbyLyotard.ThisintersectionofAnder-sonandLyotardformstheUr-siteofPerform or Else; of my essay “Laurie Anderson for Dummies,” whichanalyzesAnderson’sperformanceStories from the Nerve BibleandherCD-ROM,Puppet

Motel; and of my interest in performative pedago-gies.

Leavey

Besides Ray, John Leavey was another Florida professorwhoshapedmypedagogy,thoughinaverydifferentway.LeaveyisatranslatorofDer-rida,havingworkedonGlasandEdmund Husserl’s Origin of Geometry, an Introduction.Ulmercon-tributedtoLeavey’sGlassary,acompaniontexttoGlas.WhileUlmertookgreatimaginativeleapswithDerrida’stextsandprovided“bigpictures,”Leavey stressed a certain fidelity to Derrida and close,detailedreadings.Insomesense,IstudiedoneDerridawithUlmer(grammatology)andan-otherDerridawithLeavey(deconstruction).

TheStudioLabpedagogyprobablyowesmoretothegrammatologicalthanthedeconstructive(andhereIhearLeaveyquestioningifonecanreallymakesuchadistinction),andyetDerrida’sdecon-structionoftheuniversitycalledforaninterventionintheconcretepracticesoftheacademy,whilestillrespectingcertainnormsofscholarlyrigorand

discipline.IfonecanunderstandLyotard’sperfor-mativityasthepostmoderndisplacementofthemoderndisciplinaritydescribedbyFoucault,thenperhapsStudioLabparticipatesinananticipatorywaywithemergingnormsandrigorsofpost-disci-plinarypedagogicalpractices.

Whileitiscrucialtoinventexperimentalandresis-tantpractices,onemustalsoresistthesimplistictendencytovalorize“transgression”anddemon-

ize“norms.”Onemustalsorecognizethatsometransgressionsareregressive,evenreactionary,andthattherealchallengeliesinarticulatingnew,progressivenorms.

Anagrammatology

Latelastfall,UlmerpassedthroughtheUniver-sityofWisconsin-Milwaukee,whereInowteach.I’muphereincoldnorth,wherehegrewup.He’ssweatingitoutdownsouth,whereI’mfrom.Ican’ttaketheheatandhumidityanymore,hecan’ttakethesnowandthecold.Thedayafterdoingasymposiumwithme,Itookhimoutforbreakfast,mewearingalightjacket,hebundleduplikeOldLodgeSkins.Wecrossthestreetfromtheparkinggarageandheadtowardourdestiny:baconandeggs at the Pfister Hotel (I kid him that, despite its name,it’snotthatkindofplace,soheshouldn’tgethishopesup).

Stu

dioLab

UM

BR

ELLA

����

TheyearsatFloridashapedmyapproachtotheo-ryandlife,andUlmer’steachinginparticularleftabigthumbprintonmymind,asitdidwithmanyofmypeers.Insomesense,I’llalwaysbeinthelab,thoughitchangesasImovefromplacetoplace.Differentinstitutions,differentdisciplines,differentstudentbodies,differentresources:what’scon-stantistheexperimentalapproachtotheory,theemphasisongeneralizedwriting,multimedia,mix-ingthingup.Anagrammatology.

Onenightinthemid80’s,IwashangingoutinGainesvillewithfellowstudentsCraigSaperandBonnie Sparling in her second-story apartment on SE2ndAvenue,drinking,smoking,talkingtheoryandlife.Atsomepoint,Igotuptogotothebath-room,andasIreturned,Inoticedthatonatablein the hallway Bonnie had placed one of those smalltraysusedintheboardgameScrabble.Onitwereeightwoodenlettersarrangedtospellouttheword “UMBRELLA.” I paused a moment, and sud-denlythereitwas:Iquicklyrecombinedtheletters,spelling out “ULMER LAB,” and then moved on.

Bibliography

Laurel, Brenda. Computers as Theatre(Reading,MA.:Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany,1991).

Leavey,JohnP.Jr.Glassary(Lincoln,NewEng-land:UniversityofNewEnglandPress,1986).

McKenzie,Jon.Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance (NewYork:Routledge,2001).

Ray, Robert B. A Certain Tendency of the Hol-lywood Cinema: 1930-1980(Princeton:PrincetonU.P, 1985).

____.The Avant-Garde Finds Andy Hardy(Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).

____.How a Film Theory Got Lost and Other Mys-teries in Cultural Studies (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress,2001).

Ulmer,GregoryL.Teletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1989).

____.Heuretics: The Logic of Invention (Baltimore andLondon:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1994).

Stu

dioLab

UM

BR

ELLA

����

The Way of Stories

ifworldswerestories,theirinhabitantsstorytellers,notjustthelivingbeings,butall,allthings,alltellingtheirstories,allbeingtoldtherewouldberoomforworldswherecontradictionscouldbetruewhereIcouldsay“youlive,you’redead”andwithalaugh,youwouldreply.(Roubaud, 1995: 29)

1. It’s A Far Cry To Morning

GregoryUlmeroncementionedtomethe(ideaofthe)“interface”between(this)hereand(that)there; between my world/planet here, where I live, andhisworld/planetthere,wherehelives(acrosstheseeminglysameworld/planet)—orbetweenany“you”and“me”—andhow“your”worldsmightface,orinterfacewith,eachother-andwhatknife,orothermethod/instrument,couldbefoundinsomedangerousabandoned“shed”(ortowerorstory)tosubtlysliceopentheplacewhere

“your”feettouchtheground,sothat‘I’couldstepthrough–andbethere,touchmyfeettoyourground,andyoucouldfollowmebackthrough(ifyouwantedto)andtouchyourfeettomyground.(ThetextwewrotetogetheryearsagocalledTheWishing Way wasatremblingattemptbetween“us”towritethis“interface,”whichwas,intheendforme,asifmyownplacewas[too]strange[tospeakof][http://www.altx.com/au2/lmw.html]).

(Here,inmywriting-world,Ihaveusedtheletter‘U’ and the word ‘you’ (“U can get under my skin”; “mytake onyou”).Thesoundofeachisthesameofcourse,andyetinappearanceandsenseeachis completely different; it is simply a compositional movetobringthemfacetoface,totheedgeofaninterface:U/you.Theletter“U”standsinforUlmer(as an addressee); this writing imagines a direct-line to U(lmer); U though is imaginary; therefore it is an imagined direct-line – impossible and fic-tionalised(thatis,itisthoughtnevertheless).The“you” is the anonymous “you” of writing; the one (person/manypeople)whoisalwaysunknownto

Surface to Surface, Ashes to Ashes (Reporting to U)Linda Marie Walker

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

thewriterandwho,withthewriterandthewrit-ing,“completes”theinterface(inasmuchasthesurfaceoftheaddress,itspassage,appears:me/you).The“you”isalways“there”–wherever“there”is–andneverinapositiontosee/be“here”(withthepresenceofme-here).Writingmakes-up these surfaces; the U/you sound allows slippage along the / of the interface; it is a small movethat“hears”thevoiceoftheinterface(amusical note, almost); and, as well, it raises, ever soslightly,thequestionofwhoitisthatonewritesto (addresses); it’s never no-one-in-particular, as everyoneisparticular.Thesurfaceof thiswriting,withinthisparagraph,isclosetotheideaofthemissive (an official letter to you) – the surface to surfacemissive/missileisallwehavetospeakwitheachother,anditcaneasilystrayandendinash.The“U”andthe“you”comeintoplaythroughtheremainderofthiswriting,the“you”morethanthe“U”,andateachpointthe“interface”isatwork.

The“interface”is astrangeplace—likeano-man’s-land(wherehostilitiesaresuspended,andtheenemieslickeachothers’wounds).Whattheinterfaceis,ordoes,inandwithwriting–inwritingfrom/aboutoneplacetoanotherplaceinade-sirefor(oranobsessionwith)“lettingyouknow”(something,someone,anything,eg.,HowIAm),or as an excuse/longing to find out “How You Are” —orevento discoverifyouarestillalive—isshow, in a banal and infinitely exquisite(ly) painful wayhowimpossiblethisdesiring-for,obsessing-with,theinterfaceis,how“plain-as-day”itisthatIcannottellyouwhatmy“here”is(orhowIcametobe“here”)—howitis/Iammomenttomoment—theloudrhythmicscrapingthatisgoingoninahouseacrossthestreet,thehotwindblowinginthewindowthroughthebillowingcobweb,thelargespotteddog(avoice:“areyoudressedyet?”)sniffing along the front fence, the young couple paintingtheirnewlyacquiredhouse(yellowandbrown) – in its specificity, in its shades and shad-ows,temperatures,foods,plants,news,rumours,dreams,hopes,sadnesses,joys,losses,births,deaths,laughters,stupidities,crimes,politics,

decisions,andsoon(andhownow,asItypethisup it is night and cool, and the Saturday traffic islight,andtheweathermildforsummer,etc).Thestoriesarestonesandleavesandwordsandsounds — and sights so fleeting and illusory and unsettlingthatonecallsthemghostsandangelsand thoughts; or, in a leap of faith, surfaces.

“Surface,”here,means(asamedium[diviner]bywhichtotouchtheword)theappearingoftheworldbefore(inthepresenceof)theworld—anappearingin(the)faceoftheworld—asifthere could be a first instance, a coming upon the seemingnessofwhat“is”(theworldasit“is”outmywindow[asIsitinsideandgazeoutside],this,another,day,theverymatterofit—includingthedriftingsoundsofachildcrying,birdscalling,carsondistantroads,theodddeepthud—andthedifficult oddness of taking-in the matter as it is, asnotre-presentinganythingatall[nothing]).Thesur/facehidesnothing.Insteaditmutatesbeforeoureyes(beautiful,likeI’veseenthespectrespor-trayed in films as “filmy,” “smoky,” “cloudy” waft-ingshapesandcolours—almosttakingonformandthencomingapartandre-arranging),weight-less,andweencounteritcontinuallyinspeeds,rhythms, flows, and densities.

Thesurface,eachsurface,touchestheair,rubs,andisrubbedinto,theinvisiblerelentlesslymovingchangingconditionof“atmosphere.”Thesurfaceoffersitselfupasinter-face,theverymiddleof“every”-thing,thebetween,theworldofnegotia-tion,ofendlesswork,foreveren route (“every”thingatthesametime),theimpossibleimpos-sible-alwaysandimpossible-already,verticalandhorizontalbecomingpassings(thoughts,images,sounds)—theverticaldensityofthehorizonwhenitcutsthesinkingsun,ormeltsintotheocean(wecouldproceedlikethis):‘Themiddlehasnothingtodowithanaverage,itisnotacentrismoraformofmoderation.Onthecontrary,it’samatterofabsolutespeed.Whatevergrowsfromthemiddleisendowedwithsuchaspeed’(Deleuze&Par-net,1987:30).Absolutespeedisthemovementbetweenthespeedofonemovementandthe

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

�0�0�0�

speedofanother,asoneisperceivedbytheother(anappearanceofmovementasitseemstoap-pear).Absolutespeedisthemovement-between,apotentialmovement,amovementgoingnowherefast,nomadic,geographic,involutional.

Theskinisourinterface(thelivingtensionbetween“an” inside and “the” outside); it is not considered a“surface”butastate,anorgan,anenvelope,aplane, a volume, a filter, a casing, a carnality. The skin, our face (of orifices) to the world, our tactile, nerve-full,sense-full,receiveroftheother’sface—animateandinanimate,our“between”(mobile,flaking, political, machined) state, keeping the insidesinandtheoutsidesout.Myskinismyveryverythin,aging,dead-give-away,weatherproof/prone,intimatelyregisteringhereness,andthisherenessmorethananyotherisonethatwritingcannottouch—eventhoughUcangetundermyskin(andinfectmymood,mytake onyouandonmeandonourtriptoyetunknownplaces).(Thisnamingofthings[surface,interface]islikethisday:oneminuteit’swarm,thenextcool,thewindrisesandfalls,theskyisovercastthenclear,theovercastisdarkgreyandcloudyorlightgreyandmisty,andthentheNorthisstormyandtheSouthvividblue,afewsecondsoflightrainandwhenthesuncomesoutit’ssharpandstinging.ThisdayisnamedSunday.It’sanoisySundayandthenit’ssilent; there are shadows and then there are none. (Thisnameddaymakesmyskintingle/crawlwithanticipationandanxiety–it’smoving,andmemoryisstirredtotears.)[1]

Involutionis,forDeleuze,‘…neitherregressionnorprogression…,’and‘…theoppositeofevolution,but…alsotheoppositeofregression,return-ingtoachildhoodoraprimitiveworld’(Deleuze&Parnet,1987:29).Insteaditseemsaformofrestraint,aparingback,anabandoning(aminimal-ismofsorts),andaninventingof‘…newelementsandnewrelations…Experimentationisinvolu-tive,theoppositeoftheoverdose.Itisalsotrueofwriting; to reach this sobriety, this simplicity which isneithertheendnorthebeginningofsomething.Toinvoluteistobe“between,”inthemiddle,

adjacent. Beckett’s characters are in perpetual involution,alwaysinthemiddleofapath,alreadyen route’ (Deleuze&Parnet,1987:29-30).Involut-ingisanactof“involving”—ofbeinginthemixofthecomplex.Thismakeswhat“is”thenvolatile (fleeting, transient: evaporating rapidly, vaporis-ing; moisture: liquid into mist/steam; a damp air, a wateryair).(It’snotuncommontofeelchilledandsneeze).[2]

“Is”turnsintoanevent—writingisanevent,aplayupontheprocessof“is,”aworkingthatcannot(atanygivenmoment)trace,catch,relay,ordwelluponthephysicalityandtemporalityofan“is”as“is”isworkedonbysomanythingsseen/unseen,solid/phantastic,past/present(theevent,thiswritingevent,hasnodecidedpurpose,nopre-setoutcome,nolessonordemand—al-though,asalovingofwhathappensasonegoesalong,itmightbringafragilecalm):‘Makinganevent—howeversmall—isthemostdelicatethingintheworld:theoppositeofmakingadramaormakingastory’(Deleuze&Parnet,1987:66).

Thisreportcomestoyoufrom“here.”Anditis“here”thatI’llbeguiltyofabandoning/leaving/be-traying.Thisreportisasurfaceabandonment—areportofmake-believe.

Theinterfaceis‘asurfaceregardedasthecom-monboundarytotwobodiesorspaces’and‘thepointorareaatwhichanytwosystemsinteract’(to exchange ideas or plans, etc); in chemistry it’s ‘the surface which separates two phases;’ in com-puting‘it’sthepointatwhichaninterconnectionismade betweenacomputerandaperipheraldevice…orperson’(Delbridgeetal.,1999:1111).

Insewingthereisinterfacing:itisfabriclaidbe-tweentheoutermaterialandtheinnermaterialtogivebodytothegarment.Thebody,theinterfacialfabric,giventothegarmenttensesit—makesitalittlemoretautorrigid:givesittension(itdoesn’tcollapsequitesoeasily,itstandsupforitselfalittle).Andifthefabricis,inamannerofspeaking,liquid/fluid it could be called the ‘interfacial sur-

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����S

urface to S

urface, A

shes to A

shes (R

eporitn

g to U

)

facetension’(‘thesurfacetensionattheinterfacebetweentwoimmiscibleliquids’)(Delbridgeetal.,1999:np).

2. Among The Grass

All(the)storiesare“liquid”(insomeformoran-other—mist,fog,snow,dew,cloud,steam,rain,river,vapour,ocean,lake,frost,andeachsubtlequality of these) or fluidal (soluble, molten, fusible, humid,mushy)attheinterface.Theinterfaceisthevenueofstories,thesiteoftenseswhere“here”isgivensome(semblanceof)body,where“here”be-comes a body (a composition of bits and pieces; [molecules]‘whichmovefreelyamongthemselvesbut do not tend to separate like those of gases; neithergaseousorsolid”)for“there”’(Delbridgeetal., 1999: 1252).

“Here”isabandonedfor“whatever”comestoconstitutethemomentarysurfaceattheinterface,whichiseverything(whichismy“lot,”thelayoftheland,howitgoes)Icantellyouinthetimeorspaceprovided(intheschemeofthings).Eachtinywaterystoryisapassage(atrickle),awayofgettingthroughthelimbo-land(therealmofhaunt-ings)ofneitherherenorthere,awayofappeas-ingtheterrorising“Harpy”whomakestheunholyscreamingrowwhenthestoryis“alie”(againstoneselfandthe“here,”andthereforeagainstthe“there”).

Lyra(thegirlinPhilipPullman’strilogy,His Dark Materials) andWill,hercompanion,aretryingtogetintotheunderworld, totheghostsofthedead,andtheyhavetogetpasttheHarpycalled“No-Name.”Lyraofferstotellherastoryinreturnforgettingthroughthedoor.Lyraisanexpertatmaking-upstoriesaboutherlife,‘shapingandcuttingandimprovingandadding:parents dead; family treasure; shipwreck; escape … (Pullman,2000:309). TheHarpy‘launch[ed]herselfatLyra,clawsoutstretched…oneofherclawscaughtherscalpandtoreoutaclumpofhair.’Shewasscreaming‘Liar!Liar!’Eventuallytheygetthroughintotheendlessplainofghost-people(‘aplaceof

nothing’,ayoungghost-martyrcallsit)byusinganother‘gift’/instrumentaltogether,Will’s‘SubtleKnife;’ but the Harpy and her cohorts follow (‘thick as blowflies’) (Pullman, 2000: 336).

TheghostsbegLyratotellthemabouttheworld,thesunandwindandsky—stories—andsoshedoes.Shetellsthemherstory,astrueasshecan.AndtheHarpiesgrowsilentandlistentoo.Theyfeedonthenewsoftheworld.SoatreatyismadewiththeHarpies.Inexchangeforghoststories(ofthefuturedead)—iftheytellthetruthoftheirlife,iftheydon’tholdanythingback—theywillguidethemthroughthelandofthedeadoutintotheworldagainsothattheydissipate(dissolve,melt)intheairandbecome‘partofeverythingaliveagain’ (Pullman, 2000: 335). TheHarpiesaregivenanhonourabletask.

3. Choleric Atmosphere

TheHarpiesareirritable,choleric(theirbilerises,andtheyspitoutfoulwords‘jeering,mocking,cackling,deriding’(Pullman,2000:313): ‘Theyknowalltheworstthingsaboutyou.Theyknowhowtomakeyoufeelhorrible,justthinkingofallthestupidthingsandbadthingsyoueverdid.Andallthegreedyandunkindthoughtsyoueverhad,theyknow‘emall,andtheysumyouupandtheymake you feel sick with yourself … But you can’t get away from ‘em.’’ (Pullman, 2000: 323); they rile againstthe“made-up”becausethisiswhatthey

����

“believe:”‘Ifthey[the ghosts]liveintheworld,theyshouldseeandtouchandhearandloveandlearnthings…’(Pullman,2000:334). Thatis,theworldisenough,theworldasitappearsand“is”isexceedinglystrange,grotesque,fascinating,and“liquid”‘…iftheycomedownherebringingnothing,weshallnotguidethemout.’(Pullman,2000: 335) That’ssomethreat!I’lltell(U)(I’lltell(U)(nocomma)thisthen,justincase,tocovermyhotskin(andgiventhatthisisabout“love”)…

4. … but first things first …

…JacquesDerridawrites:‘Iwillhavetobesatis-fied, an obvious procedure of failure, to tell — likeastory,‘Oneday,onceuponatime…’…thesto-ryofatextthatforalongtime,I havedreamedofwriting…(amuddied,baroque,andoverchargedtextwhichresembleswhathasalwaysbeenmyrelationtosuchincrediblewordsas‘soul,’‘spirit,’andsoforth)…’(Derrida,1993:123).

(AndIpause,waiting,andnothinghappens,Iamstill here, and you are still there; my writing gets menowherefast,andPsyche,thelifebreath,breathing,souling,dispersing/dissipatingherbodyintheairlikeastory–tellsherbodyintheworldamongst“everything.”)

The goddess Psyche is spread so fine and intri-cateandspiderythatshe’sin-touchwithoutyou/me. (I call you on the phone, but you’re not home; Iwriteyoualetter,andwillnotseeyouopen it,orwatchyoureyesdriftoverthepage,andyoumay never reply; a white cat jumps over the side fenceandmyheartshootsintomymouth—willIremembertotelltheHarpyofthetremblingatmynerveends).

‘Psycheisoutstretchedintheshadeofawalnuttree, as evening falls. She is resting; the slight movementsofsleephavepartlyuncoveredherchest.Eroscontemplatesher, withbothemotionandmalice.Psycheknowsnothingofthis.Hersleepissodeepthatithastakenfromhereventheabandonofherpose’(Nancy,1993:393).

Sheistheredespiteusandourlongingforhertouch—andwhenhertouchcomeswecallit/hernames(divinenameslikewhorevampsirenvam-pirewitchtrampwolfdemon—allofthemsacredcrowds).Weworryshewillswallowuswithherkiss — the scent of frangipani floats on the warm air,despiteustoo–andshemust,howelsewillwestoptoknowherpressingness(hermouth,herjuice):

‘YesIlovedthem,thosegatheringslateatnight—thesmalltable, glasseswithfrostedsides,fragrantvaporrisingfromblackcoffee,the fireplace, red with powerful winter heat, thebitinggaietyofaliteraryjoke,and the first helpless and frightening glance of my love’ (Akhmatova, 1985: 25).

Theinterfacelooksbothways(likeAkhmatova’spoem:‘YesIlovedthem…’),butwhatoftheinter-face,it(it-she)itself.Thereisnospeakingfor hereorthere…ortheinterface,even.Thereisspeak-ingonlyforoneselfinstead,thegrass(andthenit’sonlymomenttomoment–inthesunortheshade,wind,rain,ontheshoreorpath,inthekitchen,bedroom,lounge,beforethefriend,student,lover,tv,painting,surroundedbymusic,weeping,laugh-ter,perfume,bells,mist,though…)-

-Ifeel(1)likemaking(2)“cont(r)act”(3)witheveryonewhoeverreallylovedme(4); thismightmeansomeforce,somestrategyofintent; a kind of practical love, and it mightmeanabandonment,orthecollectingofstones.

((1)Feel:whatis“feel”here,isitareachingoutintothe wild-blue-yonder; is it a sensation [“The im-mediatelyproximatetopo-ontologicalsurfaceofsensationcomprisesdistanceanddepth.Distanceanddeptharecreaturesofthesurface.Theyun-foldfromit,infurtheranceoftheencounter.Theyareprocessualcontinuationsofthesurface.Theyareinthetwistofit,”](Massumi,website).

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

((2)Making:canmakingbeamovementlikewalkingorsingingordreaming,orisitaworkwithmateri-alslikestringorinkorpaint,orisitspeech—alongingtosaysomethingorhearsomething,andtohaveanunimaginablethoughtasaresult).

((3)Cont(r)act:ifIsendaletter,willareplycomeback; a phone call might be tactless; a notice in a newspaper might be desperate; an email could alarm you – “like a shot out of hell;” and, is cont(r)actliteraltouch,apressing,impressing,ofhandstogether,orbodies).

((4)Thiswholesentence[above,beginningwith“Ifeel”andendingwith“thecollectingofstones”]isalitany,aneulogy,arequium,amemorial:onearchive/herecravesanother/there).

Theinterfaceisawritingway(via),away(agettingthere:atrudge,aglide,aslip,aclimb)to writing(notadirectionorastylethough,no,ratherarela-tiontothematterathand),averycloseproximity,a“liquid”process(awhey/weight:aweighingofouterandinner—thefacetotheworld,thefaceto the other flesh); via: swinging from side to side, touchingtheappearanceoftheworld(whereverone is) and the appearance of the flesh (whatever itscondition),movingrelentlesslywithawaggishdemeanour—beingwaylaidalongtheroad,am-bushed(andambushing),beingworndown/out,andcarriedaway/off(fallinginlove,beingbesot-ted,hot-headed,andinvective).

Theinterfacecanbeanuglyplace,tackedon,invisible,cheap,andpractical.Still,it’saplace,toughandplain.Theinterfacethoughcanbeanexquisite silk, a fine cotton, or delicate wool; it can becutwithprecisionandstitchedinthecandle-light by hand. Beautifully plain.

5. … ‘first things first’ is done … now … ‘I’ll tell you/U this then, just in case, to cover my hot skin (and given that this is about “love”) …’: The Ear Of Never (a story for U)

Youaskedme,veryquietly,asifnotwantingmetoanswer,or,asifnot wantingmetothinkyouwereaskingaquestion,somethingIwasexpectedtoanswer,soIalmostdidn’thearaquestion,justyourvoicespeakingtome,andyourvoiceisthevoiceofalover,soIdidn’tmind,evenasIknewIwouldfailwithmyanswer,andsoyouaskedme:whatdidyou writeaboutMarguerite.Youaskedasifyouhadknownher.AndIknowyoudidn’t,thatbeforeIspokeofher,youhadneverthoughtofher.Eventhoughyou’dheardofher,aseveryonehas.

Perhapsyouwerebeingkind,asyoumostlyare,byshowinginterestinmyinterest.Intryingtoshowyourkindness.AndsoItriedtotellyou,kindly, about the space between the firing of the guns and the moment of her death; the space betweenonemomentandthenext,betweenthesound of living and the silence of death; the space ofthelastwound.

I said, that’s what I tried to fill in … with writing. That’swhatItriedtowrite—thatinstant,thatlastlongwait,eternity.

Wasitenough,whatIsaid?Didyoubelieveme?Yousatstill.Yousaidnothing.So,I’llwriteitalldown,“say”it,again.

We were together just a few hours; in our long lives,allwe’lleverhaveisafewhours.It’snotenough,orit’stoomuch(inmakingevidentthatitwas“notenough”).Nevershouldhavebeen,those

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

hours.Notsurewhodecidedwhat,whochosetobenowhereelse.

I’mwritingnowtostaywithyou,tobeintheab-sentcompanyofyou—sittingonthecouchwhileyousmokealastcigarettebeforebed.

Irecallatouchwithterriblelonging—itwasbrief,light; you will not remember giving it; we were watchingtheseaandawomanbegantellingusabouttheoldroomsunderthesand,andyouputyour hand on my back. I did not expect it; the womankepttalking,wekeptlookingather,andlookingbackatthesea,andthetouchcameandwent.Iwasstillalive,andsowereyou.

I dedicate these words to that touch; only to that touch; not to you; I’m sorry; words, though, will never‘touch’thedelicacyofthattouch—ormyshock.

Daysanddayshavepassed,there’snowordfromyou; today, your voice on the phone.

Wheretobeginthen,withthiswoman,MargueriteGertrude Zelle (who was known as Mata Hari); I closemyeyesandthinkofyouasking:whatdidyouwriteaboutMarguerite?Anditseemsnowthat that was not a question at all; you used those wordsasanendearment; perhapstheystoodforsomething that you couldn’t say, or give –affection; youweregivingme“sensation”–likepaintonacanvas.

She was executed on October 15, 1917. I wrote her as fiction, it’s all I could do. I touched her like youtouchedme,onherback,soasnottopressorpushher(backwards,intothedark),orbruiseorbreak her; so as not to change the course of her destiny.Iwriteslowly,slowerthanever.Outsidethewindblowsinthepalmtree,andthebamboobeatsagainsttheironfence.IwroteMarguerite-music,movingbyphrases,tones,andrepetitions.

I find old notes written to myself about her, direct-ingmyself:‘essaysondying’,Iwrote,and,‘anew

waved-and-bobbedhairstyleemphasizestheovularityofherfeatures.’

(I need a table to work on. Soon I will light a fire each evening. Perhaps I’ll turn into a fish or a bird, something’sboundtohappen,perhapsI’llturnintoablueglassbowl.)

Thewarbeganthisdampmorning.Iwriteaboutawoman to a man; to you about her. I write also to thewomanIwriteabout,Marguerite–asifItrulycould.Iwritetoher,toherburialespecially,tothemomentshecrumpledtotheground.Iwaitinsomeone’shousewhiletheyspeakonthephoneinanotherroom.Thebackdoor’sopentothe very slight breeze (could be anywhere; in the tropicseven).Therearemosquitoes,andloudmu-sic on the stereo. This is the life one leads; it goes on; I’ve told you little about Marguerite. She was myexcuse(sheisstillmyexcuse,here,towrite).Iwouldhavepreferredtowriteyoualetter,butyouareout-of-reach.“Here”thoughisalwaysavail-able, ready; I make a space, lose it, find it, lose it, find it, and so on. Now, as I remember the remem-beringofMarguerite,Iam(everso)slightly(almostindiscernibly) different—andthattoomakesmewrite:sheisnoexcusenow(I’veabandonedher); who was she once, in her aliveness, that I’ve writtenabout.Perhapsthat’swhyIhesitatedtoanswer your question – then and now; she was once-alive,andnothingcantouchthat.

Tonightsomeonecalledher“notorious”.I’dneverthoughtofthatwordforher.A“notorious”woman.Itdoesn’tseemtomatter—andIcan’tsayathingabout“you”either.Can’tlikenyoutosomethingI’veknown.Can’tsayImissyou,orlongforyou.Imean,Ican’tsayit,out-loud,tosomeoneelse,can’tnameyou,can’ttellthetale.Thissilence,ofnotsaying,ofholdingmytongue,isundermyskin.Iwhisper,tomyself,thecrispcutword“never.”Thereisnotevenarequestbyyouforthissilence(youaretheearofnever).Iknewitinstantly,asa“discreetaffair,”andknewtootokeepitunsaid(toholditinabeyance,tosaveitfromescaping,tokeepyousafe),asifhavingagreedtodoso.

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

Aplanepasseslow,acrossthedampgarden.Thewarstartedthismorning,that’safact.It’sbeenafactallday.Someonewalksdownthecorridor.I am not alone, for a moment; the same sense anyway,ofsong,ofaninsistentbeat(Icallthatbeat“youreyes”),compelling,hand-to-hand,andmurmuring—butsurelymurmuring.Ofcoursethereareher,Marguerite’s,factstoo.Whereshewasborn,forinstance,andwhen,andtowhom.Areyouinterested,wasyourinteresttrue.Forme,itbeganwhenshewasarrested.It’sfromthere,thatroom,thatsomethingout-of-the-worldbegan.Although,everysinglemomentupuntilthat“knockknock”leadtoherdeath,adeaththathungoverherlikeno-death-at-all(shedidnotseeit coming). Fate is compelling; it could be named, that,fate,asanobject,likeplastic,vinyl,wax,orplaster(plaster-fate).Doesawomancomeintotheworldplasteredwithherpath/fate.Iseverythingonesaysalreadyreadytobesaid(isshe“plas-tered”,drunktohercore).Itmightbetrue,ashereIwriteyouwhatIhavealreadywritten,elsewhere…andwhatwouldyoubedoingthismid-Friday-afternoon.Wouldyoubedrinkingcoffee.Perhaps,perhapsnot.I’malivetoo,alivenesscontinues.What I remember is bare(ly) memory; I can’t even recallindetailhowitwastobewithyou,butIwastouched(madly).It’ssomethingthough,materialeven,andamatterofurgency–fungal,fugitive,finite; a disposition which is simple, a mere phrase: listeninglikealeaf.

6. ‘Whatever its complex elements, the plea-sure felt by most of us in good ruins is great.’ (Macauley, 1984: np)

IliveintheolderpartofAdelaide,nextdoortothePort. The Port has gone to wrack-and-ruin; it’s rundown,neglected,deserted,desolate.It’sinthethrowsthoughofrejuvenation.Itsruinousstateisbeing erased — like the pub around the corner; theEtheltonHotel,builtin1879,wasdemolishedacoupleofweeksagodespitemuchoppositionfrom local residents; there was nothing they could doasitwasnot‘heritagelisted’(thehotelhadbeenrenovatedinrecentyearsand“wasingood

nick”).Thelocalpaperreportedthat:‘Thespokes-man[forthehotelowners]saidtheCarlisleTav-ern[whichwillreplacethehotel]wouldcontainaplaqueandaphotodedicatedtothehistoryoftheEthelton…’-[3]

(InthemiddleofthePort(PortAdelaide)isawork-er’scottagesavedfromdemolitionbyalocalhis-torian.InthebackyardanarchaeologicaldigwasundertakenbyadoctoralstudentfromFlindersUniversity.[4]Urbanarchaeologyisrelativelyrarehere.I’llreturntoTheLittleHouselater.)RoseMacauley,inherbookPleasure Of Ruins, writesofthehostofminorruin-pleasures:

…looting,carryingawayfragments(atreaten-joyedbygreatlootersandsmall,fromLordElginandtheRenaissancenoblesandpopestothetouristpocketingstoneeggsfromfallenCorinthiancapitals).Thereisthepleasureofconstructingamongtheruinsadwellingorahermitage…ofbeingportrayedagainstaruinousbackground…ofwritingorcuttingone’sname,asallgoodtouristshavedoneinalltimes,ofself-projectionintothepast,ofcomposingpoetryandprose,ofobservingthescreechowl,thebat,andthemelancholyghost,andthevegetationthatpushesamongthecrevicesandwillonedayengulf.(Ma-cauley,1984:np)

Theland(beneathourfeet)—itsverymatterandmaterial—isthe“ground”ofnarrative(ofdura-tional inheritance, in the scheme of infinite things —andyetsomehowinvisible,asifwewalkonair); and the built structures are easily parted with, their ordinary efficacious designs deemed (judged, nominated, rated, appraised) “eye-sores.” [5]

Theinterfaceisinthemiddle,theruinisinthemiddleoftheworld,lettingusthinkofotherthings,ofsecrets,asiftheruinsetsthesecretoff,identifies itself sooner or later as the generator of assemblages,ofspeculativecollectives—theruinis “with” us, ruin with ruin; middle (interfacial) all theway.Thesecretthoughisrightoutintheopen(inthefaceoftheinterface)-thePortwithallits

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

roads,streets,alleys,bridges,shops,warehouses,museums,wharfs,factories,people,houses,of-fices, animals, hotels, tunnels, equipment, ships, boats,barges,andsoon.

7. The Little House

TheLittleHouseis“here,”soisthewomanwhowantstoliveinit.Thehouseiscrackedandbroken.Partsoftheceilinghavecollapsed.Thereareboltsinthewalls(windowsweresealedupforgrowingmarijuana).Oneroomispainteddarkred—wecallthistheGerhardRichterroom.[6]

Duringtheexcavationinthebackyard,oldfootingswereuncovered,andalltherubbishthathadbeenburiedforahundredyearswasdugup,sifted,bagged,andlabelled—glass,metal,pottery,plas-tic(amusiccassette),cloth,leather,bones(adog).

We’vebroughtmanyartiststobearuponthehouse—uponitsphotogenicruinousstate,its surfaces and ambience; as if to nourish the ghosts,andtohauntitwithourownghosts—anoutsidewallofvariousmaterialslookslikeaRosa-lie Gascoigne mixed media work) [7]; a particular patchofpaintlookslikeaMarkRothkopainting[8]; an arrangement of the excavated fragments onatabletopremindedusofJosephCornell’sboxes [9]; the fine lines in a piece of wood look like an Agnes Martin drawing [10]; all this to help (us) bringthehouseintotheworldagain,totakeotherliving/deadbeings(andtheirwork)toitsheart.[11]Andyettodothis,toattendtoitsruin,toattachourselves to its specific and multiple surfaces, we have touched our own reflections — we have invadeditlikeaswarmofants,eatingitsabsolutedis-interestinourmarginalobsessions.

Whatwe(thinkwe)aredoingiscreatinganinter/face—astory—composedoffragmentsofotherstories(lifetimesofartmaking,talking,criticism,despair,acclaim,neglect,misunderstanding).Still,therewillbe,atsomefuturetime,andmomentari-ly,three(condensed)parallel,inter-acting,infecting“houses,”residingtogether—notenvelopingeach

other, not superimposed, not montaged; but, with tense,invisible,independentpresence(ghosts-in-arms).Iimaginethethreeghosts/angelsas:thehouse we “took;” our obsessions (the interface); andthehousewe“give”(or,cometobewith).Theinterfacewillbeourowninstabilityandsadnessand pleasure (an inter-lace/a lashing); in fact three seams,three(condensed)interfaces.[12]

TheLittleHousewillhavealadderintheonenewroom.WecallthisroomTheTower.Itisslightlyirregularinshape,andtallerthantheotherrooms.(Weplannedthatitextenddownwardtoo—asifrecallingtheexcavationandtheburyingofmatterbeforethatevent,andasifhonouringthegroundbeneathourfeetanditscapacitytoholdthepast (literally and metaphorically); this downward movewouldbemodest—perhapsoneortwosteps; and then a step or two back up into the garden(thismaystillcometopass).)Theladderwillleanagainstthewallfacingintothehouse.Atthetopoftheladderwillbealowdoor(abouthalfthe usual size). The door opens onto a small flat rooftopspacethatlaysaboveatransitionalinnerspace—almostkitchen,almostlaundry,almostbathroom.It’saladderto(see)thesky(andtowatchforshootingstars).TheToweristhehouse’s“stranger;” a place where the occupant — the hu-manstranger—hasonlyherselftobring(aplacefor new ruinous beginnings; although it rests of courseupontheearthwhereothershavestoodandreckonedwiththemselves).InTheTowertherearenostandardopenings—thereisahighwindow,alowwindow,andathinwindow,andthedoubleglazeddoorstothegardenwillbealittlenarrowerandtallerthanusual.

FromthefrontTheLittleHousewilllook,moreorless,asitdoesnow.

ThethinkingtowardtheruinofTheLittleHousehaslittletodowithheritageorconservationintermsofrestorationorauthenticity(withareturntowhatwasimagined,asifalesson).Itdoeshavesomethingtodowithboththoughintermsofforgettingandwondering.‘Howcanwebuild

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

thefuturefromruins,ormakethepresentevolvebyusingtheknowledgeofpastages?Re-write,re-inscribethememoryofstratathathavedis-appeared,likeapalimpsestoramagicslate.Totransformhistoryintolifedemandsforgetfulnessandtheirrational.Andinstincttoo.Selectivechoiceisbasedonsubjectivityandindividualwill,andreferstothesensesandnotreason.There-useofolderstratadoesnotamounttoaservileimitationbutatransposition.AsNietzschesaid,wemust“beabletotransformandincorporatethethingsofthepast,tohealwounds andscars,re-placewhatislost,re-makebrokenforms”’(Hladik,2000: 56).

Thereisnothingtoprovethisproject“agoodproject,”oraparticularlyrigorousorinstructivewaytopay-attention.It’swrittenabouthereasan a-methodical, a-historical practice; a practice that,inthespiritofruin,isintermediary(interfacial)—nota thisora that,ora hereora there,butamakingofface(oroffacing/turning)thatfacestwo(ormore)non-opposingimperfectways(notnorthsouth,backfront,updown,eastwest,andsoon).[13]

8. ‘She resumed / The Mind of God, by Paul Da-vies, who assumed / Laws of nature were co-herent and binding, / bestowing a deep, univer-sal unity – / and so, in that limited sense, might be divine. / She looked around at their corner of chaos, / and sighed’(Jenkins,2003:70).

WhatdoIseewhenIseemyworld,and“see”thatit’sacontinuumofyourworld,andis(too)aworld amidst worlds (definite and indefinite, and accessedviaanod,awink, acall,aninvitation,a loss, a subtle knife); and is what we “is”/are, in ourdifference,becauseofyou/Iinyour/mydiffer-ence; as if born inside a world (our very own), and asifknowingit(itsitnessallwrappedupinsidemelikeatimebomb)by“feel,”byitscomingto“us” — as if in a dream; our place as “divine,” as infinite appearing, before which writing (to you/U) appearstoo(asyetmore—evermore,forever-appearance),writing,thatis,withitsownseeing

(writinginthedark).Thisdivineis(thegentleartofno-thing)aconstantmakinginthepresenceoftheworld’smakingofitselfmomenttomoment,unexpectedandsensational–thethingbeforeyou(divinemanifestation):‘…thebarething,whichyouseebeforeyou,thatandnothingelseisthegod.(The‘thing’canbeananimal,aperson,astone,aword,athought.)Godisneveranythingotherthanasingular,barepresence’(Nancy,1990:127).It’sweird,odd,confounding,tothinkofthe“life-of-appearance,”tothinkthatappearancehas a life-of-its-own; that it’s a kind of flickering (aninterfaceofglimmerandsparkleanddimness)between “us” appearing and “it” appearing; and ourfacingit(thislife)inevery-which-way—inourrestlessmovementandcontemplations–makesusunreliablewitnessesandmythmakers.Yetthere‘itis’:whatyoucannotknow,here; and ‘here’ is everywhereinalldirections—radiant(painful,death-giving,ruinous)appearingness.[14]

(Abreak,anarrival,adeparture,tears,adeephol-lowbreath,atapdripping:ruinedplacesarenotabandonedtoanutterbarrenness,toavanishingpoint,insteadtheyareoccupiedbythemselves,by an obvious insecure, indetermined mood; there shouldbenocertainreverence,nomoresothanelsewhere—here,“hereness”isanyway,despiteathinkingofherenesspast–gloryover[sadness].Towriteofruins,abandonment,andappearance[dis]appearingas“here”—reportingto“there”—callsforawanderlustwriting…writingheldup(interrupted,stalled,slowed,delayed,broken)bythesheer‘…brillianceofthesunonthesea:mil-lionsofscatteredplaces…’)

“Here”islocal,“there”islocal—everywhereis“here” and “there;” the “and” of the interface, of theendlessmultiplyingconversationoftime-on-earth:inasense“here”dis/appearsinthetellingof it to U; the report is more like a sound — a dog barking,atrainpassing,asiren,afootstep,music,anexplosion—thatcutstheair,hangsallaroundforastunningmoment,thenebbs,likeatide,toaknowing,readyandwilling,inmemory,ofwhatthereporthasnotyetreported.Yetit’sofitsplace,

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

notapartoftheplaceitreportson—that’sall,intellingoftheplace,itbe-comesplaceitself,andinanotherreportmightbementionedonlyinpass-ing. The interface collects “ands:” ‘What defines [themultiplicity]istheAND,assomethingwhichhasitsplacebetweentheelementsorbetweenthesets.AND,AND,AND—stammering.Andevenifthereareonlytwoterms,thereisan ANDbetweenthetwo,whichisneithertheonenortheother,northeonewhichbecomestheother,butwhichconstitutesthemultiplicity’(Deleuze&Parnet,1987:34).

ANDonehearsthenewsfromelsewhere,spunlikeatop—rumours,essays,treatises,dossiers,interviews, poems, songs, films — on radio and tv, innewspapersandjournalsandbooks,byphoneandemailandletter,andinmeetings,conferences,classrooms; and the news is fragile, provisional, partial,heart-breaking,funny,unbelievable,andtouching.TodayisSaturday,it’sahotsummerday.Iwill

watchaweddingceremonythisafternoon,andseeafavouritetrioin concertthisevening.Inthemeantime,“here”joinsallotherplaces.Itsliquid(gluey)concreteness,itsstrangequiveringappear-ancethroughthewindow—likeyesterdayandlastweek:hotlight,soundsofkids,cars,dogs,birds,planes,trains—presses(upon)theeyeandthought,andsurfaces/returnsasrhythmsonthetips of the tongue and the fingers. It beckons you toseewhatIsee(“Iwishyouwerehere”)andtothensay-in-replywhatyou,U,see(soIcansee

what I have never seen). [15] [16]Notes

[1]AntoninArtaudwrote:‘Athingnamedisadeadthing,anditisdeadbecauseitisseparated’(Thévenin,1998:43).

[2] Samuel Beckett’s set of texts, Texts For Noth-ing, are involuting, volatile, epic, “film-clip,” writ-ingswhich,beingmomentsorlife-times,beginwhere beginning is already well and truly finished, and yet begin anyway, to finish where it can only bethatto-beginisallthatcan,andwill,bedone—writingsforone’slife.Text3has“here”and“there”asitsimpossible“life:”Itbegins:

Leave,Iwasgoingtosayleaveallthat.Whatmat-terwho’sspeaking,someonesaidwhatmatterwho’sspeaking.There’sgoingtobeadeparture,I’llbethere,Iwon’tmissit,itwon’tbeme,I’llbehere,I’llsayI’mfarfromhere,itwon’tbeme.Iwon’tsayanything,there’sgoingtobeastory,someone’sgoingtotryandtellastory.Yes,nomoredenials,allisfalse,thereisnoone,it’sunderstood,thereisnothing,nomorephrases,letusbedupes,dupesofeverytimeandtense,untilit’sdone,allpastanddone,andthevoicescease,it’sonlyvoices,onlylies.‘Here,departfromhereandgoelsewhere,orstayhere,butcomingandgoing.Startbystirring,theremustbeabody,asofold,Idon’tdenyit,nomoredenials,I’llsayI’mabody,stirringbackandforth,upanddown,asrequired.Withaclutheroflimbsandorgans,allthatisneededtoliveagain,toholdoutalittletime,I’llcallthatliving.I’llsayit’sme,I’llgetstanding,I’llstopthinking,I’llbetoobusy,gettingstand-ing,stayingstanding,stirringabout,holdingout,gettingtotomorrow,tomorrowweek,thatwillbeample,aweekwillbeample,aweekinspring,thatputsthejizzinyou.It’senoughtowillit,I’llwillit, willmeabody,willmeahead,alittlestrength,alittlecourage,I’mstartingnow,aweekissoonserved,thenbackhere,thisinextricableplace,farfromthedays,thefardays,it’snotgoingtobeeasy.Andwhy,cometothink,nono,leaveit,nomoreofthat,don’tlistentoitall,don’tsayitall,it’s

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

allold,allone,onceandforall.Thereyouarenowonyourfeet,Igiveyoumyword,Iswearthey’reyours,Iswearit’smine,gettoworkwithyourhands,palpyourskull,seatoftheunderstanding,withoutwhichnix,thentherest,thelowerregions,you’llbeneedingthem,andsaywhatyou’relike,haveaguess,whatkindofman,therehastobeaman,orawoman,feelbetweenyourlegs,noneedofbeauty,norofvigour,aweek’sashortstretch,noone’sgoingtoloveyou,don’tbealarmed.No,notlikethat,toosudden,Igavemyselfastart.Andtostartwithstoppalpitating,noone’sgoingtokillyou,noone’s gongtoloveyouandnoone’sgoingtokillyou,perhapsyou’llemergeinthehighde-pressionofGobi,you’llfeelathomethere.I’llwaitforyouhere,no,Iamalone,Ialoneam,thistimeit’s I must go. (Beckett, 1967: 85-86)

[3]SeePortside Messenger, Adelaide, MessengerNewspapers, 21.01.04, p. 7; see also http://www.needapub.com/pubs/adelaide-innerwest/ethel-ton.html#; http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,8454975,00.html

[4] See http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology/stu-dents/briggs.php

[5] This is a complex web of stories — political, personal, historical, scientific — which I have unfairly(andtactlessly)touchedupon(andasifitispossibletowritetoo).However,whatthishasinitssightistwo(andthesehavewithinthemcount-lessvariations)waysofknowing-seeing—awaywhichisoccupation/visitation,andawaywhichisoccupation/inhabitation; in other words, the world appearsdifferent(anditis,andthat“it-is”meansthat“itis”ofanentirelyother“frequency”ortonal-ity—anotherworldalltogether[anotherplan/ceofexistence]).

[6]“We”areSeanPickersgillandmyself.Formoreinformationonthehouseandimagesofthehouse,seehttp://ensemble.va.com.au/lmw/index.html(ThehistorianisSandraMorton.SheisthewomanwhowillliveinTheLittleHouse.)

[7]Forexample,seehttp://www.abc.net.au/arts/headspace/tv/express/gascoigne/default.htm

[8]Forexample,seehttp://www.rothko100.org/

[9]Forexample,seehttp://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/cornell_joseph.html

[10]Forexample,seehttp://www.studiocleo.com/gallerie/martin/martin.html

[11]Thehouseisalreadyintheworld.Itisawrong-headedstateofaffairstodenythisbyusingtheexpression“intotheworldagain.”It’smorethatthehouseintheworldwillhouseahumanagain.Itwillbeaninsidefortheinside(forthemeetingoftwoheats:thevitalsurroundandthevital flesh). The house itself has been “homeless” —themakingofits“hereness”oncemoreisasmallgesturetoward“saying”—towardmakingthehouse,again,anutteredthing.‘Thehumanfinds its place here,inthe“timefortheutter-able,”whichisthetimeoftransienceassuch.Thehistoricalunfoldingofwhatpassesawaycomestorestintheearth,itshumus.Theutterablegivesthe“livedthings”ofourhumanworldsadomes-ticinteriorinwhichtomakethemselvesathome.“Hereisthetimefortheutterable, here, itshome’(Harrison,2003: 49).

[12]InPhilipPullman’strilogyHis Dark Materi-als, thedifferentworldsexistsimultaneouslyanddiscretely.Lyrapassesintotheotherworld,sheleaves behind one world to enter another; the worldsarethere,allatonce,buttheirpresencesaresingularandphysically/visiblysealedoff.Extraordinary(apossiblemurder)andordinary(fol-lowingacat)circumstancesbringthepresences,plural,toconsciousness.

[13] ‘Beyond a certain state, the ruin no longer refersbacktoitsoriginalstatebutfocusesin-terestonitsownimperfection.Theamputatedworkgainsinpowerofevocationwhatitlosesinformal integrity. The ruin sacrifices to the desire forbrokenandroughsurfaces,theaestheticsof

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

�0�0

the picturesque. Infiltrating water causes buckling and cracking, renders flake, walls go to pieces. Amidst this random state and in the micro-fissures ofruined walls,painterssawlandscapes.Acci-dentsandrupturesarenevercleanbreaks,theyarejaggedandfragmented.Wallsswell,surfacesbecomecomplex.Time’sdestruction–thede-constructionofthebeautifulwhole–breaksdownclassicalnotionsoforderandsymmetry.Theun-finished is at the other end of the chain with regard totheruinedfragment,achainwhichlinksthe“notyet” and the “already there.” While the unfinished manifests an insufficiently revealed form poten-tiallypresent,thestruggleofsoul againstmatter,thefragmentoncebelongedtoamorecompletewhole,whichwasbrokenandaltered.Assuchitenablesatheoreticalre-composition.Asignofmemory,theparadoxisthatittakesonthevalueof the monad, the ultimate unit’ (Hladik, 2000: 55).

[14]MisreadingNancy,buttryingnotto:‘Nancywrites“allartissacred”—yetartandthedivinearenottotallydistinctthings.Whichistosaythatwhenthedivinemanifestsitself,artitselfisre-ducedtonothing’(Nancy,1990:129).

[15] ‘The “topo-ontological” surface…is an ab-stractsurfaceofencounter,orimpingement.Impression.Sensation.Thesoftnessofbeing.Otherwiseknownastheimagination:thevagueperceptionoftheworldand Iemergingtogetherinsensation,differentiallyunfoldingfromacontrac-tioninit.Thesurfaceofsensationis‘abstract’becauseifthingsandIemergefromit,initselfitcannotbeanything,anymorethanitcanbeinme.Itisallandonlyintheencounter.Whatinitselfisinnothing.Foritis thein-which,contraction(theactualimmanenceofprocess).

Theimpingementisgiven.Cognitionfollows.Itistweakedintobeingbytheencounter.This thing!Thisbeautifullyimpossiblytastelessthing.Thispainintheeye.Wherediditcomefrom?Howcanit be? What do I do now? Laugh? Critique? Buy iridescentpaint?’(Massumi,1997:782).

[16]TheImages:1.Andallthewhile–whileIwrite–I“picture”anotherlandscape“downsouth”thatIknowlikethe-back-of-my-hand.It’swhereIcomefrom.I’mnotinphysicalcontactwiththatground(onlythecontinuationofitasitpassesundermehere),it’sfive hours drive away. Still, it’s this landscape, this“southness”(there),thataccompaniesthistext(here)–whichisakindofsoutherlybreeze,straightofftheSouthernOcean.Therearefourim-agesoftheSouthernOcean“here.”2.ThetwoimagesofasmallwhitecupweretakenafterdrinkinghotGreek-coffeeandturningtheemptycupupsidedowntodrainouttheremain-ingliquidsoasto“divine”myfuture(readingtheremains).

References

Akhmatova,Anna.Twenty Poems, trans.JaneKenyonwithVeraSandomirsky(Dunham,Minnesota:Eighties Press & Ally Press, 1985).

Beckett, Samuel. Stories And Texts For Nothing(GrovePress,NewYork:1967).

Delbridge, A. Bernard, JRL., Blair, D., Bulter, S.,Peters,P.,Yallop,C.,(eds.)The Macquarie Dictionary, ThirdEdition,(Sydney:MacquarieUniversity,1999).

Deleuze,GillesandParnet,Claire.Dialogues, trans. Hugh Tomlinson & Barbara Habberjam, (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1987).

Derrida,Jacques.‘Letoucher,Touch/totouchhim,’ inParagraph: A Journal of Modern Critical Theory 16.2,(1993).

Harrison,RobertPogue.The Dominion Of The Dead (ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2003).

Hladik,Murielle.‘Figure(s)delaruine,’inL’Architecture D’Aujourd’hui.

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

Jenkins,John.A Break in the Weather (Northcote: ModernWritingPress,2003).

Massumi, Brian. ‘Deleuze, Guattari and the PhilosophyofExpression(InvolutionaryAfterword),’Canadian Review of Comparative Literature/Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée,Vol.24,No.3,(1997).

Nancy,Jean-Luc.The Inoperative Community, trans.PeterConnor,LisaCarbus,MichaelHolland,andSimonaSawhney(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1990).

____.The Birth To Presence, trans. Brian Holmes & Others(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993).

Pullman,Philip.The Amber Spyglass, His Dark Materials 111 (London: ScholasticChildren’sBooks, 2000).

Roubaud,Jacques.The Plurality of Worlds of Lewis, trans.RosmarieWaldrop(DalkeyArchivePress: Illinois, 1995).

Thévenin,PauleandDerrida,Jacques.The Secret Art of Antonin Artaud, trans.MaryAnnCaws(CambridgeMA.andLondon:TheMITPress,1998).

Su

rface to Su

rface, Ash

es to Ash

es (Rep

oritng

to U)

����

There’sanirreduciblegapbetweenreplicatorandvehicle,betweengenotypeandpheno-type,betweensoftwareinstructionsandhard-wareimplementation:inshort,betweentheidealityofarepeatinginformationalpattern,andthecontingencyofanyparticularmaterialembodiment. (Shaviro,2003)

Lesson one

InthepenultimatechapterofApplied Grammatol-ogy (1985), Gregory Ulmer describes the com-monreadingofSergeiEisenstein’sbiographyintermsofanoppositionbetweentheearlyandlaterworks.Intheearlierworks,Eisensteinexperiment-edwithintellectualmontage,picto-ideographicpresentation,andtheuseofformalmatchingstrategies to elicit specific ideological responses amonghisidealaudience.Inthelaterworks,andundertheexplicitthreatfromStalinistcensorsandthugs,hisworkhasarealistcastandresemblesHollywoodmoviesinbothformandcontent.Counter to the prevailing sentiment in film studies, Ulmerreadsthelaterworkintermsoftheearlierworktobothconfoundtheapparentoppositionandtosuggestamodelforappliedgrammatology.

Ulmer’s reading resembles Roland Barthes’ S/Z(1974),are-readingofaRealiststorytorecoveravisualandsemanticmontageofthefragmentswithwhichthestoryemerges.Ulmerre-readsEisenstein’s last completed film as a picto-ideo-graphic(visualsemantic)montage.

Lesson two: modeling

Myownwork,inArtificial Mythologies(1997),used a similar strategy to read Roland Barthes’ earliestworkonsemiologyandculturalmytholo-giesasifitwerewrittenafterhislastwork,Cam-era Lucida(1981)thatfocusedontheabsolutely particularthatresistsculture.Ofcourse,mostcriticshadagreedthatthelaterworks,afterS/Z,moved Barthes’s concerns away from the grand meta-narrativeexplanationsofculturalmeanings’machinationsandtowardanapparentlyphenom-enologicalimpressionism.Ulmer’scontributionto the myth of the two Barthes was ‘Fetishism in Roland Barthes’s Nietzschean Phase.’ My inter-pretationoftheearliersoberdemythologies,asifperformedbythelaterfetishistichedonist,sug-gests that theorists perform themselves the first timeastenor(deeplyembeddedmeaninginthelineageofteacher,shaman,analyst),thesecondasvehicle(style,presentation,picto-ideographic,andperformance).Itstagestherelationshipamongthevariousmomentsofauthorshipasaseriesof

The Two Ulmers in e-Media Studies: Vehicle and DriverCraig Saper

Th

e Two U

lmers in

e-Med

ia Stu

dies: Veh

icle and

Driver

����

signifiers. As Jacques Derrida writes, ‘There is not a single signified that escapes, even if recaptured, theplayofsignifyingreferencesthatconstitutelanguage’(Derrida,1976, 7).

Lesson three: Performance

Recentcomputer-assistedscholarshiponShake-speare’splaysdemonstratedthathislaterplaysborrowedvocabulary,syntax,andstylefromtheearlyplays.Ashewaswritingthelaterplays,hewasanactorinhisearlierplays.One couldmakeasimilarclaimaboutUlmer’sworkinrelationtohisownperformances.Hisvideos,likeReading Reading TV on TV(1987),inwhichaProfessorcharacterclaimsthatasinkholeinGainesville,Florida(Devil’sMillhopper)isShakespeare’sHamlet,performedhimselfasacharactertalkingaboutthefunctionoftheunconscious(theghost).Shakespeareisthemodelofwritingbyrecoveryandperformance,Ulmerthemodelforreading(recognizingthemetaphoriccharacteroflanguageinitsvehicleandtenor)asabreactionandtele-per-formance:

This giant sinkhole (500 feet wide, 120 feetdeep)wasformedwhentheroofofanundergroundlimestonecaverncollapsed.Thecoolenvironmentallowsgrowthofuniquelushvegetation...(MobilTravelGuide.com)

Howdoesoneanalyzetheessentialcharacterandmeaning of an important and influential thinker andtheorist?HowdoesoneanalyzeGregUlmer?In this analysis, how can one use figures, picto-ideographicobjectsandsounds,andintellectualmontage?

Lesson four: Structuring Absence

Usingintellectualmontage’sproductionstrategies,Ulmercanfunctionasatrope—apicto-ideo-graphic figure. In fact, Ulmer offers a guide and demonstration ofthisstrategyinhisearlyworkonJacquesLacan’sseminarspace.LiketheessayinthisvolumebyJonMcKenzie,mystorybeginswithalunchmeetingwithProfessorUlmer.Wehadorganizedanindependentstudyaroundlunch—philosophyoverlunch—borrowingaConti-

nentalwayofknowing(butwalkingtothelocalsubshop).ItwasourversionofLacan’ssemi-nars.

Appliedgram-matologyusespsychoana-lyticpractices,includingthenotionofastructuringab-senceorun-

conscious,tochallengethemetaphysicsofpres-enceandtheself-conscioussubject(thetenor).UlmersuggeststhatonecouldretainthestructureofLacan’spresentationalstrategies‘whileaban-doning its reference’ or tenor (Ulmer 1985: 189). ThisstrategydependsonwhatUlmercallsdoubleinscriptionthatdrawsonbothconsciousandunconscious machinations, scientific and poetic approaches,inoneoperation.Now,though,thetenordoesnotdominateandforcethepoeticintoeffacement.Oneofthekeyworksontheapplica-

Th

e Two U

lmers in

e-Med

ia Stu

dies: Veh

icle and

D

river

����

tionofpsychoanalysistocultureisFreud’sstudyofMichelangelo’sMoses.Freudcarefullyarticu-lates the possible meanings of the figure’s posture especially in reference to how the fingers grasp the beard.Fromthebeard,Freuddrawsconclusionsaboutthestructuringabsenceofthemeaningofthe figure — that is, what Moses is looking at is notportrayed.Wehaveonlytheturnedheadandthegraspofthebeard toguideusaboutwhatMo-ses’gazesees(andhowwhatheseesformshis

attitude,char-acter,and,ultimately,hisidentity).

Lesson five: Very Hungry Caterpillar (Metamor-phosis Over Lunch).

Lacan’suseofknotstoex-plainpsycho-analysisandidentityforma-tionresembleshowyoungchildrenlearnaboutcul-turethroughwordplay,allegory,andfigurative play. Ulmerrefer-encesLacan’s

discussion of these literal and figurative knots to discusstheperformativeaspectsofappliedgram-matology.

EricCarle’sbookaboutWalter the Bakerusestheknotsofthepretzeltocreateanallegoryaboutculture,creativitybornunderthesignofthenega-tive(thecat’sspiltmilk),andtherelationbetweennamingandidentity.Ulmer, especiallyinhisearlier

worksfromthe1980slikehisessayonTheoryasahobby,drawsexplicitlyonchildren’sworkbooks(includingvisualimages)andtheknotsusedtodescribetheformationofidentity.TheidentityofUlmermayalsodependonapplyingtheknotlogictohismorerecentworksthatheemploysinhisearlyworkonappliedgrammatology.Hereisthedescriptionofanimportanttextinearlyliteracyeducation:

From Publishers WeeklyFromtheauthorofThe Very Hungry Caterpil-larcomesthestoryofabakerwhoinventsthepretzel.Carle’swhimsical,freneticcollagesseemfreshfromtheoven,eventhoughtheywere first published 25 years ago. Ages 4-8.

Book DescriptionWalter the Baker is famous for his breads, rolls,cookies,tarts,andpies.TheDukeandDuchessespeciallylovehiswarmsweetrolls,deliveredfreshtotheircastleeverymorning.But, one day the cat spills the milk, and Walter isforcedtoservetheDukeandDuchessrollsmade withwater.AfteronebitetheDukethrowsdownhisrollindisgustandsummonsWaltertothecastle.Hethreatenstobanishthebakerunlesshecantakethesamedoughandmakeagood-tastingrollthattherisingsuncanshinethroughthreetimes.WillWaltersucceedinhistask,orwillhehavetoleavehistownforever?

ThisPretzellogicisbornfromtheliteralnameofthefather.Ulmerinanumberofhisworksfrom

Th

e Two U

lmers in

e-Med

ia Stu

dies: Veh

icle and

Driver

����

thelate1980s,especiallyinthevideoReading Reading on TV on TV,discussestheimportanceofhisfather’sname,Walter,anditsconnectionto Walter Benjamin. He also talks about the need toleavehisMontanatownevenashetakeshisdrivingofhisfather’sInternationalHarvesterwith him (figuratively as he studies Comparative Literature). EricCarle’staleabouttheinventionofthepretzelincludesaglossaryandmoreinforma-tionabouthowtheinventiondependedonatypeofobject-wordplay.Theparallelstory,drawnfromfolktales,ofitsnameandshapehelpshighlightits importance to the Ulmer figure. The shape, according toonetale,wasproducedbyamonkinthesixthcentury.Themonksgaveoutthepretzelsas a reward for children; the shape is based on the armscrossedinthechiasmicshapeduringatypeofprayerinwhichonecrossesthearmsandgrabstheoppositeshoulder(chiasmaisthetermformetaphoric figuration as well as the crossed keys symbolforHeaven).Togetasenseofhowthattype of prayer looks like the figure of a pretzel, one shouldcrossthearmsinthisfashion.ThethreeholesstandfortheFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost. Lacan translates these figures, in his knots, intotheSymbolic,Imaginary,andReal,andUlmertakesLacan’spretzelreadingandappliesittothereader’scontext(Walter,Ulmerleavinghome,andthetrace orgram).Thenameitselfstartedasalittlereward(Italian:prestiola).Thatlittlereward,or morsel or figuratively the gram, takes the name Brezel, derived from Latin bracchiatus,“havingbranches,”itselffrombracchium,“branch,arm.”AnothertalerecountshowaKingaccusedabakeroflarcenyanddemandedthatthebakerproduceapastrythroughwhichthesuncouldshinethroughthree times. The Baker ingeniously made three holesinthepretzeltoavoidthepunishment.Ofcourse,thetaleofalittlerewardalsoconnectstotheallegoryoftheHungryGhostfoundinmanyreligions.Forexample,inAncientRome,thehungry ghosts of a family’s ancestors figured in the festivalofLemuria(anamethatUlmermakesuseofinmanyofhisworkssincelemurisanacronymfor ulmer); it was the duty of the pater familiastoappeasethelarvæofhisancestorswithanoffer-

ingofbeans.IntheCarlebook,thenamepretzelcomesfromthephrase,‘Praytellus,’whichtheKingasksthebaker,‘Praytellus,whatdoyoucallthisthing?’Andthebaker,thinkingquicklyaboutwhattosay,makesahomophonefromthephraseandanswers:pretzel.Themotivationfortheinventionofthepretzelwasthecat(whodrankthemilk),andlikewiseUlmerhasasimilarmotivation.Ulmer’s laterworksfocusmuchontheacronymCATt,asamnemonicdevicetodescribeaninventio:Comparison,Analogy,Theory,andtale. It becomes in condensed and figurative form theexplanationofhisentiremethod.TheinventioofthepretzelwisdomleadstotheproductionofastagingoftheMago.

mago,-am,f (hechicero)wizard,magicianel mago de Oz,theWizardofOzlos Reyes Magos,theWiseMen

Lesson six: Vehicles (and identity)

Inthestar-studdedmovie,If I Had A Million(1932),W.C.FieldsasRolloLaRueandAlisonSkipworthasEmily,apairofold-timesecond-rateactors,

Th

e Two U

lmers in

e-Med

ia Stu

dies: Veh

icle and

Driver

����

inheritonemilliondollarsfromawealthymanwhowantstogiveawayhis moneytounlikelylosers.Rollo buys a fleet of second-hand cars, and has the entire fleet driven behind him as he drives aroundtownsmashingintoonebaddriverafteranother.Then,withhisvehicleawreck,hegetsinto the next car and soon finds someone else smashingintothelatestcar.ThevehicleoutofcontrolbecameoneofFields’mostlovedbits.Inhishitmovie,The Bank Dick(1940),Fields,asincompetentbankguardEgbertSouse,istakenhostagebybankrobberswhoforcehimtodrivethegetawayvehicle.Eventu-allyhisnervous,manic,andoutofcontroldrivingdrivestherobberstoinsanity.

Thesenseofhilariousandexcessivedestructionand loss, in a Potlatch fashion, as a fitting corollary towealthandaccumulation,enactsUlmer’stheoryof car accidents using George Bataille’s theory of potlachandtheaccursedshare.Thevehicle,inthetropeofidentity, getsawayfromthedriveronlyto find another vehicle and another in a long line of signifiers. The film enacts in picto-ideographic form,Lacan’stheoryofidentity.

Lesson seven: Toward a Post(e)-Pedagogical Grammar.

TheUlmersexistside-by-sideinagrammaticalstructure—onehediscussesatlengthinAp-plied Grammatology.Someofhiswork,especiallyinthe1980sandearly1990s,soughttoreinventthemodern essay,whilemuchofhismorere-centwork,especiallyinthelate1990sthrough2005, has a Swiftian, or ancient, style of imita-tion.Thelaterworksusetheformofthegrammarorcompositiontextbook,whiletheearlierworksstudytheallegoryoftheexplicitlyknifewieldingwoman(Gramatica).WhatifthesetwoFIGURES

Th

e Two U

lmers in

e-Med

ia Stu

dies: Veh

icle and

Driver

����

Bibliography

Barthes, Roland. S/Z,trans.RichardMiller(NewYork:Hill&Wang,1974).

____.Camera Lucida. Reflections on Photography, trans.RichardHoward(NewYork:Hill&Wang,1981).

Derrida,Jacques.Of Grammatology,trans.GayatriChakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress,1976).

MobilTravelGuide.com.EditorialReviewofDevil’sMillhopper,http://MobilTravelGuide.com/.

Saper,Craig.Artificial Mythologies.AGuidetoCulturalInvention(Minneapolis:UniversityofMin-nesotaPress,1997).

Shaviro,Steven.Connected or What It Means to Live in the Network Society,ElectronicMediationsseries(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2003).

Ulmer,Greg.Internet Invention: From Literacy to Electracy, Writing and Technology Series (Boston: LongmanPublishers,2003).

____.EmerAgency, http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/elf/, 1998.

____.‘HandbookforaTheoryHobby,’Visible Lan-guage 22(1988):399-422.

____.Applied Grammatology: Post(e)-Pedagogy from Jacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press,1985).

____.‘ReadingReadingTVonTV’,PaperTigerTV,’1987.

____. ‘Fetishism in Roland Barthes’ Nietzschean Phase,’Papers on Language and Literature 14(1978): 334-355.

–eachimportantintheirownright—talkedtoeachotherasifinadialogue:notinapedagogicalPlatonicdialogue,butanUlmerianpost(e)-peda-gogicaldemonstration?Thequestionisnotquite,whatifhehadpublished‘HandbookforaTheoryHobby’(1988)ormadethevideoforPaperTigerTV(1987),aftertheseriesincludingEmerAgency (1998)andInternet Invention(2003)?Rather,inthisformulation,theearlierworksperformedthelaterworksthewayShakespeareperformedtheearlierworkswhilewritingthelaterworks.Internet Invention, in the style of Jonathan Swift’s ‘Battle of the Books,’ functions as an example of imita-tionusedforotherends.Ulmerinhisearlyworksdiscusses a scene, cited by Roland Barthes in his Nietzschean Phase, in The Marx Brothers’ A Night at the Opera (1935): Chico and Groucho eventu-allyripupthecontractintheireffortstomakethe

contract benefit their own ends. It is a contract for atenor,and,inthatsense,theyripupthecontractbetweentenorandvehicle.Weleftthephilosophyoverlunchshopandwalkedbacktocampus.Thevehicleswhizzedbyus...andwefollowedtheUlmers.

Th

e Two U

lmers in

e-Med

ia Stu

dies: Veh

icle and

Driver

����

DiagrammatologyRowan Wilken

Diag

ramm

atology

…the operation of the diagram, its function, as Bacon says, is to “suggest.” (Deleuze, 1993: 194)

‘Deconstruction,’JacquesDerridawrites,‘isinventive or it is nothing at all; it does not settle for methodicalprocedures,itopensupapassage-way,itmarchesaheadandmarksatrail’(Derrida,1989:42).Withinarchitecturaltheory,atleast,thisdeceptivelysimplemessageappearstohavebeenforgotten(ifitwaseverfullyheeded).Anactofamnesiahastened,itwouldseem,atthe1992AnywhereconferenceinYufuin,Japan.ItwasherethatDerrida reputedlyrefusedto‘outlineaprojectforthenew’forarchitecture(Speaks,1998:28).Onecanonlypresumethatthisrefusal,tonameonereasonamongmanypossiblereasons,wasatleastinpartbecause,asnotedabove,thenewisalreadypresentwithindeconstructionintheformofinvention.Derridaalsoapparentlyrefusedto‘offer[theassembled]architectsaclearwaytoconvertdeconstruction(asthetheoreticalproto-col)intoarchitecturalform’(Speaks,1998:28).Forthearchitecturalfraternity,thisdoublerefusalonlyservedtofuela‘growingandpalpabledisappoint-mentwithdeconstruction’(Speaks,1998:28).Notsurprising,then,thatdeconstructionshouldsub-sequentlyfalloutofarchitecturalfavour,replacedby,amongotherthings,arenewedinterestindiagrams.[1]

DrawingtogetherDerrida’sinterestingrammatol-ogyandtheinventive,andcontemporaryarchitec-turalinterestindiagrams,thispaperproposesthenotionof “diagrammatology.”[2]Diagrammatol-ogyisunderstoodhereasagenerativeprocess:

a‘metaphor’orwayofthinking—diagrammatic,diagrammatologicalthinking—which,inturn,islinkedtopoeticthinking.Thisunderstandingisinformedbycontemporaryarchitecturaltheorywhichconceivesofthediagramasa‘tempo-raryformulationofintentionsstilltoberealized,amachineforlearningandchange,’a“heuristicmethod”(Confurius, 2000:5). This paper develops diagrammatologythroughexample,byexplor-ingthreeiterationsofthe(architectural)diagram.The first iteration is Derrida’s choral grid diagram, whichemergedfromhisreadingofthechorasec-tionofPlato’sTimaeus—areadingthatframedhiscollaborationwiththearchitectPeterEisenmanon Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de la Villette project. TheseconditerationistheuseGregoryUlmersubsequentlymadeofDerrida’schoraldiagramandreadingoftheTimaeusinthedevelopmentofthegenreof“mystory”and“heuretics”(the“logicofinvention”).Thethirditerationusesthechoralgrid as a guiding figure for speculating on the interminglednatureofcontemporarytele-tech-nologies.

Choral Work

In 1983 the Swiss-French architect Bernard Ts-chumiwontheinternationalcompetitiontodesigna new 125-acre park, Parc de la Villette, for the formerslaughterhousesiteinthenortheastcornerofParis.Tschumi’ssuccessfulschemeforVil-letteisorganisedaccordingtoastrictpoint-gridsystem,witheachpointappearingat120-metreintervalsandeachmarkedbyabrightred10x10x10metre‘neutralspace’cubeorFolie(Tschumi,1987:ii).TheprogramforVilletteisdenseinallu-

����

sion,andincludesanelaborateplayonthevariousmeaningsof“folly/folie”asfaçade,madness,insanity,andwasconceivedinpartashomageto Borges, Burroughs, Cocteau, Queneau, and Bataille, among others. Also included in the site aregalleriesandsegmentsofa‘cinematicprom-enade’ofgardens,manyofwhichweredesignedbyindividualdesignersorincollaboration.ThebestknownofthesecollaborationsisTs-chumi’sinvitationtoPeterEisenmanandJacquesDerridatoworktogethertodesignagardenwithinVillettePark.Sixbrainstormingsessionstookplace,duringwhichPeterEisenman’sdesignteammetwithDerridatodevelopaplanforagardenatVillette.Despitethesesessions,noultimateschemewasrealisedfromthiscollaborativepair-ing; we will come to one of the many reasons for thisinamoment.

In the first session, Derrida responded to Eisen-man’sinvitationbyproviding thearchitectwithafragmentofwhatwaslatertobecomeamuchlon-gerreadingofPlato’sTimaeus,entitled“Chora.”[3]Derrida’spartialtextexamines‘averyenigmaticpassageintheTimaeus’inwhich‘Platodiscussesacertain[singularlyunique]place’knownaschora(alsokhora,khora):

InGreek,chorameans‘place’inverydifferentsenses:placeingeneral,theresidence,thehabita-tion,theplacewherewelive,thecountry.Ithasto do with interval; it is what you open to ‘give’ placetothings,orwhenyouopensomethingforthingstotakeplace.[…]Choraisthespacingwhichistheconditionforeverythingtotakeplace,foreverythingtobeinscribed.Themetaphorofimpressionorprintingisverystrongandrecogniz-ableinthistext.Itistheplacewhereeverythingisreceivedasanimprint.Therehavebeenmanyinterpretationsofchora,typicallyreducingchoraorprojectingintochoravarioussystems,Kant’sforexample.Choraresistsalltheseinterpretations.

(Derrida,1987:9-10)

Havingthusintroducedthenotionofchoratohisco-collaborator,Derridaexplainshisowninterest

init:Whatinterestsmeisthatsincechoraisir-reducibletothetwopositions,thesensibleandtheintelligible,whichhavedominatedtheentiretraditionofWesternthought,itisirreducibletoallthevaluestowhichweareaccustomed.[…]Chorareceiveseverythingorgivesplacetoeverything,yetPlatoinsiststhatinfactithastobeavirginplace,andthatithastobetotallyforeign,totallyexteriortoanything that it receives; so, in a sense, it does notreceiveanything—itdoesnotreceivewhatitreceivesnordoesitgivewhatitgives.

(Derrida,1987:10)

Inotherwords,Derridaexplains,‘everythinginscribediniterasesitselfimmediately,whileremaininginit.Itisthusanimpossiblesurface–itisnotevenasurface,becauseithasnodepth’(Derrida,1987:10).[4]

WithinthecontextoftheVillettegardenproject,‘becausechoraisasortofradicalvoid(thoughnotavoid)’itissuggestedthat‘theprojectbesimple,evenempty’(Kipnis,1987:139).AsJeffreyKipnispointsout:

Because of the role of the four elements – earth, air, fire and water – in Plato’s text on chora,Derridasuggeststheybesymbolizedin the project, sand for earth, light for fire, etc.’ (Kipnis,1987:139)

“ChoralWork”isthetitleinventedbyEisenmantodescribethiscollaborativeenterprise.[5] For Der-ridaatleast,thisisaparticularlyaptandevocativetitle,withitslayeredevocationsofchora,coralgrowth,andofchoreography,choirandconcert(‘how couldInotberemindedoftheMusic for the Royal Fireworks,ofthechorale,ofCorelli’sinfluence, of that “architectural sense” we always admire in Handel’) (Derrida, 1987: 95-101). En-couragedtocontributetothisChoralWorksomeformofnon-writtentextinordertodistilhisideas—thatis,to‘‘‘write,’’’ifonecansay,withoutaword’—Derrida,‘improvisingintheairportandthenintheplane,’producesthefollowingsketch

Diag

ramm

atology

�0�0�0�

diagram(Derrida, 1987: 185).Source: Bennington and Derrida, 1993: 406.Accompanyingthisdiagramisthefollowingex-planatorytext:

Iproposethen[…]ametallicobject,gilded(thereissomegoldinthepassageofTimaeusonchora[…]),plantedobliquetothesun,neitherverticalnorhorizontal,asolidframeresembling,atthesametime,aframework(loom),asieve,oragrille(grid),andalsoastringedmusicalinstrument(piano,harp,lyre):strings,stringedinstrument,vocalchords,etc.Andmorethangrille,grid,etc.,itwillhaveacertainrapportwithaselectiveandinterpretive filter, telescope, or photographic revealer,amachine,fallenfromthesky,afterhaving photographed; photographic filter and aerialview,whichallowsthereadingandthescreening(sifting?)ofthethreesites,thethreelayers (PDE, BT, LV). And more than a stringed instrument,itwillmakeasign(signify?)totheconcertandthemultiplechorale,thechoraofChoral Works. (Derrida, 1987: 185)

Asforexplanatoryinterpretation,Derridaadds:Ithinkthatnothingneedbeinscribedonthissculpture[…]exceptforpossiblythetitleandasignature, unfigured somewhere. (Choral Work, by…1986)aswellasoneortwoGreekwords(Plokanon,seidmena,etc.)fordiscussion,amongotherthings.(Derrida, 1987: 185)

The significance for the Villette project of Derrida’s tutor-textanddiagramcanberevealedbyturningtotheseconditerationofhisreadingofthechorainPlato’sTimaeus.Theseconditeration—re-memberingthat‘iterationalwaysinvolvesaltera-tion’-istheusethathasbeenmadeofDerrida’schoralgriddiagramandreadingbyGregoryUlmerinhisownresearchesintopedagogy,method,andinvention (Tofts, 2004:59).

Chorography

Thechoralgriddiagram—withthekhoraascrible,sieveorsift—appearsonthecoverofTeletheory(1989),thesecondbookinUlmer’strilogyofinven-tion.It also features prominently in the final section ofTeletheory inUlmer’sexampleofamystoricalcompilation: ‘Derrida at the Little Bighorn.’ Here, it wouldseem,UlmerdrawsonEisenman’sinsightthat‘thequarryisaformofchora’tothinkthroughthe “mystorical” significance of his father Walt’s SandandGravelplantandthesievingscreensusedtheretosizegravel.Yet,in‘DerridaattheLittle Bighorn’ the notion of khora andthechoralgrid are relativelyminorelementsinakindoflargercollage-montagetextwhichdrawstogetherthethreeregistersofthepersonal,thepopular,andtheacademic.

ItisnotuntilHeuretics (1994),thethirdbookinhistrilogyoflearningthroughdiscoveryandinven-tion,thatUlmermostfullyincorporatesDerrida’sreadingofkhora(andnotjustthesketchdiagramDerridahastilyfurnishesbywayofillustration/dis-tillation).InHeuretics,khoraholdsakeyplaceinUlmer’sdevelopmentof‘thelogicofinvention’(heuretics)asamethodfor‘thinkingandwritingelectronically’(Ulmer,1994).[6]

Tobeginwith,Ulmerdiscoversthat‘inorderforrhetorictobecomeelectronic,thetermandcon-ceptoftopic ortopos mustbereplacedbychora’initsricheryetmoreenigmaticsense.(Ulmer,1994:48)‘This,’Ulmerwrites,‘iswhatIlearnedfromDerrida’(48).“Place”(ormoreaccurately

Diag

ramm

atology

����

khora) subsequently holds twofold significance for Ulmer.First,itestablishesa‘valuableresonanceforarhetoricofinventionconcernedwiththehis-toryof‘place’inrelationtomemory’(39).Second-ly,andworkingfromanunderstandingofkhora as‘anareainwhichgenesistakesplace,’Ulmerseesanaspectofthetaskofhisstudyto‘rethinktheassociationofinventionwithplacebefore“place”wassplitinto toposandchora’(48&70).

Furthermore,indevelopingthisheureticmethod,thedocumentaryrecordoftheEisenman/Derridabrainstormingsessionsisreadasavitalexampleoflearning(andproblem-solving)throughinven-tion.Ulmersuggeststhat inthesesessionsDerridaperformsakindofdoublemanoeuvre.Derrida’scontributiontothedesign‘istoproposetoEisen-manthePlatonicnotionofspace[…]notsomuchfortheirownsakebutasamodelforaninventionstrategy.Choraevokesanimageofcosmologicalcreationforaparkofcreativity’(63).Atthesametime,

DerridamimedtheunusualstrategyofSocratesinthisdialogue[intheTimaeus].Ratherthanleadingthediscussionashenor-mallydid,hereSocratesplacedhimselfinthepositionoflistener,ofactivereceiverorrecep-tacle,ofthediscourse.[…]Inthesixplanningsessionsleadingtothedesignofthefolly,DerridaperformsTimaeusandplaceshimselfinthesamerelationshiptoPeterEisenmanandhiscollaboratorsthatSocratesheldinrelationtoTimaeusandhiscompanions.Der-ridamimesSocrates,then,butitisnottheinterrogating Socrates of Platonism. In the first session,Derridaexplainsthathecomestotheprojectwithoneideathathewantstointro-duce into the process. (Ulmer, 1994: 64-65)

This“idea,”asnotedearlier,isthe“impossiblesurface”ofthechora.

An impossible surface: the perfect figure or “meta-phor,”itwouldseem,foranimpossibleproject.AsUlmerputsit,‘thegoal[withVillette]isnotjustto

designafollybuttoexploretheinventionprocessitselfbymeansofthisproblem’(Ulmer,1994:66).HereinlaysUlmer’sinterestintheproject:‘theim-possibilityofchorographyisanalogoustoEisen-man’s difficulty when he accepted choraastheprogramforhisfolly.Hehadtogivearchitecturalformtothatwhichisunrepresentable’(66).Itis,forUlmer,aquestionofdeveloping‘themethodofnomethod(thepossibleimpossible)’(67).Thenamehegivestothis‘no-method’ofinvention,this‘il-logicofsense,’is“heuretics.”Andif‘thegeneralnameforgeneratingamethodoutoftheoryisheuretics,theparticularnameofthemethodischorography’(39)—amethodthatisdesignedfor‘writingandthinkingelectronically’inanageofelectronic hypermedia (45). Ulmer characterises thismethod(afterJ.HillisMiller)asthinkingthatis‘goal-directedwithoutknowingexactlywhereitisgoing (it is tele-illogical)’ (Ulmer, 1989: 19; Ulmer, 1994: 47); it is learning that is ‘more like discovery than proof’ (Ulmer, 1994: 57).

Ulmer’sstudyhasnotbeenwithoutcriticism.[7]Even so, it has had lasting influence and remains aparticularlyimportantcontributionin‘bringingintorelationshipthethreelevelsofsense—com-mon, explanatory, and expert’ (Ulmer, 1989: vii); indevelopingamethod(heuretics,chorography)for ‘thinking electronically’ (Ulmer, 1994: 45); and initsemphasisonthe(il)logicofinvention(andonrethinkingthe“place”ofinvention).[8]

Chorographical coincidence: the double winnow/window

To these first two iterations of the Derridean (ar-chitectural)diagram(andthatistosayofdiagram-matologyingeneral),athirdcanbeadded.Inthecourseofwritingtheprecedingtext,andthrough-outmyownongoingresearchintotele-technolo-giesandissuesofplaceandcommunity,acertainchorographicalcoincidencehaspresentedandcontinuestopresentitselftome.Thecoincidenceisthis:thereisanuncannysimilaritybetweentheDerrideanchoralgridorsievediagramandMicro-soft’sWindowsXPicon.Indeed,thetwocanbeoverlayed,oneontopoftheother,tocreateacol-

Diag

ramm

atology

����

lage-montage,akindofdoublewinnow/windoworfilter/screen.Whatisofinterestinthiscoincidenceisthecapac-ityofthediagram–andofthisparticulardiagram—‘toorganizeandsuspenddiversekindsofin-formationwithinasinglegraphicorsetofgraphicconfigurations’ (Lobsinger, 2000: 22). To offer, that is,‘alogicalandabstractmeansforrepresent-ing,thinkingaboutandexplainingthecomplexdynamicandinformationdenseconditionsweconfront;’ to serve, in other words, as a conceptual

tool‘thatapproximatesourexperienceofthereal’(Lobsinger,2000:22).

Thecoincidenceofthedoublewinnow/windowdiagramisexploredhereasakindof guidingfigure (or “interpretive filter”) for engaging with the interminglednatureofcontemporaryteletechnolo-gies–onewhichdrawsfromboththeDerrideanandUlmerianiterationsofthechoraldiagram.Thisengagementwithteletechnologiesviatheoverlayeddoublewinnow/windowdiagramfollowsUlmer’snotionofelectronicwritinginsofarasitismoreconcernedwithdiscoverythanproof.Thatistosay,itisprospective,inthesenseofminingorprospecting,anopeninguptospeculationofvarious“veins”(withinthelodethatconstitutesthewholeapparatusofteletechnologyingeneral)inordertoseewhattheymightyieldandwheretheymightlead.

YetIhesitatetodescribethediscoveryofthisco-incidence,asUlmermight,asa“Eurekamoment.”

Rather,itisacoincidencethatisresistedduetoafearthatinaligningtheWindowsicon(whichstands as a kind of metonym not just for Bill Gates andMicrosoftandallthatbothmightrepresent,butforglobalisedtelecommunicationsandmediaproductioningeneral)withthechoralgrid(whichinasimilarwaymightstand,metonymically,forthephilosophyofJacquesDerrida)thereisarisk,throughthissurfacealignment,ofmerelyperpe-tratingyetanotherformofviolenceagainstDerridaandtheintricaciesofhisthought(nottomentionagainstUlmerandhisthought).

However,despitesuchanunlikelyconvergence,suchapprehension,itwouldseem,neednotberestrictive.ItisDerridawhoinfactwritesthat‘interestingcoincidencesarenecessarycoinci-dences’(Derrida,1987:171).[9]

Coincidencemustbeloved,received,treatedinacertainway.Thequestionis,inwhichway?Coincidencemustberespected,thoughitisnoteasy.Suchrespectdemandsanori-entation,adispositionandexercisetorespecttheimportantaspectsofthecoincidence.(Derrida,1987:172)

Inthepresentcontext,then,whatmightthisdispositionbe?Thefollowingpreliminaryobserva-tionsprovideausefulinitialpointoforientationanddeparturefromwhichtoexerciseandrespecttheimportantaspectsofthechorographicalcoinci-dencesuggestedintheabovediagram(andin/bydiagrammatology).Theetymologyofdiagram(di/a +gram)revealssomethingofthepotentialthatdiagrammatologyandtheabovedoublewinnow/windowdiagramholdfornegotiatingbinarythink-ingandforcriticallyengagingwiththecontempo-raryapparatusofteletechnologies.Accordingtoonepossiblederivationoftheworddiagram,di-isfromtheGreekdis-,meaning‘twice,two,double’.Andaccordingtoasecond,morecommonety-mologicalformation,dia-means‘through,’and–gram,fromgrapho,means‘towrite,’and‘de-notesathingwrittenorrecorded,ofteninacertainway’(diagrammatically,forexample).Thus,dia-

Diag

ramm

atology

����

grammatologypermitsthepossibilityofthinkingthroughthedouble(di).Thatistosay,itisthroughwriting(dia+gram)thatoneisabletothink throughbinaries,inbothsensesofthewordthrough:asawayofsimultaneouslyworkingwithandagainstbinaryoppositions,of‘undoing-preserving’op-positesasSpivakputsit(Spivak,1997:xliii).[10]Itisthisveryactof‘thinkingthroughopposites,’of‘undoing-preserving,’thatIseeascapturedintheaforementionedchorographicalcoincidenceofthedoublewinnow/window.

Let us (re)turn – albeit far too briefly and only by wayofoutline–totheissueofthediagram,andof this particular winnow/window (filter/screen) diagram,asanabstractmeansforrepresenting,thinkingaboutandexplainingthecomplexcon-ditionsweface,andthequestionofwhattheseconditionsmightbe.

Ifanamecouldbeputtothiswinnow/windowdia-gram,itmightwellbeadoublename–thatwhichDerridatermsthe‘twotraits’ofactuality:“arti-factuality”and“actuvirtuality”(Derrida&Stiegler,2002:3).Thecoiningofthesetwo‘portmanteaunicknames’(3)isacontinuationofDerrida’sdeep-seatedinterestin‘thinkingthroughbinaries’andrevealingwhatNiallLucydescribesas‘the“apo-retic”moment’or“blindspots”thatstructurealloppositionallogic(Lucy,2004:1).Inthisparticularinstance,theseissuesareexploredbyDerridaaroundaconsiderationofthenotionofactualityand“ourexperienceofthepresent[…]assome-thingthatisproduced(made,madeup)”(Lucy,2004:3).Actuality,Derridawrites,‘isnotgivenbutactivelyproduced,sifted,invested,performativelyinterpretedbynumerousapparatuseswhicharefactitiousorartificial,hierarchizingandselective[…]’(Derrida&Stiegler,2002:3).Derridacoinstheterm“artifactuality”todescribethesepro-cesses.Thesecondtraitof“actuality”iscapturedinDerrida’sinsistence‘onaconceptofvirtuality(virtualimage,virtualspace,andsovirtual event)thatcandoubtlessnolongerbeopposed,inper-fectphilosophicalserenity,toactualrealityinthewaythatphilosophersusedtodistinguishbetween

powerandact,dynamis andenergeia,’andsoforth(Derrida &Stiegler,2002:6).Derridacoinstheterm“actuvirtuality”todescribethissecondtrait.Theimportofthisinsistenceontheartifactuality/actuvirtualityofteletechnologicalexperienceis‘toletthefutureopen’(Derrida&Stiegler,2002:21):Itistoshowthatwhatcountsasactualityinthepresent can no longer be confined to the ontologi-caloppositionoftheactualandthevirtual,despitetheongoingnecessityofthisoppositiontoeveryformofpolitics.(Lucy,2004:6)

Derrida’s‘thinkingthrough’ofthetraditionalonto-logicaloppositionoftheactualandthevirtual(andoftheactualasthe‘undeconstructibleoppositeof artifice and the artefact’) thus holds manifold implicationsformediaandculturaltheorythatex-tendfarbeyondasimplecommentaryonthewayinwhichmediaproduceratherthansimplyrecordevents(Lucy,2004:4).Thisreadingnecessitatesaresponsibilitytoanalysethemedia,‘tolearnhowthedailies,theweeklies,thetelevisionnewspro-gramsaremade,andby whom’(Derrida&Stiegler,2002:4).Aresponsibilitythatismadeallthemoreurgentbythefactthat,inourtime,‘theleastac-ceptablethingontelevision,ontheradio,orinthenewspaperstodayisforintellectualstotaketheirtimeortowasteotherpeople’stimethere’(Derrida&Stiegler,2002:6-7).

Moreover,notonlydoesartifactualityandactuvir-tualitynecessitatearesponsibilitytoanalyseme-dia,itisaresponsibilitythatisopentothefutureandopentotheother.Suchanunderstandingoftheactualaswhatisalways‘actively produced’and‘performativelyinterpreted’isnotanexcusefordisengagingfrompubliclifeorforaffectingadisinterestinreal-his-toricalevents.Iftheconditionofactualityisthatitmustbemade,thenitmustbeabletobemadedifferently[…].Thatiswhyit’spossibletomakeanotherartefactoftheother—asthearrivant,theabsolutestranger.(Lucy,2004:6)

Inpracticalterms,Lucysuggests,‘remainingasopenaspossibletotheradicalalterityofothers[…]meansonlythat,asaplacefromwhichto

Diag

ramm

atology

����

start,anartefactoftheotherarrivantleavesopenthegreatestspaceforthepossibilityofanon-vio-lentfuturetocome’(Lucy,2004:6).Toreturn,momentarily,tothewinnow/windowdiagram:whereDerrida’schoralgridservesasadiagrammaticdistillationofhisreadingofthechorasectionoftheTimaeus,thewinnow/window(filter/screen) diagram serves as a distillation of Derrida’stwinnotionsartifactualityandactuvirtu-ality.Thatistosay,this,thethird,iterationofthechoraldiagramfunctionsasakindofpromptorreminderoftheresponsibilitytoanalysethemedia,andformediaandculturaltheorists(etc.),tore-mainopentothefutureandtotheother.Yet,theinsightsgainedfromthisreadingofthetwinfacetsofactualitycanbeextendedaccord-ingtoaslightlydifferentyetcomplementarysetofconsiderations.Thischangeindirectionmightbesummarisedaccording tothefollowingcrudedelineation.IfDerrida’sreadingoftheactualcanbetakentoactivate(orbeabstractedin)thediagram’swinnowingfunctionasacriticalinterpre-tive filterforengagingwithteletechnologies,thesecondsetofconsiderationsaredistilledinandframedbythewindow/screenaspectofthissamediagram,andcanbeusefullyintroducedviatherelayofhumour.

Joke:

Q. What architectural element do Jacques Derrida and Bill Gates have a shared interest in?A.glas/swindows.

Thisjokeisn’tveryfunny.Thecentralpuninthisjokecertainlywasn’tfunny forPeterEisenmanashe reflected back on his Villette collaboration with Derrida:

Jacques,youaskmeaboutthesupplement andtheessentialinmywork.Youcrystallizethesequestionsintheterm/word/materialglas/s.Youglazeoverthefactthatyourcon-ceptualplaywiththemultifacetedtermglasisnotsimplytranslatableinto architecturalglass.

Oneunderstandsthattheassumptionoftheidentityofthematerialglassandyourideasofglas, in their superficial resemblance of letters, ispreciselytheconcernofliterarydeconstruc-tion; but this becomes a problem when one turnstotheeventofbuilding.Thisdifferenceisimportant.Forthoughonecanconceptual-izeinthebuildingmaterialglass,itisnotonlyasyousuggest—asanabsenceofsecrecy,asaclarity.Whileglassisaliteralpresenceinarchitecture,italsoindexesanabsence,avoidinasolidwall.Thusglassinarchitectureistraditionallysaidtobebothpresenceandabsence.(Eisenman,1987:187)

WhilethisjokewasapparentlynolaughingmatterforEisenman,theglasswindowservesasausefulframeforengagingwithcontemporaryteletech-nologiesandattendantissuessuchaspresenceandabsence,publicandprivate,transparencyandsecrecy,andsoforth.

The Australian media theorist Scott McQuire plac-esthearchitecturalwindowinabroadercontextof a ‘cultural history of transparency’ (McQuire, 2003: 103-123). This context enables McQuire to‘sketchaculturallogiclinkingthemodernistprojectofarchitecturaltransparencytothecon-temporaryrepositioningofthehomeasaninterac-tivemediacentre’—charting,inotherwords,a‘shiftfromglasswindowstoscreenwalls’inbothanarchitecturalsense(asinthemuch-publicisedGateshouse),andintheriseofmediaphenomenasuchastheBig Brothertelevisionfranchise(Mc-Quire, 2003: 103,110, passim). In the case of Big Brother, what McQuire identifies in this program is areconceptualisationofprivateandpublicspacewheretheprivateisgivenupinthenameofpublicentertainment (McQuire, 2003: 119). And while thistransformationoftheprivate‘maywellofferaglimpseofamoreopensocietywithgreatertrans-parencyininterpersonalrelations,’itissuggestedthat‘thispromiseshouldalsobeseenaspartofthehistoricalprocessbywhichsurveillancehasbeennormalisedinthenameofminimisingsocialrisk’ (McQuire, 2003: 119). McQuire posits that the

Diag

ramm

atology

����

popularityofprogramssuchasBig Brother‘mightbeseenastheentertainmentcomplementtootherpoliciesof “borderprotection”whichpreoccupythecontemporarynation-stateswimmingthetides of globalisation’ (McQuire, 2003: 120). It is a particularlyappositeremarkgiventhatDerrida’sthinkingonteletechnologiesandtheactualispart-and-parcelofhisthinkingonabroaderEuropean(andglobal)geopoliticalcontextthatismarkedbyreneweddesireforthe“home,”inbothitsdomes-ticsenseandinamorethreateningnationalisticsense(Derrida&Stiegler,2002:79-80).

Thissamegeopoliticalandglobalcontext—char-acterisedbyanoverabundanceofinformationandagrowingtangleofinterdependencies,accordingto one account (Augé, 1995: 28) — is also seen to have dramatically reconfigured the very nature of interpersonalcommunicationthroughanincreas-inglycomplexinterplayofpresenceandabsence.Concomitantwithandoverlappingthisinterplayisanequallycomplexinterminglingofpublicandprivatespaceandof“actual”and“virtual”space(actuvirtuality)tocreateapeculiarkindofparadoxwhichtheanthropologist MarcAugécharacterisesasthecreationofan‘excessofspacecorrela-tive with the shrinking of the planet’ (Augé, 1995). Augécoinstheterm“non-places”’todescribethisexpandingexcess.“Non-spaces”arethoseinter-stitialzoneswherewespendanever-increasingproportionofourlives:insupermarkets,airports,hotels,cars,onmotorways,andinfrontofATMs,TVsandcomputers.Augéarguesthatanewformofanthropology—an“anthropologyofsupermo-dernity”—isrequiredifweare tobegintoaccountforandmakesenseoftheseteletechnological“non-places” (Augé, 1995: passim).

AkeypointtoaddtoAugé’saccountofthenon-placesofsupermodernity(toemployhisphrase)isthatcomputer-mediatedcommunicationandthe endless flow of global informational and media vectorsisa priori anchored in the flows of the everyday. The global is filtered through the local, inotherwords.Justasimportantly,teletechnologi-calmachines,andcomputersinparticular,areno

longer stationary items; they are increasingly min-iaturisedandmademobile.[11]Thus,inthefaceofglobalisedcommunications,wecannotaffordtolosesightoftherealitythatcyberspacetemporal-ityisexperiencedfromthelocaland,increasingly,fromlocalmobility,fromourownmovementintimethroughspace,whetherthisbeintransit(citystreets,train,plane,automobile)oratanyofanumber of possible destinations (home, car, office, library,hotel,transitlounge).Inshort,andtostatethedeceptivelysimple:‘wehavetorelearnhowto think about space’ (Augé, 1995: 36). In part this requiresrelearninghowtothinkaboutspaceasteletechnologicalspace.Andinlightofincreasedtechnologicalmobility,suchspatialrelearning,asAugésuggests,alsoinvolvesthinkingabout‘spaceasfrequentationofplaces[and‘non-plac-es’] rather than a place’ (Augé, 1995: 85).Itcouldbesuggested,then,thatanyprojectthatattemptstorethinkplaceandteletechnologyintheseterms,tofollowingAugé’slead,needstopayattentionto‘factorsofsingularity:’singularityofobjects,ofgroupsormemberships,the reconstruction of places; the singularities of all sortsthatconstituteaparadoxicalcounterpointtotheproceduresofinterrelation,accelerationanddelocalization[and Iwouldaddrelocalisation]sometimescarelesslyreducedandsummarizedinexpressionslike‘homogenizationofculture’or‘world culture’. (Augé, 1995: 39-40)Inthecontextoftheabovediscussionoftheactualandthevirtual,inside/outside,andthequestionoftheother,itisnoteworthythat,forAugé,within‘thecontemporaryworld[…]withitsacceleratedtransformations’thereis‘arenewedmethodical reflection on the category of otherness’ (Augé, 1995: 24).

Agreatdealmorecouldbesaidhereaboutthewindowandinterfaceculture.However,Iwilllimitmyselftothefollowingconcludingremarks,whichconcernapastthreadintheAssociationofInter-netResearchers(AoIR)emaillistwheremanyoftheaboveissuesresurface.Atthetime,thisthreadgenerated considerable debate and a flurry of postings.Itdevelopedfromaninitialquestioning

Diag

ramm

atology

����

ofthesuitabilityofdrawingonnotionsofspaceandplaceandotherlikemetaphorswhenwritingabouttheInternetandrelatedtechnologies.Anearlypostinginthisexchangedeclaredadeter-minedresistancetothecontinueduseofthetermspaceinsuchresearch:

Ibelievethattheemploymentofsuchtermsas‘space’and‘cyberspace’inpopularandacademicwritingsaboutthecomputerandInternettechnologiesmakesitseemlikerepresentationsareakindofmaterialenviron-ment.Thiswritingrepeatsandevenenhancesdesignstrategiesthatdescribesynchronoussettingsas‘rooms,’Internetmapsthatpro-duce unnecessary and fictive geographies, andprogrammingthatmakesusers’progres-sionthroughsitesseemlikebodilymovement.SuchvisceralrenderingsdiscouragecriticalinterventionsintoInternetrepresentationsbecause sites seem tangible. The conflation of space-producingdiscourseswithuserinvest-mentinparticularsitesandidentitiesthreatenstomakestereotypes‘real.’Therepresentedbodies of Internet settings are ‘fleshed out’ becausethereseemstobeanenvironmentthatcansupportvariedbodilyprocesses.Computerrepresentationscanalsojustifytheperpetuationofphysicalbutcertainlynotnecessaryornaturalconditionsbymirroringmaterialcircumstances.(White,2004)

The post concludes with the qualifier: ‘I also continuetoponderotherwaysthatwecanwriteaboutandexperiencetechnologies’(White,2004).Inresponsetothispartingremark,anothercontributorwonderswhethertheaboveposter,orothersonthelist,has‘analternativesuggestion[thatmightbeoffered]constructivelyinadditionto pointing out flaws of the space and place metaphors?’ (Bunz, 2004) Alternatives were not forthcoming; one suggestion eventually put forwardisthesomewhatprosaicandalternativeterm“setting.”

WhatseemstobeplayedoutintheAoIRdebatebears certain, albeit qualified, resemblances to the difficulties facing Derrida and Eisenman, and Ulmer after them: the difficulty of representingtheunrepresentable.Whichistosay,thissameproblematicalsocharacterisesmuchcontemporary(andpast)discourseonteletechnologiesand“cyberspace:”akindofceaselessstrainingtocometotermswith,to define and delimit that which, through its intermingledcharacteranddiffusion,increasinglyevades simple conception and strict definition. FurthercomplicatingthisalreadycomplicatedsceneisthefactthatwhatarguablyliesattheheartoftheAoIRplace/spacedebateareequallyfraughtconsiderationsof(andattemptstorepresent)vexedissuessuchassubjectivity,(dis)embodiment,andotherness,tonameafew.Itisinthiscontext,forthisreason,thatitwouldbeinterestingtopositkhoraasafurtheralternative(orsupplement)tospace/place/setting.Ofcourse,thereismeritinproposingthisalternative(orsupplementary)term,but,asDerridamightsuggest,writing“sous rature”(“undererasure”),renderingthewordinstrikethroughfont—khora—inordertohighlightitsstatusasprovisional,inadequate.Redeployedinthisway,khoraisusefulinsofarasitstandsasonenamethatcanbegiventothatwhichisunnameable.Italsoshedslightontheongoingstruggletocometotermswiththeissueofsubjectivityandthecategoryoftheother,bothofwhichunderpinsomuchofcomputer-mediatedcommunicationsresearch.SomeofthisilluminatingpotentialisdiscernibleinthefollowingsummaryofDerrida’sthinkingonkhora:

asDerridaseesit[…]khora isthatthirdthing(betweentheintelligibleandthesensible)thatmakesitpossibletothinkanythinglikethedifferencebetweenpurebeingandpurenothingness(orbetweenmyautonomousself-hood and your autonomous otherness); it is whatmakesitpossibletothinkthedifferencebetween‘I’and‘you.’(Lucy,2004:68)

Diag

ramm

atology

����

AndwhileUlmerclearlydevelopsthenotionofkhoraindifferentdirectionstowhatissuggestedintheabovepassage,hisunderstandingofchorographynonethelessmakesforanimportantadditionallayerhere.‘Choraevokeselectronicmedia,’hewrites, it ‘concernsnotthisorthatmachine,notawinnowingbasketoraconvexmirror,not a computer monitor, but machinery or technology as such’(Ulmer,1994:69,emphasisadded).Thatistosay,asanothertermforheuretics,orthelogicofinvention,Ulmer’sunderstandingofkhorabringstomindboththenotionof poesisasrevealingormakingingeneral(such as Heidegger develops it in ‘The Question ConcerningTechnology’andelsewhere),aswellasDonaldTheall’sconceptionof‘thepoetic’asanorganisingtermforallformsof‘inventiveculturalproductions’ (Theall, 1995: xiii).

Thus,iftheoperationofthediagram,itsfunction,istosuggest,asDeleuzeclaims,hopefullywhatmightbesuggestedbytheabovewinnow/windowdiagramisapromptinadoublesense.Itoperatesasamnemonic(ormnemotechnical)device:areminderoftheintermingledandambivalentnatureoftheactualandthevirtual,andoftheresponsibilitytoanalysewhatDerridacallsthewholeapparatusofteletechnologyingeneral.(Derrida&Stiegler,2002)And,atthesametime,itservesasareminderorprompt‘toletthefutureopen,’toengagewith the‘possibleimpossible’ofinvention:anencouragementtoinvent,toact,andtoinventnewactualitieswhichremainasopenaspossibletotheradicalalterityofothers.

Notes

[1]Forexample,seeANY,23(1998),Daidalos,74(October,2000)andPeterEisenman’sDiagram Diaries (1999).Eisenman,itshouldbenoted,doesnotentirelyabandonDerridainhisembraceofthearchitecturaldiagram.Forexample,Derrida’sread-ing of Freud’s ‘mystic writing pad’ figures promi-nentlyinEisenman’sdiscourseondiagrams.Thismakesforaninterestingpointofcomparisonwithcyberculturalcriticism,wherethissameessayby

Derrida also figures prominently. See, in particular, ToftsandMcKeich(1998).

[2] I am not the first to use this term. For example, ina1981essayonspatialforminliterature,W.J.T.Mitchellmakesthefollowingargumentfordia-grammatology,whichhassomerelevanceforhowIwishtoemploythetermhere:‘Sinceweseemunabletoarticulateourintuitionsorinterpretationsofformalcharacteristicsinliteratureandtheotherartsexceptbyrecourseto“sensible”or“spatial”constructs(notjustdiagramsandnotjustvisualforms),thenwhynotdoitexplicitly,consciously,and,mostimportant,systematically?Ifwecannotgetatformexceptthroughthemediationofthingslikediagrams,dowenotthenneedsomethinglikediagrammatology,asystematicstudyofthewaythatrelationshipsamongelementsarerepresentedandinterpretedbygraphicconstructions?’(Mitch-ell,1981:622-623).

[3]ThispartialtextisreproducedinKipnisandLeeser,1987.Alongerversionofthistextappearsas ‘Khora,’ in Derrida, 1995: 89-127.

[4]OrasNiallLucyputsit,‘khoraisthepre-philo-sophical,pre-originarynon-locatablenon-spacethatexistedwithoutexistingbeforethecosmos.Somethinglikethat.Itssingularity—andthisisthepoint—isitsveryresistancetobeingidenti-fied; it is what philosophy cannot name.’ (Lucy, 2004:68)

[5] Although ‘collaboration’ is a particularly prob-lematictermfordescribingtheDerrida/Eisenman‘ChoralWork,’ForDerrida,itis‘certainlynotacollaboration.Itisevenlessanexchange.’Rather,‘it isadoubleparasiticlaziness,’orwhatEisen-manterms‘separatetricks.’SeeDerridainKipnisandLeeser,1987:111andEisenmaninKipnisandLeeser,1987:132-136.ThisissueisalsodiscussedbyJeffreyKipnisatlengthinthesamevolume,137-160.

[6]Inalateressay,Derrida’sunderstandingofcho-raalsoholdsakeyplaceforUlmerasthe‘theory’

Diag

ramm

atology

����

for his ‘Traffic of the Spheres’ project which pro-posesa‘MEmorial’tothosekilledincarcrashes.SeeUlmer,2001:327-343.ThissameessayalsoprovidesahumorousaccountofUlmer’sperplex-ingdalliancewitharchitecturaleducation.‘Iwenttoanacademicadvisor,amanwearingahearingaidthatseemedtogivehimconsiderabletrouble.Itfunctionedlessasaprosthesisandmoreasasign– “Iamdeaf.”“I’minterestedinthenotionofDasein,”Itoldhim.“CouldyourecommendaclassImighttakethatwoulddealwithDaseininmoredetail?”Hesentmetoacourseinarchitecture,anintroductiontodesign.Ihaveneverbeenabletodecidewhethertheadvicewasamistakeornot,’(331-332).

[7]Forexample:‘Whatamystoryendsuplookinglike […] judging by “Derrida at the Little Bighorn,” isa canonic literary memoir,beautifullywrittenandfashionablydiscontinuous,andsuitablyapocalyp-ticin tone.’(Lucy,2001:130)

[8]Ulmer’sprojectofdevelopinga‘logicofinven-tion’(heuretics)sharesmarkedsimilaritieswiththeworkoftheCanadianmediatheoristDonaldTheallandhisdualnotionsofan‘ecologyofsense’(anadaptation of Gregory Bateson’s theory of the ecologyofmind)and‘thepoetic’(anumbrellatermforallformsof‘inventiveculturalproduc-tions’).Curiously,thesesimilaritieshavelargelypassedwithoutremark,althoughtheyareplayfullyacknowledgedinthetitleofthepresentvolumewiththetwokeyconcepts(‘logicofinvention’and‘ecologyofsense’)conjoinedtoformakindofportmanteautitle.OnTheall’swork,seeinparticu-lar: Theall,1995 and Tofts, 1997: 32-36.

[9]AsUlmerputsit,‘Choraisaboutthecrossingofchanceandnecessity,whosenaturemaybediscernedonlyindirectlyinthenames[andIwouldadd,theideasandassociations]generatedbyapunceptratherthanasaconcept(orparadigm)[….]’(2001:332).

[10]Part-and-parcelofthisprocessof‘undo-pre-serving’oppositesisremembering,asMeaghan

Morrisremarks,that‘binarization,too,hasdiffer-ingaspects:’‘notallbinarizedtermsareopposedterms(thedrawingofadistinctionisnotnecessar-ilyoppositional),andoppositionscanbealternat-ing, or ‘only relative’ […], as well as rigidly divisive; no positioning of a term is final, and ‘nonsymmetri-cal’reversalsarealwayspossiblebetweenterms[…]’(Morris,1996:393).

[11]Onemightsaythatteletechnologicalequip-mentingeneral,andcomputersinparticular,areundergoing an increasing transmogrification in formandusefromstationaryitemstostationeryitems:devicesthataresmall,transportable,andoftendesignedwithaestheticsasmuchasfunc-tioninmind.

References

ANY (‘Diagram Work’ special issue, eds Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos), 23 (1998).

Augé,Marc.Non-Places: Introduction to an An-thropology of Supermodernity,trans.JohnHowe(London & New York: Verso, 1995).

Bennington, Geoffrey, and Jacques Derrida. Jacques Derrida, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chi-cago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1993).

Bunz, Ulla. ‘Re: first post (An Internet without Space)’,postingtoair-l@aoir.orgmailinglist,3February(2004).

Confurius,Gerrit.‘Editorial,’Daidalos,74(October,2000): 4-5.

Daidalos(‘Diagrammania’specialissue,ed.GerritConfurius),74(October,2000).

Deleuze,Gilles.‘TheDiagram,’inConstantinV.Boundas (ed.) The Deleuze Reader,trans.Con-stantin V. Boundas (New York: Columbia University Press,1993),193-200.

Derrida,Jacques.‘LettertoPeterEisenman,’in

Diag

ramm

atology

����

JeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork: The Monacelli Press, 1987), 182-185.

____.‘WhyPeterEisenmanWritesSuchGoodBooks,’ in Jeffrey Kipnis and Thomas Leeser (eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),95-101.

——.‘Psyche:InventionsoftheOther,’trans.CatherinePorterinLindsayWatersandWladGodzich(eds)Reading de Man Reading(Minneap-olis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 25-65.

——.‘Khora,’trans.IanMcLeodinJacquesDerrida,On the NameeditedbyThomasDutoit(Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,1995), 89-127.

Derrida,Jacques,Eisenman,PeterandKipnis,Jeffrey.‘TranscriptSeven,’inJeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Der-rida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),104-112.

Derrida,Jacques,Eisenman,PeterandKipnis,Jef-frey.‘TranscriptOne,’inJeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),7-13.

Derrida,Jacques,andKipnis,Jeffrey.‘Afterword,’inJeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),166-172.

Derrida, Jacques, and Stiegler, Bernard. Echogra-phies of Television: Filmed Interviews,trans.Jen-nifer Bajorek (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002).

Eisenman,Peter.‘Post/elCards:AReplytoJacquesDerrida,’inJeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),187-189.

——.‘SeparateTricks’,inJeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Der-rida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),132-136.

——.Diagram Diaries(London:ThamesandHud-son,1999).

Kipnis,Jeffrey,‘TwistingtheSeparatrix,’inJeffreyKipnisandThomasLeeser(eds)Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987),137-160.

Kipnis,Jeffrey,andLeeser,Thomas(eds).Chora L Works: Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman(NewYork:TheMonacelliPress,1987).

Lobsinger,MaryLou.‘CedricPrice:AnArchitec-tureofthePerformance,’Daidalos,74(October2000):22-29.

Lucy,Niall. Beyond Semiotics: Text, Culture and Technology (LondonandNewYork:Continuum,2001).

——.A Derrida Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).

McQuire, Scott. ‘From Glass Architecture to Big Brother:ScenesfromaCulturalHistoryofTrans-parency,’Cultural Studies Review9(1)(May,2003):103-123.

Mitchell,W.J.T.‘Diagrammatology,’Critical In-quiry,Spring(1981):622-633.

Morris,Meaghan.‘CrazyTalkIsNotEnough,’En-vironment and Planning D: Society and Space,14(1996):384-394.

Speaks,Michael.‘It’sOutThere…TheFormalLimitsofTheAmericanAvant-Garde,’inStephenPerrella (ed.) ‘Architectural Design Profile, No. 133: “HypersurfaceArchitecture,’’’inArchitectural De-sign, 68 (5-6) (London: Academy Editions, 1998):

Diag

ramm

atology

�0�0�0�

26-31.

Spivak,GayatriChakravorty.‘Translator’sPref-ace’,inJacques DerridaOf Grammatologytrans.Gayatri Spivak corrected edition (Baltimore and London:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1997),ix-lxxxvii.

Theall,Donald. Beyond the Word: Reconstructing Sense in the Joyce Era of Technology, Culture and Communication(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress, 1995).

Tofts,Darren.‘FuzzyCulture,’21·C, 25 (1997): 32-36.

——.‘®

↑ ®:DiacriticsforLocalConsumption,’Meanjin,2(2001):102-114.

Tofts,Darren,andMcKeich,Murray.Memory Trade: A Prehistory of Cyberculture(NorthRyde,NSW:21·C/Interface,1998).

Tschumi, Bernard. Cinégramme Folie: Le Parc de la Villette(Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonArchi-tecturalPress,1987).

Ulmer,GregoryL.Teletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1989).

——.Heuretics: The Logic of Invention (Baltimore andLondon:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1994).

——. ‘Traffic of the Spheres: Prototype for a ME-morial,’ in Mikita Brottman (ed.) Car Crash Culture(NewYork:Palgrave,2001),327-343.

White, Michele. ‘Re: first post (An Internet without Space),’postingtoair-l@aoir.orgmailinglist,3February(2004).

Diag

ramm

atology

����

From Mystorian to Curmudgeon: Skulking Toward FinitudeMarcel O’Gorman

From M

ystorian to C

urm

ud

geon

: Sku

lking

Toward

Finitu

de

Youwillfeel,ifyoutranscribethepassageinthisorderlyfashion,thattheruggedimpetu-osityofpassion,onceyoumakeitsmoothandequablebyaddingthecopulatives,fallspointless and immediately loses all its fire. Just asthebindingofthelimbsofrunnersdeprivesthemoftheirpowerofrapidmotion,soalsopassion,whenshackledbyconnectinglinksandotherappendages,chafesattherestric-tion,foritlosesthefreedomofitsadvanceanditsrapidemissionasthoughfromanengineofwar.(Longinus,“OnTheSublime”,Chapter21)

HAMLET:Towhatbaseuseswemayreturn,Horatio!Whymaynotimaginationtracethenobledustof Alexander, till he find it stopping a bung-hole?HORATIO:‘Tweretoconsidertoocuriously,toconsiderso.

(WilliamShakespeare,Hamlet,ActV,Scene1)

Curmudgeonly Self-Indulgence

CURMUDGEON:[n]Anavaricious,graspingfel-low; a miser; a niggard; a churl. [OE. cornmudgin, where -mudgin is prob. from OF.; cf. OE. muchares skulkingthieves.]

How did I get here? Only five years ago I was mystoricizingwithGregUlmerinsunnyGaines-ville.Today,ingray,sludgyDetroit,Iamaskingstudentstowriteacademicessays thatexplain

awaytheirexperimentalworkinHTMLandFlash.What’sworse,thecoursetopicIhavechosenthistermisfinitude,humanmortality.Iamonthecuspofbecomingradicallyun-hip,acurmudgeon.Thecurmudgeonsidemakesmesaythingslike:‘mystoriesarefornavel-gazers.’Indeed,thatistheproblemwithassigningmystoriestostudentsduringthewintermonthsinDetroit.Theyusethegenre—adiscursivenetwork(popcycle)ofpopculture,criticaltheory,history,andautobiography—toengageinauto-psychoanalysis.Theygetmiredintheirownsubjectivity,andproduceworkthatisnomoreinnovativethanthenostalgic,self-exploratoryessaysencouragedinfreshmancom-positionclasses.Thecurmudgeonalsosaysthingslike: ‘hypertext is dead.’ There’s that finitude again. Wheredoesthiscommentcomefrom?Maybe,inpart,fromtheboredomIsensewhenclickingthrough the directionless infinity of hypertext fic-tion.And,inpart,fromthewaywritersusedigitalnonlinearityasawayofmaskingpoorwritingskills.And,inpart,frombeingoverwhelmedbytoomuchinformation,mostofitworthless.Whateverthecasemaybe,IamnauseatedbythesenseofnostalgiaIfeelwhenIlookatthecoverofGeorgeP.Landow’sHypertext Theory.Hypertexttheory,too,isdead.Evencriticaltheoryitselfhasbeenliq-uidatedintoaseriesofmenuitemsinPhotoshopandDreamweaver.Whatcomesnext?

Inanattempttoexorcisethecurmudgeon—oratleastexaminehim—I’mgoingtotakethisoppor-tunitytoengageinalittleself-indulgentnavel-gaz-ingmyself.MaybeIcanrescueoratleastrevisitthesenseofpleasurethatIfeltwhilecomposingthevariousUlmer-inspiredmystoriesandother

����

heureticexercisesthatIcompletedoverthepastdecade.Perhaps,aswell,Imightbeabletodis-coverhowIwentfrommystoriantocurmudgeoninsuchashorttime.Mygoal,then,isadmittedlyhermeneutic,which,I’lladmit,isheresyforaheu-retician.RecallingapassageinUlmer’sTeletheory(1989)(IwillonlyrecallUlmerhere,notquotehim)IwillbeginbyappropriatingthemoodofHamletasheponderedforensicsatYorrick’sgrave.Insooth,I suppose there really is no appropriation here; asascholar,Iamalways-alreadymelancholic,always-alreadystaringintotheskull.

A Skull Session with Gregory “Golgotha” Skul-mer[Check thisout]

SKULLFISH:[n]awhaler’snameforawhalemorethantwoyearsold.

The very first mystory I completed was an assign-mentinacriticaltheoryclassatOttawaUniversity,my first real course in theory, and the most dif-ficult I have ever taken. The course was taught byasternGerman,aspecialistinMelvilleandHeidegger,whooncetoldmethat‘nogreatphi-losophyevercameoutofthesouth.’Andyet,hedeignedtoincludeTeletheory(writtenbyaFlorid-ian)onthesyllabus.Eachstudentwasrequiredtoselectatextfromthesyllabusandgiveaseminar-stylepresentation.Admittedly,IwassomewhatintimidatedbyolderPhDstudentsintheclass,andreluctanttomakeaselectionatall.Iwasthelasttochoose, andtheonlytextremainingwasUlmer’s.AllthatIcanrecallofthisclassisaseriesofbefuddlingseminars,whichIfeltweremoreakintomathematicsthanliterature.Icanalsorecallthecigarettebreaks,forwhichIstupidlybravedthebone-chillingpainofaCanadianwinter.

SKULDUGGERY:[n]verbalmisrepresentationintendedtotakeadvantageofyouinsomeway.

I’mnotsurethatIcompletelygraspedwhatUlmerwasuptoinTeletheory,butIknewonethingforcertain:Iwantedtomakeamystory.What’smore,

Iwantedtomakeamystoryonmycomputer,whichatthetimewasa640Kportableunitwithnoharddrive.Whilethisprovedimpossible,Ididmanage to gain access to a 386 in the office of a friendwhoworkedforCorel.Henotonlyloanedmethemachine,but,afterlisteningtomyde-signgoals,healsointroducedmetoFreelanceGraphics,apresentationsoftwarepackagewhosemarketvaluewasdestroyedbyPowerPoint.Us-ing Freelance, I created a mystory with a specific timelinethat scrolledacrossthescreeninaboutthreeminutes.Ilearnedsimultaneouslyhowto“dotheory”andhowtoworkinFreelanceGraphics,bothofwhichIapproachedasanamateur.

SKULKING:[adj]markedbyquietandcautionandsecrecy; taking pains to avoid being observed. Seealso:dodging,escape,evasion.

By the time it came for my seminar on Teletheory,thesnowwasmelting.IremembertheProustianflash of smelling spring as I walked to class, which Ihadarrangedtoholdinacomputerlab.IloadedmyFreelance“slideshow”intoa486equippedwithanLCDprojectorpanel,andsatnervouslyastextblocksandimagesscrolledby,leavingmyclassmatesasbefuddledastheyhadleftmedur-ingtheirownpresentations.Afterthelastwordsscrolledby,theprofessoraskedmetoexplainwhatIhadcreated,butIcouldn’t.Isuggestedthatmymystory,whichintegratedTeletheory itselfintothepopcycle,wasintendedtobeastand-alone,aperformancepiecedesignedtocreate‘aneffect’,provokediscussion.‘Aneffect?’askedtheprofes-sor.‘I’mnotsurewhatyoumean.’NeitherwasI.Ididn’treallyunderstandwhatIhadcreated,andIhadnoparticulargoalinmindwhencreatingit.Iwasworkingblindly,gluingtogethervarioussnip-petsofdiscoursewithoutanyparticulardirectionexcept that offered by the film-like sequencing ef-fectsinFreelance.Duringthesummerterm,Iwasoftenberatedforthisperformance,andlabeledmockinglyas‘amystorian.’

SKOL:[n]Fortranpre-processorforCOS(CrayOperatingSystem).

From M

ystorian to C

urm

ud

geon

: Sku

lking

Toward

Finitu

de

����

Justrecently,Idiscoveredafragmentedcopyofthismystoryonadisketteandloadeditintomyabandoned Pentium II. The “show” flew by so quicklythatitwasnearlyimpossibletoreadthetext.Advancesinprocessingspeedhaverenderedthemystoryunreadable,evenonaPentiumII.

Gibberish: A Digital Hiding Place for Pomo Sapiens[Check thisout]

SCULLER:[n]someonewhoskulls(movesalongoarpivotedonthebackoftheboattopropeltheboatforward).Seealso:oarsman,rower.

IabandonedFreelanceGraphicswhenIenrolledforasecondM.A.,thistimeinCreativeWriting,attheUniversityofWindsor.Acomputerscien-tist, with whom I was discussing Eastgate’s first betaversionofStorySpace,introducedmetoHTMLandtheWorldWideWeb.What heshowedme seemed much more flexible and robust than StorySpace,whichatthetimecouldonlyembedimages as black and white bitmap files. I spent myyearasaCreativeWritingstudentassemblinginfinite hypertext networks of critical theory quotes inwhichnearlyeverywordwas“hotlinked,”aswesaidbackthen.

SCULD: [n]Goddessoffate:Future.Seealso:Norn.

Myeducationintheory,then,wasclassical,acquiredbyaword-for-wordtranscribingof“themasters”fromprinttoscreen.Longinushimselfwouldhaveapprovedofthismethod,whichalsodescribeshowIlearnedHTML,“stealing”codefromthewebpagesofothers.

Thiswritershowsus,ifonlywewerewillingtopayhimheed,thatanotherway(beyondanythingwehavementioned)leadstothesublime.Andwhat,andwhatmannerofway,maythatbe?Itistheimitationandemulationofpreviousgreatpoetsandwriters.Andletthis,mydearfriend,beanaim

towhichwesteadfastlyapplyourselves.Formanymenarecarriedawaybythespiritofothersasifinspired,justasitisrelatedofthePythianpriest-esswhensheapproachesthetripod,wherethereisariftinthegroundwhich(theysay)exhalesdivine vapour. By heavenly power thus communi-catedsheisimpregnatedandstraightwaydeliversoracles in virtue of the afflatus. Similarly from the greatnaturesofthemenofoldthereareborneinupon thesoulsofthosewhoemulatethem(asfromsacredcaves)whatwemaydescribeasefflu-ences,sothateventhosewhoseemlittlelikelytobepossessedaretherebyinspiredandsuccumbtothespelloftheothers’greatness.(Longinus,“OnTheSublime”,ChapterXIII)

Intheend,Ilearnedmoreaboutwriting—primari-ly,howtomaintainacomplexsequentialargument— by transcribing Barthes and assembling HTML codethanIdidinalltheworkshopsIattendedingradschool.WhileIdidwritemyshareofshortstories — all conventional fiction — my M.A. proj-ectwasahypertextentitled“Gibberish,”inwhichIironicallyappliedpostmoderntheorytoanumberofpaintingsbytheWindsorartistStephenGibb.IsentalinktoanearlyversionoftheprojecttoGregUlmer,alongwithadiskettecontainingthemystoryIhadcreatedinOttawa.UlmersuggestedthatIapplytotheUniversityofFlorida’sPhDpro-gram.

1/0[Check thisout]

SKULL AND CROSSBONES: [n] emblem warning of danger or death. See also: black flag, emblem, Jolly Roger, pirate flag.

WhatfrustratedmeaboutUlmer’sseminarswasnotthelackofdirection,alackofthosepredict-ableassignmentsthatarethewhippingboysofheuretics,butthefactthat,inUlmer’sterms,wewereinclass‘todotheory,notart.’Inotherwords,ourgoalwasnottomakethingsthatlookpretty,buttoworkwithideas,toinventmethods,evenifourgoalwastoinventa‘picturetheory.’Isn’t

From M

ystorian to C

urm

ud

geon

: Sku

lking

Toward

Finitu

de

����

itpossible,Ithought,toachieveamoreholisticcombinationoftheoryandaesthetics?WilliamBlake, for example, invented relief-etch print-ing,amethod—inspiredbyhisowndistasteformechanicalengravingtechniques—whichheout-linesinvisionarydetailinThe Marriage of Heaven and Hell.Theproblemwasthatnotoneofusintheseminarswastrainedasanartist.WewereallEnglishmajorsworkingwiththetoolsatourdisposal.Wecouldn’tdraworpaint,butwecouldcertainlystealimagesofftheWebandmanipulatethem.

SCULLION:[n]akitchenservantemployedtodomenialtasks.

MyopusmystoriusasastudentofUlmer’swasahypertextIendedupcalling“1/0”basedontherecurrentpatternof1and0orIandOshapesthatserendipitouslyappearedintheimagesIhadchosenfortheproject.“1/0”usesapopcycletoexplore/explodetheissueofracismthatIencoun-teredasaCanadianlivingintheSouthernUnitedStates.IncludedinthepopcycleistheworkofWilliam Blake, particularly the “Little Black Boy” engravingfromtheSongs of Innocence.

Mymotherboremeinthesouthernwild,And I am black, but O! my soul is white;WhiteasanangelistheEnglishchild,But I am black, as if bereav’d of light.

“1/0”playedacentralroleinmydissertation,whichamountstoalengthyexplanationthatIwishIcouldhaveofferedfouryearsearliertomytheoryprofessorattheUniversityofOttawa.

The 4Fold Vision[Check thisout]

SCULP: [v.t.] to sculpture; to carve; to engrave [Obs.orHumorous].

Something about the materiality of Blake’s work, hisholisticinterweavingofphilosophy,art,andtechnics,suggestsafruitfulmodelforthinking

aboutdiscourseintheelectronicapparatus.AftergraduatingfromtheUniversityofFlorida,myprimaryobsessionwastoinventanewmodeofacademic discourse by drawing on William Blake asa“mediaexemplar.”Idevisedanassignmentformystudentsentitled‘The4FoldVision,’whichis an image-rich modification of the mystory form. Ratherthandrawingonverbalpunceptsasamethodofinterlinkingmodesofdiscourse,The4Foldisgluedtogetherwithvisualpunsmotivatedby the schematic shapes in Blake’s art: the arch, theinvertedU,thecircle,andthespiral.

SKULLCAP: [n] rounded brimless cap fitting the crownofthehead.Seealso:beanie.

WhenIintroducedtheassignmenttomyE-Critstudents,theresponsewasoneofbefuddlement,andtheresultswerevaried.Amonggraduat-ingseniorsthisterm,thisassignmentstandsoutastheonethathadthegreatestimpactontheirformationasmediacriticsanddesigners.A4FoldVision completed by Amy Ruud, one of the first E-Critgraduates,tracesthe‘O’shapethroughthefilm Dogma, the Berlin Wall, Baudrillard, Blake and herfriend’sbraintumor(http://liberalarts.udmercy.edu/~ruudar/portfolio/electronica/ani_gif.htm).Heranimatedgifcapturestheschematicessenceofher4Fold,butwhatimpressedmemostwasthe“justification” that she wrote to accompany her project.Ihadneverbeforerequiredstudentstowrite a justification of their work in experimental criticaltheory.Atthispoint,IrealizedthatécriturehadtoremaincentraltoE-Crit.Ibeganassigninglengthyessaysinmyclasses.

Necromedia

SKULL,THEPLACEOFA:SeeGOLGOTHA:[n]ahill near Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified.

Inthewinterof2001,Ibeganinvestigatingapat-ternofcoincidentalrelationshipsthatIhadnoticedbetweendeathandmediatechnology.TheseincludedWatson’sgallowstelephone,Marey’schronophotographic rifle, and the first human

From M

ystorian to C

urm

ud

geon

: Sku

lking

Toward

Finitu

de

����

ultrasound,whichtookplaceinthedisusedtur-ret of a B-29 bomber. Technology’s greatest end isformilitaryuses,forthedestructionofhumanbeings.Technologyrendersbodiesimmobileandredundant.Technologypromotesghostindustriesandfantasiesofimmortality.Iinventedtheterm“necromedia”todescribethisseemingcollu-sionbetweendeathandmediatechnologies.Soon,necromediascenesappearedeverywhere:inAmerican Beauty’selisionofgunandvideocamera; in Vanilla Sky’sColtranehologramandcryogenic dreaming; in Ringu’slethalandghostlyVHStape.

SKULL:[n]thebonyskeletonoftheheadofverte-brates.Seealso:axialskeleton,bone,braincase,head,jaw,jugalbone,mala,malarbone,orbit,orbitalcavity,os,ossphenoidale,oszygomaticum,sphenoidbone,zygomaticbone.

IbegantakingveryseriouslyKatherineHayles’suggestionthatwelearntoacceptandcelebrateour finitude. She was echoing Heidegger’s con-cernsabouttechnologyandbeing,butwithouttheludditeandfascistassociationsthathavemadeHeideggerinconvenientformediacritics.

Wenownamethatchallengingclaimwhichgath-ersmanthithertoordertheself-revealingasstanding-reserve:“ge-stell”(enframing).Wedaretousethiswordinasensethathasbeenthor-oughlyunfamiliaruptonow.Accordingtoordinaryusage,thewordGestell(frame)meanssomekindofapparatus,e.g.,abookrack.Gestellisalsothenameforaskeleton.AndtheemploymentofthewordGestell(enframing)thatisnowrequiredofusseemsequallyeerie,nottospeakofthearbitrari-nesswithwhichwordsofamaturelanguagearesomisused.(Heidegger,1977:npn)

How do we celebrate our finitude when, all around us,othersarecelebratingtheircapacitytobeplacedoncallascyberneticstandingreserve?Afterteachingafewcourses onnecromedia,itoc-curredtomethatthesprawlinghypertextprojectsIwasassigningencouragedonlyadrivetoward

infinity, a resistance to finitude. I was hoping to provoketheoppositeofthatresistance,anaccep-tance and celebration of finitude.

Running (Posthu)Man[Check thisout]

SKULL SESSION: [n] a practice match; teaching strategytoanathleticteam.Seealso:grooming,preparation,training.

A few years ago I ran my first marathon. I took up runningtorelievework-relatedstress,provokecreativethought,andtoalleviatethechronicbackpainthatresultedfromsittingforseveralhoursadayinfrontofascreen.SincethenIhavebeen running trail races only, primarily 50K ultra marathons.Overtime,mynecromediacoursemorphedintoadesignstudioonrunning,based,ofcourse,onaconceptIdevelopedwhilerun-ning.Thestudioisnotonlyaboutrunninginthestrictlybiomechanicalsense,butalsointhevari-ousmetaphoricaloutcroppingsoftheword,whichprovideavehiclefordiscussingtheimpactofmediatechnologiesontime,space,andthebody.IhaveaskedstudentsintheclasstodevelopFlashmoviesthatwillplayonalaptopcable-hackedintoatreadmill.Theheartbeatandspeedofarunnerorwalkerwillpowerthesemovies.Myownmovie,entitledDREADMILL,revolvesaroundtheincreas-ingimmobilityofourculture(Detroitwasnamed“America’sfattest city”thisyear).Itdrawsheavilyonthenecromediaconcept,andcombinesgraph-ics, text, clips from Hollywood film, and talking heads.InowrealizethatIhavemovedawayfromthe infinitude of hypertext, and am turning back toward the genre of my first mystory.

SKULL:[n][see{school}amultitude.]aschool,company,orshoal.[Obs.]JeffRice,acolleagueofmine(alsoaformerstudentofUlmer’sand“cool”theorist),notedthattheDREADMILLprojectisveryUlmerianinnaturebecauseitdrawsonanoutrageous,perhapssur-realistpremise:‘youneedatreadmilltoteachamediastudiesclass.’Ihadn’tconsideredthisper-

From M

ystorian to C

urm

ud

geon

: Sku

lking

Toward

Finitu

de

����

spective,whichJeffwasquicktoofferinrebuttaltomyrecentthreatsaboutabandoningtheFloridaSchool and hypertext for Blake and artists’ books. WhatIdoknowisthattheconceptofputtingatreadmillinanEnglishDepartmentclassroomandwiringittoalaptopisemblematicofwhatIseeasthefutureofHumanitiesresearchinaculturedriven by technological efficiency. This interdisci-plinaryproject,whichinvolvesthecooperationoffacultyandstudentsinE-Crit,Engineering,Archi-tecture,andEnglish,placestheHumanitiesbackatthecoreofhighereducation.Inoppositiontothe techno-scientific focus of the contemporary university,Iwouldproposeaprogramnotinhu-manitiescomputing,oreveninhuman/computerinteraction,butinhumane computing,aprogramthatputsboththebodyandmind,withalltheirfinite limitations, in a holistic relationship with the developmentofnewtechnologies.

Post-Run Cooldown

JustrecentlyIdiscoveredthatIsufferedastressfractureinmylefthip,aresultofobsessivetrain-ing,combinedwithlongracesthatarebeyondthelimitationsofmybiomechanicalabilities.Iwillrequireahipreplacementinthenearfuture,whichwillqualifymeasaliteralcyborg.Iwonderif,atthatpoint,Iwillbegintoreconsidertheemancipa-torypotentialofcyberspace.Inanycase,itwillmakeforagreatmystoryonbecomingun-hip.

BibliographyBlake, William.“Little Black Boy” Songs of Inno-cence(1789)inThe Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake.EditedbyDavidV.Erdman(NewYork:Doubleday,1988).

The William Blake Archive,http://www.blakearchive.org(March22,2004).

Hayles,Katherine.How We Became Posthuman(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999).

Heidegger,Martin.The Question Concerning Tech-nology and Other EssaysTranslatedbyWilliamLovitt(NewYork:Harper,1977).

Hyperdictionary,http://www.hyperdictionary.com(March22,2004).

Landow,George.Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

Longinus,On the SublimeTranslatedbyW.RhysRoberts.(Cambridge,1899),Peitho’s web, http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/longinus/index.htm(March22,2004).

Shakespeare,William.Hamlet(1600),http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/.

Ulmer,GregoryL.Teletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1989).

From M

ystorian to C

urm

ud

geon

: Sku

lking

Toward

Finitu

de

����

Soliciting Taste: How sweet the lips of salted breamTeri Hoskin

Solicitin

g Taste: H

ow sw

eet the lip

s of salted b

ream

[launchwebsite]

����

On Hip-Hop, a RhapsodyMichael JarrettPress [Play] to listen to the accompanying podcast for this essay

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

yOrelseperhapshemayinventAbetterthanthepoetmeant,AslearnedcommentatorsviewInHomermorethanHomerknew.JonathanSwift,On Poetry: A Rhapsody

Onemustbeaninventortoreadwell.RalphWaldoEmerson,The American Scholar

Inaword,GregoryUlmerhasrecommendedheuretics.Astheparadigmthatwehavecometoknowas“literacy”shiftstosomethingelse,whichUlmercalls“electracy,”heureticsisareadinessstrategy. It is more than that, certainly. But from thestart,Iwanttoemphasizethatheureticsisawaytoprepareforwritingin—bothinthesenseof“usheringin”and“workingwithin”—anemerg-ingdigitalculture.Itisapractice—anorientationorattitudetowardtexts—worthtryingoutnow.

Before I practice heuretics to write about rap, let me briefly explain the word. It originated in the Middle Ages as a theological term, the flip-side of“hermeneutics,”instructuralisttermsitsOther.One could interpret scripture, filter it through a hermeneutic,aninstitutionallyestablishedandsanctionedgridthatenabledliteral,allegorical,moral,andanagogicalreadings.Doctrinewouldresult — verifications of truth — or the applica-tionofdoctrineintheformoflessonsorhomilies.Onecouldalsoemployscriptureasameansofinvention.Whichistosay,onecouldreaditheuretically (Ulmer, 1989:15). Such “readings” mightseemrevelatory(‘Eureka!’).Conversely,theymightseemheretical,dependingonhowinterpretivecommunitiesrespondedtowhatwas

invented(seethecaseofJoanofArc).Thepointis,hermeneuticsyielded“readings”thatseemeddiscoverableinscripture.Theyseemedtohavebeenplacedthere.Theinterpretershowedhisaudiencewhatthetext(and,byimplication,itsauthoranditsultimateAuthor)said.Meaningwasnot imposed upon the text; meaning arose from thetext.Oratleastthatwasthegeneralidea—contestedandcritiquednowforafewhun-dredyears.Heuretics,then,washermeneuticsthatfailedorsoundeddubious.Suchareadingpracticeseemedalotlikewriting.Itgeneratedthesneakingsuspicionthat“readings”werenotrecovered; they were made — made from the text. Theinterpreter(consciouslyornot)hadusedthetexttosaysomething—useditasapretextforhisownpurposes.Ineffect,hermeneuticsturnedintoheuretics–turnedreadingintowriting—anytimeaninterpretationwasreceivedorregardedasaninvention.

Hundredsofyearsago,theterm“heuretics”droppedoutofusage.Whoneededit?Itappearsthatwedo.InTeletheory(1989),Ulmerreintro-duced“heuretics”asaconceptandpracticeusefulforreadingandwritinginelectronicculture.Hesuggestedthatinterpretationpushedtoaplacewhereitbecameinventionwasideallysuitedforthedevelopmentofelectracy.InHeuretics(1994),Ulmerexploredanddetailedthe‘logicofinven-tion,’goingsofarastodemonstrateaheuristicforheuretics(whenhe labeledtheCATTt).Implicitinhis writing and in the writings of those influenced byUlmeristheassumptionthattomorrow’swritingwouldnecessarilyseemavant-gardetoday.Accu-rateornot,thisassumptionisuseful.Itgenerates

����

willfullyexperimentalwriting.Itsproblemisscope.Themyththattoday’savant-gardeistomorrow’smainstreamunnecessarilyrestrictsthereachofUlmer’saudaciousideas.Theyareequallyap-plicabletowritingthatwemightconsiderordinary.Asamildcorrectiveor,better,asanattempttobalancealargerequation,Iwanttomodelwrit-ingfamiliartoaprint-orientedaudience.Itdoes,however,proceedaccordingtoanillogicofsense,anditisdesignedtofunctionin(andas)electronicmedia.Whatfollowsisanextended–andfalse–etymology(aparticularlyelectrate“genre”worthdeveloping).ItexpandsacoupleofshorteritemsIwroteforpopularmusicpublications:one,origi-nally, introduced a guide to rap recordings; the other examined hate-filled song lyrics (Jarrett, n.d. and2001).Itismutatedjournalism,myresponseto specific assignments and, as such, a blend of dictions.Theessaypointstowardahybridformofwritingthatwemightlabelthe“theoreticallyinformedfeature”orthe“popularexperiment.”Itisheuretics,then—interpretationpushedaround.Gangstawriting,then.Theconnectionbetweenrhapsodyandrapisaninvention.Itisgramma-tologically motivated; predicated on what Ulmer callsa“puncept.”Thegoalofsuchalignmentsor,atleastmygoal,istocreateknowledge(oreventruthandeureka)effects.Treatanytypeofwriting–inthisinstance,theetymologicalessay–heureti-cally,anditwillfunctionastheory.

Afewthousandyearsago,therewasnosuchthingaswriting–noblazesontrails,nodiagramsscratched insand,nopaintingsoncavewalls,andnototempolesorbas-reliefmuralsthattoldstoriesofdaysgoneby.Iamnotsureaboutsong-lines. But people definitely did not write books. Librariesdidn’texist.Thereweren’tanymusicguides.Peoplewere“illiterate.”Aimedatyourlastboyfriend,illiteratemightmean“stupid.”Morehistorically,thewordwasaprint-basedwaytosaythatoralcultureswere“unfamiliarwithliterature.”Gobackfarenough,andnoneofourkinfolkwrote.But they read all the time: worry in the eyes of a child,reassuranceinthekissofalover,husbandryin the sweetness of a fig, warning in the blast of a

hornortheclangofabell,apromiseofraininthesmellofaspringbreeze.Apileoffecescouldtellyoueverythingtherewastoknowaboutaperson—past,present,andfuture.Inoralculturespeo-plelacknottheabilitytoread,buttechnologiesforrecording. They lack all means of fixing memory. Theycan’t “graph”thepast—notaschirograph,photograph,phonograph,orcinematograph.

InGreece,wherealphabeticwritingdeveloped,whatlabelwasassignedtoepicpoemssuchastheIliadandtheOdyssey?Answer:‘Rhapsodies.’Andwhothrewdowndactylichexametersandwasasexmachinetoallthechicks?Homer.He“rappedodes,”whichliterallymeanthewoveorstitchedtogethersongs(Ong,1982:2).Hedidnotinventpoemswholecloth.ThepoemsHomerrecitedhadbeenpasseddownforcenturies(and‘setdowninthenewGreekalphabetaround700— 650 BC’). Rather, Homer reworked and pre-servedsetexpressions—whatwewouldcallpre-fabricatedparts,mnemonicformulas,setphrases,orclichés—accordingtometricalpurposesasso-ciatedwithparticularperformances.Tale-stitchingbardsweretheMCsoftheancientworld.Theirjobwastopraiseortoblame.Theywereproph-ets,veneratednotforcompositionalabilityororigi-nality–bothprint-basedconcepts–butforverbalagility.Theycouldstringtogethermetricalunitslikebeadsonacopperwire.Andtheykeptitrealwithcrowd-pleasingstoriesbolsteredbyspiralingbodycounts,gratuitousobscenities,andtreach-erouswomen.‘[S]tandardizedformulasweregroupedaroundequallystandardizedthemes,suchasthecouncil,thegatheringofthearmy,thechallenge,thedespoilingofthevanquished,thehero’sshield,andsoonandon’(Ong,1982:23).Evenso,street-levelcredibilitydidnotguaran-teememorable,dramaticperformances.Wordshad to flow. Bards, across the globe, were duty-boundtorockahousepartyatthedropofahat.TheirskillsandexploitswerelaterdocumentedinprintedaccountssuchasThe Mwindo Epic(WestAfrica),The Tale of the Heike (Japan), the Bible (for example, in both the story of Balaam and the Song ofDeborah),andIcebergSlim’sPimp.

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

�0�0�0�

ArchilochusandAithirnetheImportunatearestillnotoriousforfree-stylinglethalrhymes.RobertC.ElliotttellstheirstoriesinThe Power of Satire.ArchilochuswasaGreekrhymeroftheseventhcentury B.C. He is credited with inventing iambic verse,‘themeasureinwhich“ruthlesswarfareoughttobewaged”’–andwithusingwordstodrawblood.HisfatherwasapriestofDemeterand a politician; his mother was a slave. As the storygoes,ArchilochuswasbetrothedtomarryNeobule,butrightbeforethewedding,thebride’sfather,Lycambessaid,‘Let’scallthewholethingoff.’Archilochuswentberserk.AtthefestivalofDemeter,hechantediambicsagainstLycambesandNeobule.Theypromptlyhangedthemselves.Archilochus,forhispart,wentontoestablish‘atoweringreputationasapoet’(Ong,1982:7).

Andthen,thereisAithirne–AithirnetheImpor-tunate.Equallydespisedandadmired,heisthemostcelebratedrhymeslingerinIrishsaga:abadassoftrulyglobalproportions.PeoplecoweredinterrorwheneverAithirnemadeanunannouncedstopduringoneofhis“bardictours”oftheEmer-aldIsle.(Itishelpfultopicturehimridingonarock’n’rolltourbus.)Aithirneandhistwosonsusedtotravel‘lefthandwisefromkingdomtokingdom,’ex-actingoutrageousfavors.Theirweaponofchoicewastheglám dícind,ametricalmaledictionwithmagicalpowers.Whentheyrockedthemic,ev-erybodyranforcover.Forexample,whenAithirnerolledintothetownofConnaught,hewasmetbythe one-eyed King Eochaid. The king figured he wouldappeasethepoet.Legendsays,heoffered‘whateverhispeoplehadofjewelsandtreasures.’‘”Thereis,forsooth,”saithAithirne,“thesingleeyethereinthyhead,tobegiventomeintomyfist.” “There shall be no refusal,” saith Eochaid…. So then the king put his finger under his eye, and toreitoutofhishead,andgaveitintoAithirne’sfist.’ Later, in Leinster Aithirne took a notion to get verydownandintimatewiththequeen.Hesharedthisreasonablefantasywiththeking.For‘honor’ssake’andtoavoidaverbalbeatdownofepicproportions,thekingagreedtograntAithirnehis

wish.(Whatthequeenhadtosayisnotrecorded.)Finally,Aithirnegotwindthatanotherking,afel-lownamedConchobar,wasengagedtomarryLuaine.Aithirneandhissonsplannedtocrashtheweddingparty,drinkafewpintsofstout,andcopsomecash.ComplicationsarosewhentheyspiedLuaine.Theyweresmittenand‘besoughthertoplaythekingfalse.’Sherefused.Inretali-ationAithirne‘madethreesatiresuponher,”and‘themaidendiedofshame.’Thestorydoesnotendthere.Afterthefuneral,KingConchobarandhispossefollowedAithirnetheImportunate.Theytrackedhimtohiscompound,walleduphiscrib,and set fire to the place; toasted the poet and his entirefamily–shockandawe.Andgetthis:localpoetswerepissedsenseless.Imaginetheking’sdisrespect!Hadheforgottenthemagicpowerofwords?(Ong,1982:27).

‘Art,’ tociteanexplanationcoinedbyWyndhamLewisfollowingFreud,‘isacivilizedsubstituteformagic’(quotedinElliott,1960:92).Rhap-sody signifies that space where and when magic passesintoart.Itsublimatesthehostilityinherentinspellsandcurses,redirectingaggressionintosociallyacceptableformssuchaswitandhumor.‘Wit,’wroteFreudinJokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious,‘permitsustomakeourenemyridiculousthroughthatwhichwecouldnotut-terloudlyorconsciouslyonaccountofexistinghindrances’(quotedinElliott,1960:264).TowhichEminemreplies,‘I’mlikeahead-triptolistento,‘causeI’monlygivingyouthingsyoujokeaboutwithyourfriendsinsideyourlivingroom.Theonlydifferenceis,I’vegottheballstosayitinfrontofy’all,andIdon’tgottobefalseandsugar—coatitatall’(“TheRealSlimShady,”The Marshall Mathers LP).

By the beginning of the 18th century in Europe, rhapsodywasrecognizedasaliteraryterm.Ithadprettymuchcompletedthepassagefromspokentoprintedlanguage,frommagictoart.Orrather,rhapsodyalwaysrepresentsacaseofliteracylookingbacktoanoral“form”andsimulatingthisformonthepage,oftenwithatoneofregretsig-

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����

nifyingmourning.Rhapsodyreferredtoamedley,ahodgepodge,orafarragoofvariouswritingscobbledtogetherwithoutlogicalconnections(Rogers, 1972:246-47).Itsfree-wheeling,irregularformsuggestedimprovisation,anditsassociationwith“rapture”connotedemotionalintensityoraneffusiveoutpouringofsentiment(Holman,1980:379-80).AllofthesemeaningsandmoreplayoutinapoemJonathanSwiftpublishedin1733.Itwastitled“OnPoetry:ARapsody,”andthatwastheoriginalspellingof‘rhapsody,’too.Droppingthe‘h’from‘rhapsody,’Swiftplayedoffadoublepunon‘rap,’aslapupsidethehead,and‘rapp,’awidelycirculated,counterfeitcoin(Rogers,1983:869-78; OED). Swift was a classicist (a satirist in theJuvenalianmode),a politically-connectedTory,andtheDeanofSt.Patrick’sCathedralinDublin.Hispointin“OnPoetry:ARapsody”waspredict-ablyconservative,evenreactionary.ItreferredbacktoPlato’sRepublic,whichbanishedsong-stitchersandode-rappers,andforwardtoC.De-LoresTucker’smid-1990swaragainstthehip-hopnation.Contemporarypoetry,asSwiftsawit,wasinaterriblestateofdecline.Ithaddegeneratedintosophistry.TheemptypanegyricsofGrubbStreet poets inflated language the same way that worthlessmoney—inaschemethatSwifthelpedtofoil—hadalmostwreckedIreland’seconomy.Unprincipledpoets—theGrubbStreetblokes—wroterapscharacterizedby‘trivialturns’and‘borrowed wit’ — by ‘similes that nothing fit’ (Swift in Rogers, 1983: 151-52). Their productions —stampedoutlikecheapcoppercoins(Wood’shalfpenceorrapps)-contributedtoadegenerate,materialisticsociety.Insteadofacceptingtime—honoredtruth—forinstance,that‘heavenlyin-fluence’ was required in order ‘to strike the muses’ lyre’ — modern versifiers seemed to regard poetry asaDIYordo-it-yourselfindustry(SwiftinRogers,1983:31-32).Theywerecounterfeiters(‘fakingthefunk,’‘rapingrhapsody,’and‘pimpingthepleasureprinciple’).Theysubstitutedjunkrappsforthegenuine,time-honoredarticle.Theyemployedthetechnologyofwritingand,especially,theincreas-ingly available technology of print for financial gain.Everybodyseemedtobetakingupthepen

—rhapsodizingandgettingpaidinfull.OrasSwiftputit,‘Ineverystreetacitybard/Rules,likeanaldermanhisward’(SwiftinRogers,1983:301-302).

By the end of the 18th century, Swift’s world had essentiallyvanished.Hehadseenitcoming.Sense yielded to sensibility; the ancients to the moderns.WiththeriseofRomanticism,rhapsodyas a ‘freer verse style’ won the day. But not with-out a final irony. The Romantic Movement “effec-tivelyobliterated”rhapsodyasithadbeenprac-ticedbypoets—andinstitutionalizedinEurope—forcenturies.Asananalogy,simplyrecallthatRousseau’stheoriesofeducationeventuallydis-placedapedagogicalregimefoundedonclassicalrhetoric:rhetoricthatwasthoroughlyinformedbyoralhabitsofthoughtandexpression,relyingonformulaicelements(Ong,1982:26).AndsowithRomanticismcomesamodernistfascination—tothepointofobsession—withendangeredordisappearingprimitiveworlds(hence,thebirthofecologicalconsciousness).Modernistsareaston-ishedby—thatis,theysimultaneouslyadmireandfear — the mind that rhapsodizes. (See Book IV of Gulliver’s Travels:InitthesavagemindsofSwift’sshit-slingingYahoosisanobjectofobsessionforthehyper-rationalHouyhnhnms.Further,theHouyhnhnmshaveneverseenanythingquitesoamusingandentertaining—anddeeplyperplex-ing—asGulliver,a‘wonderful’and‘perfect’Yahoo(Swift,2003:218–19).Andbytheway,neitherYahoosnorHouyhnhnmsareliterate.Yahoosarenotcapableofreading.Theyarepreliterate.AndHouyhnhnmsdonotneedtoread.Theyarepostliterate.)Themodernistinfatuationwithstagedsavagery—withtheunrestrainedzealandfree—associativelogicprojectedontotheprimi-tive—sustainedblack-faceminstrelsyfor100years—intheUSA.Itpromptedthemass(white)acceptance of R&B — derived forms of music (whichistosay,rock‘n’roll),anditliesattheheartofgangstarap’scontinuedandglobalpopular-ity.Modernistinfatuationwithstagedsavagerychargeship-hopwithsexualandviolentenergy.Orlookatitthisway.Modernismmakespeopleof

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����

allracesfeelliketheyarelosingstuff—stuffbasicandvitaltoourhumanity,tooursenseofself,toour planet.Marxcalledthiseffect(oraffect)“alienation.”Hence,anyartthatfeelslikerecoveryorlikeanevasionofensuinglosswillveryprob-ablyseemlikeareturnofthenative.Theprimitivearrivesinthenickoftimetosavetheworld.

Culturalguardians,suchasSwift,mayrightlyfear rhapsody as linguistic inflation: the ten-dency of words to mean less and less; the need for more and more words to purchase meaning; thewide-spreadpenchanttotalkshit.Perhapsourcultureisturningprimitive,goingnative,ourthinkingbecominglessrational andmoremagi-cal.Certainly,intheirallegiancetoinvectiveandverbalabuse,modernrhapsodists—fromFurryLewistoRudyRayMooreandIcebergSlim,allthewayuptoIceCube,HowardStern,andEminem—recallancientsatirists.Thereis,however,amorecoherentandcompellingwaytounderstandcontemporaryrhapsody.Itfollowsfromabasicobservationaboutelectronicculture.Thedomi-nantmass-mediatechnologiesofthelastcentury—thetelephone,radio,phonograph,cinema,andtelevision—whicharenowconverginginthedigitalcircuitryofthecomputer,reemphasizedmodes of communication formerly identified with oralcultures.WenowliveinanagethatWalterOngcalls“secondaryorality”(arepetitionoforalitybutwithdifferences).Rhapsodymayhaveancientrootsinmagic,butrhapsodistsarenotpagansorprimitives.Theydenoteneitherthefallofciviliza-tion nor some presumed loss of moral fiber. On thecontrary,rhapsodistsemergewheneverandwhereveroralskills—primaryorsecondary—arevalued.InOrality and Literacy,Ongwrites:

Whenallverbalcommunicationmustbebydirectwordofmouth,involvedinthegive—and—takedynamicsofsound,interpersonalrelationsarekepthigh—bothattractionsand,evenmore,antagonisms. (Ong, 1982: 45)

Electroniccommunicationextendsanddevelopsthistendencytousewordscombatively.

ConsiderthecaseofSunnylandSlim.In1947,thisblackmusicianfromtheMississippiDeltarecordedhissongJohnson Machine GunforAris-tocratRecords,aChicago-basedlabelownedbytwoPolish—bornJews,LeonardandPhilChess.Thelyric,writesRobertPalmer,was‘aviolenturbanfantasywithatouchofsinisterhumor.’Itopenedwithaboast:‘I’mgonnabuymeaJohn-sonmachinegunandacarloadofexplosionballs/I’mgonnabeawalkin’cyclone,fromSaginawtotheNiagaraFalls.’Itclosedwithathreat:‘Now,littlegirl,theundertaker’sbeenhere,girl,andIgavehimyourheightandsize./Nowifyoudon’tbemakin’whoopeewiththeDeviltomorrowthistime,baby,Godknowsyou’llbesurprised’(Palm-er,1981:147).

AreasonableexaminationofthistunemightfocusonSunnylandSlim’srage(anddownplayhistongue-in-cheekhumor).Somebitchdidthebluesmanwrong—orratherhefeelshe’sbeendonewrong,andhecan’tholdback.Thesongbecomesadeliverysystemforverbalandsonicvenomdirectedtowardaperceivedorprojectedagentofoffense.Prettyobviously,thisistrueofall rhapsody in a satiric vein. But any examina-tionthatstopshereisnotbeingreasonable.Ithasforgotten(orconvenientlyignored)thatthesongwasmanufacturedforsaletoamassaudience.Thesongwasmadetobeheardassomethingoverheard.Likearapp–oneofthoseIrishcoins–itissupposedtocirculate.Weneedtotakeintoaccountboththedistributionandtheconsumptionofthesong.

Johnson Machine Gunwastheresultofacontrac-tualarrangementbetweenablackartistandtwoJewishentrepreneurs(plusanunseennetworkoflisteners).Thinkaboutit.In1947,theyearofthesong’srelease,SunnylandSlimandtheChessbrothersrepresentedtwogroupsofpeoplemoreoftenthetargetofhatethanitsperpetrators.Itisadubioushonor,butsongssuchasJohnson Machine Gun–andthereareagoodmanyofthem—signalwhatwemightcallthe“democratiza-

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����

tionofrhapsody.”Distributingvenomandbileisnolongertheexclusiveprivilegeofvestedpower.Electronicculture,whichbroughtusbothpho-nographrecordsandinternetdownloads,giveseverybodythechancetoventtheirspleen.Andinthebargainintentiongetsawfullyslippery.AsPlatonotedinthePhaedrus,theauthorofawrit-ten—printedordigitallyrecorded—rhapsodynolongercontrolsmeaning.Whoistosaythatthe‘I’ ofJohnson Machine Gun –thesong’snarrator–coincideswiththesong’sauthor?Withverylittleeffortwecaninterpret thesong,notasamisogy-nisticattackonthe‘littlegirl”thatdidSunnylandSlimwrong,butasanexampleofthesatiristsatirized.Asanartist,SunnylandSlimfashionedanarratorwhosequickresortto violencemakeshimappearridiculous.Thenarratorbecomesthetargetofthesong’ssatire.Ifthisreadingseemspreposterous,itisnofaultofthetext.Rather,itisbecauseweaslisteners,eveninthe21stcentury,cannotimagineabluesmanthatcageyandcrafty(mostprobablyanassumptiongroundedinrac-ism)orbecausewedonotunderstandhowmusiccirculatesinelectronicculture.

Bile is a commodity easily and regularly mon-etized. But that does not mean everybody’s bile is equallyvaluable,exchangeableinthemarketplace.OnthispointJohnson Machine Gunisillustrative.Marketforcesgoverningelectronicculturetypicallyrewardrhapsodistswhochoosetraditional,innoc-uous,orpersonaltargets.SunnylandSlimandtheChessbrotherssettledonthegeneric‘littlegirl’(atargetthatmayormaynotmakethesinger/narra-torappearpsychopathic).Thiswasawisemove.Eventoday,thelyricstillpasses–likearapp–fortransgressive.SunnylandSlimwasn’tfoolenoughtotakeonthewhite-racistestablishment(thoughhemightventuretheoccasionalmetaphorforwhitehegemony).Gettinglynchedisthreetimesworse than going broke. By the same token, it is hardlylikelythatacabalofgangstarhapsodistsishatchingoutanattackonthewhitecorporateexecutives who finance the production of rap to selltomassesofpink‘n’pimpledhigh-schoolers.MarshallMathersintheguiseofEminemorSlimShadywouldratherattackMoby,boybands,or

Britney Spears. But I digress – which might be the pointwitharhapsody.

Almost30yearshavepassedsinceKoolHercwovedanceabletunesoutof“breaks,”stitchingtogethermelodicandrhythmicsnippetsisolatedfromvariousr&b,soul,funk,anddiscorecords.Withdisco,recordsreplacedlivemusicalevents.Withrap,recordsformedanodethatorganized–oraroundwhichcoalesced–newtypesofliveevents.Mass-reproducedmusicbecamemu-sicforreproducing.Copyrightbecametherighttocopy(Ulmer,1983:96).Morethan20yearshavepassedsinceGrandmasterFlashpopular-ized scratching and Afrika Bambaataa formulated hip-hop as an aesthetic, if not a worldview. But peoplecontinuetodebatethemeritsofrap,themusicofhip-hopculture.Isitpositive?‘SchoollyDisstilltheshit,man.’‘ListentoanythingbyKRS—One.Itisthevernacularpoetryofurbanstreets.Theman’sateacher.’Orisrapnegative?‘Eazy-E first peddled drugs; then he peddled the musicalequivalentofcrackcocaine.’‘Soulisthesound of African Americans leaving church; rap is thesoundofthemnotcomingback.’Oriship-hopneutral?‘MCsarereporters,pureandsimple.PublicEnemy’sChuckDshould’vewonaPulitzerprizefor“warcorrespondence.”’

Whatever. Because whatever valence we assign torap,itisconventionallyunderstoodasalatemanifestationofrhapsody,evenbypeopleunfa-miliarwiththattermoritshistory.Itiseasytoseewhy.Hip-hoprecommendsmakingnewrecord-ingsbyrhymingoverstitched-togetherfragmentsappropriatedfromalreadymaderecords.Itisacompositionalmethodologytailor-madefor–aris-ingfrom–electroniccultureorsecondaryorality.Rhapsodystandsasanalternativetomodelsandmethodsoftextualproductionthatemergedoutofliteracy.Foratleasttwomillennia,muchofthelaborinvolvedincomposition–whetherwritten,visual,ormusical–hasbeendevotedtoeffacingtracesoflabor.Thisisafairlybasicobservation,easilyillustrated.Hollywoodmoviesaremostof-tenenjoyedwhentheyappearlessconstructedby

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����

film crews than magically conjured out of thin air (deliveredtotheatersinamannersimilartoGodhandingMosestheTenCommandments).Muchoftheworkinfreshmanwritingcoursesisdevotedtocraftingclearsentences,cohesivetransitionsbetweensentencesandparagraphs,andcoher-entarguments.Popularmusicishardlydifferent.Studiowizardry–fromtapesplicingtomulti-track-ingtocompositingvocals–aidsandabetsthecreationofseamlessproducts.Rapdeviatesfromthisveneratedtraditionbyvalidatingrupture,theperformancethatseemsstitchedtogether(whoseseamsshow).ItsbreakwithmusicisasdecisiveasthebreakPicassomadewithpaintingwhenhe exhibited his first collage in 1912. The sonic productionsofDJs–Steinski,MarleyMarl,JamMaster Jay, Eric B., Premier, Terminator X, Shad-ow,PrincePaul,MixmasterMike,DangerMouse,andKidKoala–arenotaboutmaskingorsuturingseams.Theyareaboutcollageormontage.Theyembraceacut’n’paste,rhapsodicaesthetic:arapsthetic.(Oh,anddidyouknowthatJonathanSwiftusedmorethanfortypseudonymsduringhislife?)

ParallelsbetweenthemnemonicformulasofepicpoetryandthemethodsofcontemporaryMCsandDJsareuncanny.Theyareimpossibletoignore. But it is a mistake to understand hip-hop asarevival(orastheatavisticsurvival)ofancientpoetictraditions.SnoopDogg,TupacShakur,Queen Latifah, L.L. Cool J, Ice T., the Rza and theWuTangClan,P.Diddy,Jay-Z,andKanyeWestarenotgriotsfromWestAfrica.Theyarecybernauts.Hip-hopdidnotarisewithinanoralorancientculture.Itwasmadepossibleby–itwasanunintendedeffectandanearly expressionof–electronicculture.Puthistorically,inthe20thcenturymusic-relatedtechnologiesconvertedthepracticingamateursofthe19thcenturyintopur-chasingconsumers.Insteadofgatheringaroundpianosandsingingpopularsongs,peoplehuddledaroundradios,pluggedheadphonesintorecordplayersandgazedatmovieandtelevisionscreens.Hip-hopimaginesareversalof thispicture.Whichisnotnecessarilyunique.Theelectricguitar

wroughtsimilarchangesbyspawningcount-lessgaragebands.Hip-hopdistinguishesitselfbyshowingthatmachinesdesignedtoenabletheconsumptionofmusiccanberedirectedasameansofproducingoriginalmusic.Hip-hopisonewaytoapplyheureticstomusicmaking:pushplayingrecordssofarthatitbecomesameansofinventionorcomposition.Foranyonewhoac-ceptscollageasaviablestrategyformakingart,turntables and samplers are, without qualification, musicalinstruments.Theyerode–theydecon-struct–thedistinctionbetweenmakingandlisten-ingtomusic.Rhapsody,asaformandmethodol-ogy,seemsespeciallysuitedtotextualproductionwithinanemergingelectronicparadigm.

Likepunk,hip-hopisaDIYartform.OrastheBeastie Boys’ Michael Diamond once told me, ‘Thehighestpraisethatyoucangiveanykindofmusic–comingfromboththepunk-rockandthehip-hopsides—isthatyou’reactuallycreatingmusicthatinspiresotherpeopletomakemusic,asopposedtosittingbackandsaying“Okay,I’mintheaudience.”’ChancesareJackieWilson,ArethaFranklin,OtisRedding,MarvinGayeandDonnaSummerpromptedjaw-droppingawealotmoreoftenthantheyinspiredemulation.Whocould match their artistry? But Rakim, Big Daddy Kane, MC Hammer, Biggie Smalls, Master P, Nas, Ol’ Dirty Bastard, and Eminem? Or how about The Adventures of Grandmaster Flash on the Wheels of Steel,HerbieHancock’sRockit,DJPremier’sDeep Concentration,andDJShadow’sIn/Flux?Foster-ingtheillusion–anditisanillusion–thatanyonecanmakehip-hop,theyhavemotivatedcountless15 year olds to grab mic in one hand (crotch with theother)andfreestyle,ortoimaginethemselvescommandeeringamatchedpairofdirect-driveTechnicsturntables.Rightnow,allovertheworld,kidsfeaturethemselvesbecomingAndré3000orBig Boi, Pharrell, Jay-Z, Dr. Dre, Nelly, Ludacris, Mos Def, 50 Cent, Kanye West, or Dizzee Ras-cal.Theirdreamsandresultant behaviormaynotqualifyasrevolutionary,buttheydorefreshandrenewmusic.

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����

Unlikepunk,hip-hopdoesnotinheritorfollowanOedipalscript.Thatisnotthemyththatmovesitalong.Itdoesnotacquirecredibilitybydenigrat-ingorforsakingthemusic–r&b,soul,funk,anddisco–thatformsitsfoundation.Itisnotevo-lutionary.Itisnotaboutslayingfathers,burningbridges,andshatteringicons.Sure,hip-hopishighly competitive(onandoffthemic).Rivalriesbetweencrewsandgeographicalregionsstructureits history. But hip-hop suffers from no anxiety of influence. It is more complicated than that. Toitsmanifestblackaudience,hip-hopaccruesauthenticitybyseemingnottoaccommodateitslatentaudience–whateverthataudiencemaybe(itismostoftenpicturedasasoft,undifferentiatedmassofpaleness).Thatishowhip-hopkeepsitreal.Itisabasictime-honoredavant-gardestrat-egy.

TaketheexampleofN.W.A’sStraight Outta Comp-tonand,byextension,gangstarap.Itwasnotdeemedauthenticbecauseofitsorigin:itoozedupfromthemeanstreetsofLosAngeles.Au-thenticitydoesnotinhereinart.Itisconferred.Perhapsthealbum’sblackurbanaudienceheardanaccuratedescription–arepresentation–ofitsworld and bore witness to the album’s validity. But thattheoryisnaïve.Morelikely,Straight Outta Comptonhelpedfocus–andevenre-create–Afri-canAmericanidentitybydenyingotheraudiencespositionswithwhichtheycouldidentify.That’sright.Whoyouareisdeterminedbywhoyoucannotbecome(bywhattheoristscalltheOther).White,suburbanboyslovedthealbumandgang-starapbecauseitsothoroughlyexcludedthem.“Blackness” was thus opened up as a realm of fantasy.RapsuppliedwhitekidswithscriptsthattheyfoundeverybitascomplexandenjoyableasagameofDungeonsandDragons.Conversely,intheworldofhip-hop,inauthenticityalwaysresultsfromafailedattempttonegotiateracialissues.Sellingout–thecounterfeitrap–meansalienatingoneaudiencebyaccommodatinganotheraudi-encethatwantstofeelitsOtherness.Hip-hopisoneofthestagesonwhichAmericaplaysoutitsdramaofrace.Andrapisthemostrecentstage

ofrhapsodyasacompositionalstrategy,awaytowriteinelectronicculture.Bibliography

Elliott,RobertC.The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1960).

Emerson,RalphWaldo.‘TheAmericanScholar’,inDaniel J. Boorstin (ed.) An American Primer(NewYork:Meridian,1966),301-320.

Holman,C.Hugh.‘Rhapsody’,inA Handbook to Literature4th ed. (Indianapolis: Bobbs – Merrill, 1980).

Jarrett,Michael.‘Hip-Hop–WhatItIs,WhatItIs’,inThe Tower Guide to Hip-Hop(New.York:TowerRecords,2001),4-8.

____.‘InaTimeofHate’music.com,(Spring,2001):71-75.

Ong,WalterJ.Orality and Literacy: The Technolo-gizing of the Word(NewYork:Methuen,1982).

Palmer,Robert.Deep Blues(NewYork:Penguin,1981).

Rogers,Pat.‘ShaftesburyandtheAestheticsofRhapsody’British Journal of Aesthetics,12,(1972): 244-57.

____.(ed)‘NotesonOn Poetry: A Rhapsody’inJonathan Swift: The Complete Poems(NewHa-ven:YaleUniversityPress,1983).

Rose,Tricia.Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America(Hanover:Wes-leyanUniversityPress,1994).

Swift,Jonathan.‘OnPoetry:ARhapsody’inPatRogers (ed) Jonathan Swift: The Complete Poems(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1983).

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����

____.Gulliver’s Travels(NewYork:Penguin,2003).

Ulmer,GregoryL.‘TheObjectofPost-Criticism’inHalFoster(ed)The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture(PortTownsend,Washington:Bay Press, 1983)

____.Teletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video(NewYork:Routledge,1989)

On

Hip

-Hop

, a Rh

apsod

y

����A

pp

end

ix

AppendixThefollowingURLsappearaslinksonlythroughoutIllogic of Sense:

Preface: Gluetube

http://institute.emerson.edu/vma/faculty/john_craig_freeman/imaging_place/about/projects/chorag-raphy/ulmer_tapes/index.html

Niall Lucy: The King and I: Elvis and the Post-Mortem or A Discontinuous Narrative in Several Me-dia (On the Way to Hypertext)

Sample from the Black Eyed Susans’ Viva Las Vegashttp://www.altx.com/ulmer/lucy/vivalasvegas_sample.mp3

Elvis:Edge of Realityhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga-gTPeir-E

Elvis: If I Could Dreamhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtUTPhCSkLg

SuspiciouslyElvis:An American Trilogyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAWSYdbBeuc

Marcel O’Gorman: From Mystorian to Curmudgeon: Skulking Toward Finitude

ASkullSessionwithGregory“Golgotha”Skulmerhttp://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~marcel/e-crit/skulmer.html

Gibberish:ADigitalHidingPlaceforPomoSapienshttp://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~marcel/gibb/gibcover.html

1/0http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~marcel/blake/10/10intro.html

The4foldVisionhttp://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~marcel/courses/392b/4fold/4fold.html

Dreadmillhttp://www.dreadmill.net

Michael Jarrett: On Hip-Hop, a Rhapsody

http://www.altx.com/ulmer/jarrett/onhiphoppod.mp3

����

EditorsDarrenToftsisAssociateProfessorofMedia&Communications,SwinburneUniversityofTechnology.dtofts@groupwise.swin.edu.au

LisaGyeisLecturerinMedia&Communications,SwinburneUniversityofTechnologylgye@groupwise.swin.edu.au

ContributorsNiall LucyisaFellowoftheAustralianResearchInstituteatCurtinUniversity.n.lucy@curtin.edu.au

JonMcKenzieisAssistantProfessorofEnglishandCo-coordinatorofModernStudiesatUniversityofWisconsinMilwaukeejonm@uwm.edu

LindaMarieWalkerisSeniorLecturerintheLouisLaybourne-SmithSchoolofArchitectureandDesign,UniversityofSouthAustraliaLinda.Walker@unisa.edu.au

CraigSaperisProfessorandCo-coordinatoroftheTextsandTechnologyPhDprogramintheEnglishDepartmentattheUniversityofCentralFlorida.csaper@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu

RowanWilkenisa researcherandwritercompletingaPhDattheUniversityofMelbourne.rwilken@unimelb.edu.au

MarcelO’GormanisaProfessorofEnglishandDirectoroftheDigitalMediaStudiesProgramattheUni-versityofDetroitMercy.orgormamm@udmercy.edu

TeriHoskinisanindependentresearcher,writerandartistandiscurrentlyworkingasprogrammanagerattheExperimentalArtFoundationteri.hoskin@internode.on.net

MichaelJarrettisProfessorofEnglishatPennStateUniversity(YorkCampus).jmj3@psu.edu

Bio N

otes

Bio Notes

����

2007/somerightsreserveddesign/layout:JoelSwanson/js@hippocrit.com

ALTXAlt X Press

3188 Redstone RdBoulder CO 80305

www.altx.com

ISBN: 1-931-560-15-3ISBN 13: 978-1-931560-15-3