Sunday, May 01, 2005

And now, as promised, the critique...(refer below)...

And in the manner of everything else that has ever been written on this blog as also everything that will be, this is but a rant and a translation and an interpretation, all from a particular vantage point, masquerading as critique. It is in a sense, a 'reading aloud' session, tempered by voice, mood and stance.

The article is a four page diary-style entry outlining for the reader, the experience of selling-out and the process of strategic choice. Or so I garner.It is told through the narrative of the author, an aspiring writer of short stories leaving behind a spartan lifestyle to confront the possibilities of language manipulation and law school. The questions that the author puts forward are two, viz. 'how is our sense of self preserved?' and 'Is our sense of self effaced with unuse?'. The language is poignant and the placement of self in the narrative instructive. It is a very well-written account of personal angst and the project of keeping the so-called self alive, kicking and hopeful.

Instructive is of course as instructive goes. My objective is to see what can be done with the narrative. I understand polyphonicity but believe that the written word is only as transparent as the borders of the social structure that it finds itself negotiating with. This is not to subscribe to an uncritical structuralism but to call it the way I say it. Weak, dramatic and incoherent. The romanticism although temperamental, I sympathize with. What I fail to understand is the almost apologetic, passive-aggressive stance to make what is in essence a no-brainer.Yes, it is a strategic choice but I do not know what sense to make out of it outside the category of personal growth and movement. If emotion is the discursive choice,then it must at least be able to present its own possibilities. Language as a showcase I have complete empathy with, but badly performed emotion is a crime unto itself. I cannot engage with this maybe because it is not built to be engaged with. In which case I agree that the needs are mine and the article, maybe, is not designed to cater to them.

Leading then to my last few questions:
What does effacement mean? Who effaces?
What is 'self'?
What is this article meant to do?