the unbook

[DanaC]

I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine. Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.

[henry quirk]

I strongly object to your equating the 'elimination of one' and the loss of sole vision (and therefore, I presume, a sense of authorial agency and direction) with the feminine.

(((i'm sure you do...however: in my experience (purely anecdotal, of course) my view is sound)))

(((in other words: barring some startling event that flies in the face of my observations, 'that's my story and i'm sticking to it'... )))


Frankly your argument would fit rather nicely in my current area of research: 18th and 19th century gender constructions.

(((and your view (the tiny bit i discern from your post) fits in nicely with my view that many women -- for a variety of self-serving reasons -- desperately want men and women to be interchangeable...this, of course, is an error...verifiably, demonstrably, men and women are NOT interchangeable)))

(((again, anecdotally: women 'cooperate'; men 'compete'...this is the heart of my distaste for the 'unbook'...a textbook compilation may be served well by 'cooperation' (or not...i don't write textbooks, so, i don't 'know' for sure)...i do 'know' a piece fiction can only be watered down into nothingness by the 'unbook' method...and i can think of no better example of 'cooperation' than the hen house)))

(((your objection, however, is noted... )))

[henry quirk]

18th and 19th century gender constructions.

(((any that existed, or exist now, are merely reflective of the profound differences between 'man' and 'woman'...that is: the 'constructions' rest firmly on the soil of the only real, natural, dualism: the vagina and the penis)))

[henry quirk]

post edited because -- in its first version -- i was unduly, and unjustifiably, nasty and mean-spirited

my apologies for nearly visiting such horror on the good people of the cellar...

HA!

[henry quirk]

Dave Gray said,
April 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Hi Henry,

Since I am focused primarily on works that entail understanding and codifying a discipline or field of study, I don’t have much to say about the unbook as a vehicle for fiction. I suppose my aim with the unbook has been far more textbook-oriented.

Since collaboration and consensus (and divisiveness!) are part of the process by which any group defines and organizes itself, I think an unbook could form a useful and necessary hub or focusing device to help define and codify a new discipline or area of study.

I am a painter as well as an author, and I can’t imagine a collaborative, consensus-oriented approach to painting would do anything other than dilute my vision and water down the work.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the author retaining control of an unbook is a requirement — only that it is an option.

I tend to think that if I wrote fiction it would be similar to the way that I paint — a more solitary pursuit. So we might not disagree as much as you might think

I’m not sure whether the unbook has been supplanted by the next thing or not. Maybe so. I’m planning to stick around for awhile though and hope to continue exploring and prototyping the idea.

henry quirk said,
April 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I am a painter as well as an author, and I can’t imagine a collaborative, consensus-oriented approach to painting would do anything other than dilute my vision and water down the work.

(((my point exactly!)))

(((so: we meander ’round the two sides the mountain to arrive at the same camp in the hills…good on us both)))

I’m planning to stick around for awhile though and hope to continue exploring and prototyping the idea

(((i’ll check in from time to time…i have an interest too: a kind of ‘keep your enemies close’ thing… –henry)))