Or: why I don’t write book reviews. (more…)
Since the advent of The Post-Ironic Dictatorship Of The Post-Proletariat in the USA, there’s been a certain resurgence of interest in—and a renewed appreciation of the eternal timeliness and relevance of—the allegorical, the apocalyptic, and active women; writers, makers, and shapers. It’s not all about The Handmaid’s Tale; I have a sense that Christine de Pizan may be having a resurgence. Renaissance. Renovation. Consider this a tip-off on trend-spotting, cool-hunting, and innovation. (Also, on these subjects, if you’re looking for something else to read, may I recommend William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition and Zero History).
Anyway. I’ll be reposting a bunch of stuff from recent Twitter in a next blog post on here. Much will be from today: being the feast day of Joan of Arc, burned at the stake in Rouen on this day in 1431, and whose first biography (in her lifetime, in 1429) was by Christine. (more…)
Margins and marginality are wonderful, as are their transgression and subversion and any play with them. But, as all wearers of glasses know, frames can be fun too.
This is a piece about frames and framing. Updates seem to be turning it into an illustrated prosimetrical short story about liminality and its horrors. Which was unexpected and is weird. Blame the uncanny conjunction of borders and walls in the news, UBC, bande dessinée, Guy de Maupassant, and Marguerite Porete. (more…)
The original title of this piece is “Criticism & commentary,” but it’s really about reading and writing as harmoniously-integrated activities within the larger whole that is a literary continuum and polyphonic collective; uniting all participants in a living textual network.
Premises and provisos: It views commentary as one of the core and ancient literary/communicative forms, along with story-telling and translation; with story-telling as the living beating heart of this human trinity of curiosity, criticism, and creativity.
It uses literature in its broad sense to extend to “any object that can be read, seen, interpreted” and reading in the broad / Barthes sense to include perception by any of the senses, with “making sense of” as its purpose, and an interpretation translated into expression via any of the senses. This piece sees literature as synonymous with communicative expression. Not as one kind of communication, but the other way around: what passes in other (non-literary) fields as “communication” is a more or less appropriately human, or humanly-appropriate, kind of literature. All writing has a right, duty, and responsibility to be beautiful, imaginative and innovative, and critical and creative. All writing can and should be literature.
The present version is that used in MDVL 302: European Literature of the 14th to the 16th centuries – “Criticism” (UBC, Faculty of Arts, Medieval Studies Programme, Spring 2012) and MDVL 301A : European Literature of the 5th to the 14th centuries – “The Liberal Arts” (Fall 2016). It’s one of the oldest pieces on this present blog; its most ancient archaeological layer (writing resources) is from a now-deceased previous site, “The Rose of the Romance” (2003).