Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

Celine's contribution « Previous | |Next »
September 16, 2003

I'm a bit slow at getting off the mark but I'm responding to something Gary said last week. It was to do with Celine. He said that Celine focused literature's attention on the dark side, in the process creating a new genre. In saying this Gary was inspired by Greg Hainge's talk at the most recent Philosophy Jammm.

I exchanged a couple of emails with Greg after this talk. I asked Greg:

'Last night you said something that I meant to ask you about but forgot. I think it's in the trilogy that I remember reading something to the effect, 'after what I have written, writers who are not influenced by me will be irrelevant.' You said something like this but it was also quite different. I can't read French. I don't know whether Celine actually said this or not but if he didn't he should have, because what it says to me is: 'I've produced an irreversable formal change in creative literature.' I think this is completely true and in no sense bragging. It's like some swimmer saying that he swims at such and such a speed. Celine certainly did this and he certainly knew that he did it. Although he would never talk about it, Bukowski knew that Celine's contribution wasn't essentially stylistic (three dots, etc) but formal. The forms of the poem, the novel and the novella had changed. It was because Bukowski knew this that he is one of the very few recent poets, if not indeed the only one, to find a mass audience.'

Greg replied that Celine said that he rendered other writers unreadable and that's why they hated him. He agreed that he forged an enormous change in literature but pointed that we should also not forget that Celine said much with tongue in cheek.

I emailed him back:

'form and style: yes, I agree with you that they can't really be separated. What I meant was that Celine's contribution wasn't the text full of three dots but a contribution to something probably started by Lautreamont and definitely developed by Proust, and that is the destruction of the nineteenth century novel form. There's no three dots in Bukowski and if you read the two of them together then the artistic construction in Celine's work seems very obvious, whereas Bukowski seems much more the language of the street - this is not meant in any sense to be a devaluation of Celine, heaven forbid. It's just that there isn't really much stylistic similarity between the two writers but when it comes to genre-bending they're of one mind - at least, that's how I see it.

I mentioned two books the other night, 'Hollywood' and 'Pulp'. I'd also recommend 'South of No North' (novellas) and 'What Matters Most is How Well You Walk Through the Fire' (poetry). Bukowski is also like Celine in that everything is autobiography slightly fictionalised, although this may not have come from Louis-Ferdinand. It's a very American thing. Another major influence on Bukowski is John Fante, as well as Knut Hamsun.

I think Miller, Heller and Vonnegut are not in the same class, as you intimated. Bukowski said that Miller was good when he wrote about sex and the street but his persistent philosophising was fucking awful.'

So far I haven't heard from Greg again. If anybody else out there has got any ideas about this it would be great to hear from you.

| Posted by at 9:58 AM | | Comments (1)
Comments

Comments

i think miller was mad cute when he starting philosophizing, like you'd kinda go "aww, its true but its mad basic thought, i had that before!" but u wouldnt think "what a loser" u'd think "ah, makes him human!"

and u might say that has more to do with the character I am than what miller wrote
and to that i say: NO WAY JOSE!

how old are u guys???