Monday, July 31, 2017

A Possible Keats

A Possible Keats

Chris Buckland WrightWoodcut by John Buckland Wright from The Collected Sonnets of John Keats, 1930
In 1803, the guillotine was a common children's toy. Children also had toy cannons that fired real gunpowder, and puzzles depicting the great battles of England. They went around chanting, "Victory or death!" Do childhood games influence character? We have to assume that they do, but let's set aside such heartbreaking speculations for a moment. War—it's not even a proper game—leaves influenza in its wake, and cadavers. Do childhood games typically leave cadavers behind in the nursery? Massacres in those little fairy-dust minds? Hoist the banners of victory across the table from the marzipan mountain to the pudding! It's perhaps a dreadful thought, but we've seen clear evidence that both children and adults have a taste for imitation. Certainly, such questions should be explored, and yet let us allow that there is a purely metaphysical difference between a toy guillotine and war. Children are metaphysical creatures, a gift they lose too early, sometimes at the very moment they learn to talk.

John Keats (1795-1821) was seven years old and in school at Enfield. He was seized by the spirit of the time, by a peculiar compulsion, an impetuous fury—before writing poetry. Any pretext seemed to him a good one for picking a fight with a friend, any pretext to fight.

Fighting was to John Keats like eating or drinking. He sought out aggressive boys, cruel boys, but their company, as he was already inclined to poetry, must have provided some comic and burlesque treats. For mere brutality—without humor, make-believe, or whimsy—didn't interest him. Which might lead a person to extrapolate that boys aren't truly brutal. Yes, they are, but they have rules and an aesthetic. Keats was a child of action. He'd punched a yard monitor more than twice his size, and he was considered a strong boy, lively and argumentative. When he was brawling, his friend Clarke reports, Keats resembled Edmund Kean at theatrical heights of exasperation. His friends predicted a brilliant future for him in the military. Yet when his temper defused, he'd grow extremely calm, and his sweetness shone—with the same intensity as his rage had. The scent of angels. His earliest brushes with melancholy were suddenly disrupted by outbursts of nervous laughter. Moods, vague and tentative, didn't settle over him so much as hurry past like old breezes.

Chris Buckland WrightWoodcut portrait of Keats by John Buckland Wright from The Letters of John Keats to Fanny Brawne, 1931
A year before leaving Enfield—the Georgian-style school building would later be converted into a train station and then ultimately be demolished—John Keats discovered Books. Books were the spoils left by the Incas, by Captain Cook's voyages, Robinson Crusoe. He went to battle in Lemprière's dictionary of classical myth, among the reproductions of ancient sculptures and marbles, the annals of Greek fable, in the arms of goddesses. He walked through the gardens, a book in hand. During recreation breaks, he read Elizabethan translations of Ovid. Scholars have made a habit of pointing out that the poet didn't know Greek. So what? Even Lord Byron insinuated that Keats hadn't done anything more than set Lemprière to verse. In the same way that the translation errors from Greek don't at all invalidate Hölderlin's Der Archipelagus, Keats's own transposed Greek perhaps allowed him to tear up the fields of Albion with the shards of classical ruins. He revealed to no one that he was an orphan. The tutors were glued to his side. He forgot his birthday and decided to study medicine. He learned how to leech, pull teeth, and suture. He observed cadavers on the dissection table that had been purchased off the resurrection men for three or four guinea each. The naked bodies were delivered in sacks.

Keats took notes and in the margins sketched skulls, fruit, and flowers. He felt alone. The "blue devils" settled along with him into the damp room. He frequented the Mathew family, his cousins, Ann and Caroline, who had a righteous horror of the frivolities of youth. They picked out piano arias from Don Giovanni and the young men danced the quadrille. It's said that John Keats's very first passion was for a stranger he'd seen for half an hour. He was waiting for her to smile at him but she never did. John Spurgin wanted to make a Swedenborgian of him. Keats's friend Charles Cowden Clarke procured his books. Clarke was a massively tall man with bushy hair; eight years older than Keats, he had a great interest in cricket, about which he wrote a handbook. He would also write about Chaucer and Shakespeare. Keats played cricket too.

His appearance was transformed in a single afternoon in 1813 at a lecture about Spenser. Seeming suddenly both large and potent, he emerged from his diminutive stature while reciting the verses that had struck him. He devoured books, he copied, translated sections, he became the scribe and secretary to his mind. He informed his friends at Guy's Hospital that poetry was "the only thing worth the attention of superior minds." And it would become his sole ambition. He dressed like a poet, collar turned up and tied with a black ribbon. For a short time he grew a mustache. When exam day arrived, everyone was sure that he wouldn't pass, what with those poetic airs. He did earn his diploma and would be able to work as an apothecary. But he chose to leave medicine. He was only twenty years old when he saw his own poem, "To Solitude," published in the Examiner.

Chris Buckland WrightWoodcut by John Buckland Wright from The Collected Sonnets of John Keats, 1930
It was impossible for his talent not to draw the attention of many people. Leigh Hunt, imprisoned for having libeled the king, protected Keats as long as Keats let him. John Hamilton Reynolds thought of him as a brother. Joseph Severn perceived ecstasy in his face and about his features—but then, Severn was a painter. He observed that his head was too small for his broad shoulders, observed the intensity of his gaze that blazed like a flame when crossed but when calm glittered like a lake at dusk, and noted a cold lethargy. They visited museums together. He saw Brown, Dilke, Bailey, Hazlitt. Things were lukewarm with Shelley. Benjamin Haydon showed him the Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon. Keats didn't have the money to travel the world but made a long walking tour of Scotland. He wore a sack on his back filled with old clothes and new socks, pens, paper, ink, Cary's translation of the Divine Comedy, and a draft of Isabella. His traveling companion was the clerk and writer Charles Armitage Brown, a practical and energetic man. Keats returned home ragged and feverish, his jacket torn and his shoes missing, but he had scaled a mountain, the Ben Nevis. He was poor, according to W. B. Yeats, and couldn't build a Gothic castle as Beckford had, which inclined him instead toward the pleasures of the imagination. Yeats also said that Keats was malnourished, of weak health, and had no family. But aren't all poets the heralds of Heaven?

According to the testimony of friends, Keats was of small stature, though rather muscular, with a broad chest and broad shoulders (almost too broad); his legs were underdeveloped in proportion to his torso. He gave off the impression of strength. His chestnut hair was abundant and fine. He parted it with a ruler and it fell across his face in heavy silken curls. He had a high, rather sloped, forehead. His nose was beautiful but his mouth— they were specific on this point—was big and not intellectual. His lower lip was pronounced, giving him a combative aspect, which diminished his elegance a bit, yet served, they were quick to add, to animate his physiognomy. His face was oval and there was something feminine about his wide forehead and pointy chin. Despite his disproportionate mouth, Keats, they'd concede, was handsome. Sometimes he had the look in his eyes of a Delphic priestess on the hunt for visions.

According to Haydon, he was the only one who knew him—with the sole exception of Wordsworth, who'd predicted great acclaim for him based on his looks.

He was brilliant socially, loved wordplay, and his eruptions of laughter were noisy and extended. People found him irresistibly funny when he did impressions. If he didn't like the conversation, he'd retreat to a window corner and look out into the void. His friends respected that corner as if it were his by law.

If a face, as Johann Gottfried Herder says, is nothing more than a Spiegelkammer of the spirit, then we should be a little frightened of Keats's variety of expressions. Even doubt insinuates itself. When Keats wrote, "I thought a lot about Poetry," we can't see in that a mirror reflection of Keats. The mirror is empty, uninhabited. The idea has no facial features and could look like anything, but theologically it's more beautiful empty. Keats is unable to contemplate himself. His gift is not knowing how to reconcile himself. The identity of a person who is in the room with him presses in and cancels his own out in a flash. When Keats speaks, he's not sure that he's the one talking. When he dreamed of bobbing in the turbine in Canto V of Dante's Inferno, it was one of the great joys of his life.

Painting of John Keats by Joseph Severn, 1819
Joseph Severn's portrait is described by some as a lie drawn from truth: friends found it too effeminate, the trembling mouth, and yet the eyes were right, even radiant. The painting's three-quarter view makes the eyes seem even bigger, more remarkable. His focus rests above the earth yet not in the sky—fixed on a murky horizon. His pupils are slightly enlarged, trained perpendicularly on the suspended thought. Even his gaze is indolent, sensual, consciously engrossed, and like a veil shifting across his brow, there is a flash of charming zealotry. He looks like a girl, and if we think of him as a girl, the femininity of his features evaporates and he seems stubborn and volatile, the constant surveyor of his own visions.

One day in Haydon's study, Keats recited "Hymn to Pan." Wordsworth was there; he kept his left hand tucked into his waistcoat. "With reverence" was the way he'd inscribed a book of his poems for Keats and he was truly reverent about poetry. Wordsworth's wife was once heard to say, "Mr. Wordsworth is never interrupted." Keats dared open his mouth anyway. He recited his verse in that singsong way of his while pacing up and down the room. In the space between his voice and the paintings on the wall there was a plastic silence. "A very pretty piece of paganism," said Wordsworth, his left hand still tucked into his waistcoat. Haydon was distressed by Wordsworth's utter tactlessness and angered by his use of the word "paganism." And yet we read in Meister Eckhart that through their virtue, the pagan masters had ascended higher even than Saint Paul, and that experience was what had brought them as high as the apostles had come through grace.

Chris Buckland WrightWoodcut by John Buckland Wright from The Collected Sonnets of John Keats, 1930
There were women Keats didn't dislike. Miss Cox, an Anglo-Indian heiress, had a theatrical Asian beauty and was therefore despised by the Reynolds sisters. She kept him awake one night the way a Mozart piece might. "I speak of the thing as a passtime and an amuzement than which I can feel none deeper than a conversation with an imperial woman the very 'yes' and 'no' of whose Lips is to me a Banquet."

Isabella Jones was a few years older than Keats and had read "Endymion." They met when she was staying with an elderly Irish relative in the village of Bo Peep near Hastings. Biographers have questions about her—the two took walks, took tea together in the garden, and played whist late into the night—was this a summer fling or an initiation? The prevailing view is that it was an initiation.

What took the form of a young woman who'd moved in nearby was almost a matter of sorcery. For some time, Keats didn't want anyone to utter her name. Her mere existence was secret. Fanny Brawne was descended from knights, monks, and lawyers. Her mother had married for love against her parents' wishes— like Keats's own mother who'd married the stable boy at the Swan and Hoop Inn. Fanny acquired Beau Brummell as a cousin when her mother's sister married. From her paternal ancestors who'd performed at the Garrick, Fanny inherited a proclivity for the theater. Grandfather Brawne had supported the liberation of women. It was said about Fanny that she wasn't very beautiful, but undoubtedly elegant. Her nostrils were too thin, her face too long, the nose aquiline, and her pallor chronic. Her cheeks were never rosy, not even after a six-mile walk. The history of female beauty is almost always told in the negative. Even the Brontë sisters were talked about as plain, as was Emily Dickinson. Spiritual sex appeal does not seem to generate chivalry. Fanny was the same height as Keats, just over five feet tall. His nickname for her was "Millimant." From the moment she met him, Fanny was taken with his conversation. Generally, she found men to be fools. Was compelled to describe herself as "not timid or modest in the least." She conversed in French with the émigrés at the Hampstead "colony." She danced with officers at the St. John's Wood barracks. She had an eighteenth-century way about her, her hair curled in the style of the court of Charles II. Fanny had a "fire in her heart." Her mother made inquiries about Keats with the neighbors. They were engaged. Keats signed his letters to her with the emblem of a Greek lyre with four broken strings and the motto: Qui me néglige me désole. Walking on the heath, Keats came across a being with a strange light in its eyes, a rumpled archangel—he recognized Coleridge. They walked together and spoke of nightingales and dreams.

Chris Buckland WrightWoodcut by John Buckland Wright from The Collected Sonnets of John Keats, 1930
"That drop of blood is my death-warrant. I must die," pronounced Keats calmly on the third of February 1820. He seemed intoxicated. His future was not predicted by a Sibyl, but by the medical student himself, the poet whose verses describe beauty flooded by a mortal estuary. With the intensity he'd once applied to his anatomy studies, he scrutinized the blood on his handkerchief. He felt like he was suffocating and only managed to fall asleep after hours of despotic insomnia. On the third day he was well enough to receive visitors and read news of George III's death. Doctor Rodd came to see him. His lungs were not compromised but the doctor recommended mental rest. They determined that the hemorrhage was simply the body trying to fight off the recent bout of cholera that his brother George had suffered. They soothed him with currant jellies and compotes, some of which dripped onto a Ben Jonson first edition. This extreme diet provoked strong palpitations. Doctor Bree, a specialist, was summoned. They could find no ailments in his lungs or other organic causes. Keats's illness "is in his head," they concluded. For a day, he was tormented by Fanny's specter, which appeared to him dressed as a shepherdess and then in a ball gown. She was a joyful simulacrum dancing and giggling in the void.

The morning of June 22, he had light bleeding. In the afternoon he went to the Hunts for tea. They talked about an Italian tenor. There was a lady there who was particularly interested in bel canto and was amazed that the young gentleman was the author of "Endymion." The bleeding got worse over the course of the evening. He spends the twenty-third laid out in a room, far from Fanny, staring at flowers on a table. Speech is difficult. He indicates the verses he favors in a volume of Spenser he wants to give to Fanny. The doctor Darling prescribes a trip to Italy. Keats's hands are like those of an old man, veins swollen; his features, Severn reports, have taken on the same cast his brother Tom's did when he was dying of consumption. The evanescent hand furiously traced an oblique line over the first copy of his book. In a preface, the publisher apologized for the unfinished "Hyperion." It is the first of July. There is a metal taste in his mouth. "If I die," he tells Brown, "you must ruin Lockhart." For he was the one who'd written an insulting article about Keats that touted gossip and personal details. Unsigned—yet Keats applied his sleuthing talents and located an inside source to identify that enemy of literature.

Keats considered going just anywhere in order to die alone. Then he wanted Brown to go with him. But he was to leave for Rome with Severn. On the twentieth of August he started coughing blood again. His friends began to say their farewells. Fare wells to dying people are often awkward. Haydon started off the ceremony. By way of comfort, he began to speak about life after death—the last thing that Keats wanted to hear. Angered, Keats answered that if he didn't get better right away he'd rather kill himself. John Hamilton Reynolds was unable to take his hand. He wrote to John Taylor that he was happy about Keats's departure, that he should be running from Leigh Hunt's vain and cruel company. As for Fanny, Keats only benefited from the absence of the poor thing—to whom he was so incomprehensibly bound. Fanny wrote in her diary: "Mr. Keats leaves Hampstead." Keats gave her the Severn miniature, a copy of Dante, a copy of Spenser, and his Shakespeare folio. They exchanged locks of hair and rings. Fanny sewed a silk lining into his traveling hat and also gave him a journal and a knife. Woodhouse also took a lock of his hair. He wanted to be Keats's Boswell. The Maria Crowther set sail. It was a small two-rigger and when the sea got rough it disappeared beneath the waves.

Chris Buckland WrightWoodcut by John Buckland Wright from The Collected Sonnets of John Keats, 1930
It had one cabin intended for six people. There was the Captain, a good man; Lady Pidgeon, plump and pleasant; and Mistress Cotterell who was gracious though in an advanced state of consumption. But then there was a typhoid epidemic in London, the ship was quarantined, and it was October 31 by the time that ended and Keats was twenty-five years old. When Mistress Cotterell disembarked in Naples she asked, a little too loudly, after the moribund youth. They arrived in Rome on the fifteenth of November. Doctor Clark was waiting for them. His bedside manner had been acclaimed by the King of Belgium and Queen Victoria. He was a Scot. While attending Keats, he had only minor concerns about what was afflicting the heart and lungs and said that the more serious trouble was in his stomach. Mental exertions were the source of the trouble. The doctor recommended fresh air and moderate exercise. He had Keats throw all his medicines to the dogs. He suggested horseback riding and rented a horse for him at six pounds sterling a month. The landlady, Anna Angeletti, asked five pounds sterling in rent. Keats desired a piano and so that was rented as well. Doctor Clark lent him several pieces of music, throwing in a Haydn sonata as well. The food was fetid. On one occasion, Keats threw it out the window after tasting it. Shortly thereafter he was brought an excellent meal.

He started reading Alfieri's Tragedie but had to stop after the first few pages—not being able to contain his emotions. He wrote a last letter to Brown, attempting an awkward bow and a grand farewell. On the tenth of December after vomiting blood, he asked Severn for laudanum. The attacks over the next week were violent. He suffered from hunger. Clark rationed his food severely because of the ruined state of Keats's digestive apparatus; one anchovy on toast a day. Keats begged for more food. He couldn't sleep. He suspected that someone back in London had poisoned him. The servants didn't dare come into his room because they feared he was contagious. On Christmas Day, Severn perceived in his friend's desperation that Keats was "dying in horror." As a good Christian, Severn tried to convince Keats that there was redemption in pain. Keats dictated a list of books that he wanted to read: Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, and Madame Dacier's translation of Plato. Three letters arrived that day. The letter from Fanny remained unopened.

Hulton Archive/Getty ImagesDrawing by Joseph Severn of John Keats on his death-bed in Rome, 1821
At the end of December the landlady reported Keats's illness to the police. Severn didn't go out to sketch ruins but stayed at Keats's side instead. Keats was overcome by sleep and Severn drew a portrait of Keats's head on his pillow, eyes closed, face hollowed, a few curls glued to his forehead with cold sweat. Then transcribed Keats's words, his last testimony. Severn was in the presence of a great poet. He may have been already thinking that one day he would be buried beside him. He'd been to visit the Protestant cemetery near the Pyramid of Cestius, its grounds were glazed over with violets and it seemed that Keats liked the spot. He said he would feel the flowers grow over him. Severn knew that violets were Keats's favorite flower. He plucked for him a just budded rose, a winter rose. Keats received it darkly and said "I hope to no longer be alive in spring." He wanted what he called in his last letter a "posthumous existence" to come to an end. Inscribed on his gravestone: "Here lies one whose name was writ in water." His words are set into the stone as if on a mirror, touching everything and not touched by anything—strange asymmetry.

Stretched out on his bed, he gazed up at the rose pattern in the blue ceiling tiles. His eyes grew glassy. He spoke for hours in a lucid delirium. He never lost his faculties. He prepared Severn for his death. He wondered whether he'd ever seen anyone die before. He worried about the complications that might come up. He consoled Severn and told him that it wouldn't last long and that he wouldn't have convulsions. He longed for death with frightening urgency. On the twenty-third of February he worried about his friend Severn's breathing, how it pressed on him like ice. He tried again to reassure him: "It will be easy." Dusk entered the room. From when Keats said that he was about to die, seven hours passed. His breath stopped. Death animated him in the last moment. After the autopsy, Clark said that he couldn't understand how Keats had survived so long. Fanny's last letters, never read by anyone, were sealed in his coffin. After the funeral service, the police took possession of the apartment on Piazza Spagna. They stripped the walls and floor and burned all of the furniture.


From These Possible Lives by Fleur Jaeggy, translated by Minna Zallman Proctor, which will be published by New Directions tomorrow.

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Friday, July 21, 2017

德勒兹:何谓创造的行动?在电影中拥有观念意味着什么?


德勒兹:何谓创造的行动?在电影中拥有观念意味着什么?

2017-07-20 石绘 译 泼先生PULSASIR 泼先生PULSASIR

1987年3月17日,德勒兹受让·纳波尼(Jean Narboni)之邀在FEMIS电影学校做了一次电影讲座,1989年5月18日在FR3/ Océanniques电视节目播出,这篇文章就是本次讲座的录音稿。夏尔·特松(Charles Tesson)在与德勒兹商量后,整理了本文中的部分录音稿,并以"在电影中拥有一个观念"(Avoir une idée en cinema)为题出版(Jean-Marie Straub,Danièle Huillet [Aigremont: Editions Antigone, 1989], p. 63-77),向斯特劳布夫妇(让·马里·斯特劳布[Jean-Marie Straub]和达尼埃尔·雨叶[Danièle Huillet])的电影致敬。讲稿的完整版于1998年秋首次在Trafic出版。本文译自Gilles Deleuze, Two regimes of madness:Texts and Interviews 1975-1995, Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents, 2006, pp. 312-324。

图为德勒兹1975年在梵森大学(巴黎第八大学前身)讲课的照片

何谓创造的行动?

作者:[法] 吉尔·德勒兹

译者:石绘

(中国人民大学文学院博士研究生)

我也想询问一些我自己的问题。向你们询问一些,向我自己询问一些。这些问题诸如此类:当你们在做电影时,究竟在做什么?当我做哲学或希望做哲学时,我在做什么?

我可以换一种方式询问此问题。何谓在电影中拥有一个观念(idea)?如果有人做电影或想要做电影,拥有一个观念意味着什么?当你说"嘿,我有一个观念"时发生了什么事情?因为,一方面, 每个人都知道拥有一个观念是稀有事件,是值得庆贺的时刻,并不十分常见。然后,另一方面,拥有一个观念并非某种普遍意义上的事情,没有人在普遍意义上拥有一个观念。一个观念——就像拥有此观念的人一样——已经投身于某个特殊领域。有时它是绘画中的观念,或是小说中的观念,或是哲学中的观念,抑或科学中的观念。显然,同一个人不会拥有全部这些观念。观念应被看作潜能(potentials),这些潜能已经参与到一种或另一种表达样式之中,并且与之水乳交融,如此,我不能声称自己在普遍意义上拥有观念。依靠所熟稔的技术,我可以在特定领域内拥有一个观念,一个电影中的观念或哲学中的观念。

让我回到我做哲学和你们做电影的原理上。一旦这一原理确定下来,我们将不会轻易说,既然哲学乐于思考所有事物,为什么它不思考电影呢?愚哉问也。哲学并不用来思考所有东西。无人需要哲学来思考。能够有效思考电影的唯一人士乃电影制作人和电影批评家或者热爱电影之人。这些人无需哲学来思考电影。认为数学家需要哲学来思考数学的看法是可笑的。如果哲学要被用来思考某些事物,它就没有理由实存。如果哲学实存,乃是因为它有其自身的内容。

这很简单:哲学这门学科具有与其他任何学科同等的发明性和创造性,它存在于创造或发明概念(concept)的行动中。概念并不是在某个天堂预先制作好,等待着某些哲学家来抓取它们。概念需要被生产出来。诚然,你不能像这样制作出它们来,不会在某一天说道,"嘿,我要发明这个概念",就像一个画家不会说"嘿,我要画一幅如此这般的画作",或者就像一个电影制作人不会说"嘿,我要拍这部电影!"在哲学或别处,必得有某种必然性;否则一无所有。创造者并不是为了乐趣而工作的牧师。一个创造者只做他或她绝对必需要做的事情。下述判断尚待说明,即这一必然性——如果存在的话,它会是一个十分复杂之物——意味着一个哲学家(在这里我至少知道他们处理的问题)打算去发明和创造概念,并且不介入思考,甚至是关于电影的思考。

我说我是做哲学的,尝试发明概念。如果我问做电影的诸位,你们是做什么的?你们不发明概念——这并非你们的关切——而是发明运动/绵延的聚块(blocks)。制作运动/绵延聚块的人可能是在做电影。它与引用一个故事或拒绝这个故事毫无关系。任何事物都有一个故事。哲学同样讲述故事,讲述概念的故事。电影讲述运动/绵延聚块的故事。绘画发明某种完全不同类型的聚块。它们并非概念聚块或运动/绵延聚块,而是线条/颜色聚块。音乐则发明另一种类型同样独特的聚块。与所有这些一样,科学并不缺乏创造性。在科学和艺术之间我看不出有多少牴啎。

如果我问科学家他们在做什么,他们同样在发明。他们并不发现——"发现"确实存在,但那并不是我们如此描述科学活动的词语——他们与艺术家创造得一样多。这并不复杂,一个科学家是发明或创造功能的人。唯有他们担此工作。一个科学家与概念毫不相干。这甚至就是为何——谢天谢地——有哲学的缘由。然而,确有一件事科学家知道如何去做:发明和创造功能。何谓一种功能?当至少两组集合之间存在着被调控的关联时,一种功能就出现了。科学的基本观念——不是从昨天开始而是经久不衰——乃是集合的观念。集合与概念毫不相干。一旦你将诸集合置入业经调控的关系中,你就获得了功能,并且可以说,"我在做科学"。

每个人都可以和其他人交谈,一位电影制作人可以和一位科学家交谈,一位科学家对一位哲学家也有话可说,反之亦然,但只是在他们自身创造性活动的意义上才成立,只是根据他们自身创造性活动才如此。他们不会谈论创造——创造是一件非常孤独的事情——但是以创造的名义,我确有心声要向他人吐露。如果将所有这些通过创造性活动来规定自身的诸多学科聚集起来,可以说,它们有着一个共同的界限。所有这一系列发明——发明功能,发明绵延/运动的聚块,发明概念——的共同界限乃是空间-时间。所有这些学科在从不为其自身而出现但参与每个创造性学科的东西的层面上相互交流:这个东西就是时间-空间。

众所周知,布列松的电影中鲜有完整的空间。我们可称之为断裂的(disconnected)空间。例如,出现一个角落,一个牢房的角落。随后我们看见其他角落或部分墙壁。每件事情都发生,好像布列松的空间由一系列没有预定关联的碎片组成。与此相反,也有一些伟大的电影制作人利用整全的空间。我不是在说采用整全空间更为容易。但是布列松的空间是一种非同寻常的空间。诚然,这种空间已在对其进行革新的其他人那里以十分创造性的方式得到运用。但是,布列松是第一个以断裂的微小碎片来组织空间的人,这些微小碎片之间没有预定的关联。补充一句:"所有这些创造性行动的界限乃是空间-时间"。只有时间-空间。布列松的绵延/运动聚块将趋向于此类型的空间,而非其他。

布列松《扒手》剧照

布列松《扒手》剧照

问题由此变成,如果这些微小的视觉空间碎片之间并无预定的关联,那么是什么将它们联结起来的。答曰,是"手"将它们联结起来的。这不是理论或哲学。不能像那样(指理论与哲学——译注)被演绎出来。我认为布列松式的空间在影像中赋予"手"以电影摄影的价值。布列松式微型空间之间的联系——由于它们是微小、断裂的空间碎片——只能用手来完成。这解释了其电影对"手"的极尽呈现。布列松的空间/运动聚块因此就有了"手"来作为这位创造者、这个空间的特别人物角色,这手乃是直接从这位创造者、这个空间而来。唯有"手"才能在一个空间部分和另一个之间有效地建立关联。布列松无疑是最伟大的电影制作人,不仅出于他知道如何拍摄"手"的绝妙镜头,还因为他将触感价值重新引入电影之中。他知道如何拍摄"手"的影像是因为他需要它们。创造者不是为了享乐而创作。创造者只做他或她绝对必需要做的事。

再强调一遍,在电影中拥有一个观念与在别处拥有一个观念并不相同。然而,电影中的观念在其他学科中可以同样行之有效,例如这些观念在一部小说中可能会无比精彩。但是它们的面貌将会截然不同。电影中的观念只能以电影摄影的方式存在。无论如何,即使电影中的观念能够在小说中行之有效,这些观念已经参与到电影摄影的进程中,这一进程使得它们在成为电影之前就得到确定。这是一种使我感兴趣的提问方式:例如,是什么让一位电影制作人真正地想要改编一部小说?对我来说似乎明显的理由是他或她所拥有的电影观念与小说呈现出来的小说-观念产生了共鸣。有时会产生强有力的相遇。问题不在于电影制作人改编一部极其平庸的小说。他或她可能需要这部平庸之作,这并不意味着这部电影不会优秀;考虑此问题将很有趣。但我的问题与此迥异:当这部小说是一部优秀之作,并且呈现出某种亲密性时,什么事情发生了?而通过这种亲密性,某位电影制作人将拥有与小说观念相呼应的一个电影观念。

最为完美的范例之一是黑泽明。为何他对莎士比亚和陀思妥耶夫斯基如此熟悉?为何一个来自日本的男人如此熟悉莎翁和陀翁?我将给出一个可能同样关乎哲学的回答。陀翁的人物经常遭遇相当奇特的状况。这是一些可能因小细节)而起的状况。一般来说它们非常恼人。某个人物一边离开,走上街,一边说:"坦娅(Tanya),这个我所爱的女人,要我帮助她。我必须赶紧;如果我不去她那儿她就会死去"。当他下楼遇见了一个朋友或在街上看见一只濒死的狗时,他忘记了,完全忘记了坦娅在等他。他遗忘了。他开始交谈,遇见另一个熟人,在他家去喝杯茶,并且突然再次说道:"坦娅在等我。我必须走了"。这意味着什么?陀翁的人物不断地陷入紧急状况中,当陷入这些生-与-死的紧急状况中时,他们知道还有一个更为急迫的问题——然而他们不清楚那究竟是什么。这就是制止他们的东西。每件事情都仿佛是在最为糟糕的紧急状况中发生的——"不能等,我必须走了"——他们自言自语道:"不,还有更紧迫的事情。在知道那是什么之前我是不会行动的"。这就是白痴。这就是白痴的程式:"你知道,有一个更深刻的问题。我不确定那是什么。但别打扰我。让一切腐朽……必须找到更为急迫的问题"。黑泽明并不是从陀翁那里学到这些东西的。但他的所有人物都是这种类型。这是一次巧妙的相遇。黑泽明能够改编陀翁,至少因为他可以说:"我与他有着共同的关切,共同关心的问题,就是这个问题。"黑泽明的人物处于不可能的情境中,但等等!还有更急迫的问题。并且他们必须知道那个问题是什么。《生之欲》(Ikiru)可能是在这个意义上走得最远的影片。但他所有的电影都循此方向。例如《七武士》(The Seven Samurai)。黑泽明的全部空间依赖于一个必然是椭圆的被雨淋湿的空间。在《七武士》中,人物陷入紧急状况中——他们已经准备去保卫村庄——并且从影片开头至结尾,一个更为深刻的问题噬咬着他们。此问题在影片结尾处当他们离开时由武士首领阐明:"什么是一名武士?不是在普遍意义上,而是在此刻,什么是一名武士?"。他们是不再服务于某个目标的一群人。统治者不再需要他们,农民也将很快学会保护自己。通过这部影片,尽管陷入紧急状况,武士被这一问题纠缠,这是白痴的一个闪光点:我们这些武士,我们究竟是谁?

黑泽明《七武士》剧照

黑泽明《七武士》剧照

一旦参与到电影摄影的过程中,一个电影观念就会是此种类型。如此,你就可以说,"我有一个观念",即便那是从陀思妥耶夫斯基那里借用过来的。

一个观念非常简单。它不是一个概念;它不是哲学。尽管我们可以从每个观念中提取出一个概念。我想起了文森特·明内利,他有一个关于梦的非比寻常的观念。这是一个简单的观念——可以这么说——并且它在明内利作品中参与了电影摄影过程。明内利关于梦的重要观念是,它们大多关乎那些没有做梦的人。那些正在做梦之人的梦关乎那些未在做梦之人。为什么关乎他们?因为哪里有他人的梦境,哪里就有危险存在。人们的梦总是耗尽心力的,并且威胁着要吞噬我们。他人的梦境十分危险。梦是某种可怖的权力意志。我们每一个人多多少少都是他人梦境的受害者。甚至最优雅的少女都是一个可怕的毁灭者,不是因为她的灵魂,而是因为她的梦。当心他人的梦,因为一旦卷入他们的梦境,你就在劫难逃了。

试举一个电影摄影观念的例子,如相对晚近的电影中著名的视听分离——以最知名的来说——汉斯-于尔根·西贝尔伯格,斯特劳布夫妇,或玛格丽特·杜拉斯。他们有什么共同之处,并且,分离视觉和声音怎么就是一种独特的电影摄影观念?为什么不能将之运用于戏剧?它至少可以实现,但如果除了一些例外,它在戏剧中实现出来了,并且戏剧发现了运用它的方法,我们可以说戏剧从电影那里借用了它。这并不必然是一件坏事,但如此这般的一个分离视觉和听觉、分离观看和言说的电影摄影观念,正是对电影观念是何物之问题的典范回答。

一个声音在言说某物。某人正在谈论某物。与此同时,另外的东西被呈现给了我们。最终,他们谈论的东西位于呈现给我们的东西之下。第三点十分重要。你会发现戏剧如何不能效仿这些。戏剧可以呈现前两个效果:某人向我们讲述某事,并且其他东西展现给我们。但是还要让某人正在讲述给我们的事物同时位于展现给我们的东西之下——此乃必须,否则前两个效果将变得毫无意义和索然无味。我们可以换一种说法:随着我们目送陆地进一步坠落,话语便升腾到天空。或者,随着这些话语升腾到天空,他们谈论的东西便沉入地下。

如果只有电影能实现它,那它是什么呢?我并没有说电影必须实现它,而只是说它实现过两三次。简而言之,伟大的电影制作人都有这一观念。这是一个电影摄影的观念。它是非同寻常的,因为它在电影层面确保了某种真正的转变,确保了某种突然使得电影与元素的质的物理学产生共鸣的循环。它产生了一种转变,产生了电影中以气、土、水、火起始的元素的广泛循环。所有我正在讲述的东西都不会抹去它的历史。电影的历史依然在那,但拨动我们心弦的是,为何这一历史如此充满乐趣,别无他因,除非是因为所有这些始终在它之后并伴随着它。在我刚刚快速定义的"循环"中——当声音正在谈论的东西坠入地下时声音升腾起来——你可能已经认出了斯特劳布的大部分电影,认出了其作品中元素的伟大循环。我们只能看见荒凉的土地,但是这片荒凉之地的下面似乎充满着什么东西。你可能会问,我们怎么知道它的下面藏着何物呢?这恰恰就是声音正在告诉我们的东西。这个东西在准备就绪时开始在地下慢慢充盈,仿佛陆地正在声音所告诉我们的事物之下变形。如果声音向我们讲述尸体,讲述尸体的世系,那么你眼中荒地和旷野上最轻柔的风吟,这片土地上最微小的地坑都将承载着意义。

我认为在任何情况下,拥有某种观念都不处于交流的秩序中。这是我想说的要点。我们所谈论的所有东西都不能简化为任何形式的交流。这不是一个问题。此何谓也?首先,交流是信息的传布与扩散。信息为何物?此问不难,每个人都知道它是什么。信息是一组命令、口号、说明:秩序-话语。当信息传播给你时,你被告知的是你被认为应该去相信的东西。换言之,传播信息意味着传播某种秩序-话语。警方的声明可以恰当地称为信息交流(communiqués)。信息被交流给我们,他们告诉我们什么是我们应该准备去做的,或必须做的,或被认为相信的。甚至并不相信,但假装好像我们相信。我们不是被要求去相信,而是被要求去行动,就好像我们真的相信似的。这就是信息和交流。在这些秩序和它们的传播之外,没有信息,没有交流。这与信息完全就是控制系统的说法如出一辙。这一点显而易见,并且它在现时代尤其关乎所有人。

斯特劳布夫妇《阶级关系》剧照

斯特劳布夫妇《恨难解》剧照

我们正在进入某种社会,它可被称为控制社会(control society),此言不虚。米歇尔·福柯,这位思想家分析了与我们所处社会相对接近的两种社会类型。他称其中一种为主权社会(sovereign society),另一种为规训社会(disciplinary society)。他认为从主权社会到规训社会的典型时段对应着拿破仑时代。规训社会——福柯的分析依然知名,并且确实精辟——通过约束性区域的建立而得到规定:监狱,学校,作坊,医院。规训社会需要它们。他的分析导致一些读者进行模棱两可的解读,因为他们认为那是他的最终定论。显然不是。福柯从未相信它,并且明确说过规训社会不是永恒的。他认定我们正在进入某种新型社会。当然,规训社会的各种余孽一直都延存下来。但是我们已经知道我们身处某种不同类型的社会,它可以被称为——借用巴勒斯的术语,福柯非常欣赏巴勒斯——控制社会。我们正在进入的控制社会以迥异于规训社会的方式得到规定。那些关心我们福利的人不再需要或将不再需要控制场所。监狱、学校和医院已经是持续讨论的场所。让医生来家里不是更好吗?是的,那一定是未来的图景。作坊和工厂与日俱增。采用更多的分包制(sub-contracting)以及在家办公不是更好吗?难道还没有除了监狱以外的惩罚人的其他途径吗?控制社会不再通过约束性场所维持自身。甚至无需学校。我们应该密切关注下一个四十年或五十年出现的主题。它们将会解释同时追求学校和一个职业是多么美妙。学校和职业将变得与持久的训练相同,这就是我们的未来,见证这一过程会十分有趣。它将不再需要将孩子聚集到一个约束性的场所。控制不是规训。一条公路并不会约束人们。但是通过建造公路,你增加了控制的方式。我并不是说这是建造公路的唯一目的,而是说人们可以无限地和"自由地"旅行,无需被约束,但与此同时也被完美地控制。这就是我们的未来。

我们可以说,这就是信息之所是的东西,秩序-话语的控制系统在一个特定社会中的运用。艺术作品与它有何关系呢?让我们谈谈艺术作品,但是我们至少可以说,存在着反-信息(counter-information)。在希特勒时代,从德国来的最早告诉我们有关集中营事件的犹太人就是在反-信息。我们必须意识到,反-信息不足以起事。从来没有反-信息曾让希特勒感到困扰。除了一种情况。什么情况呢?此乃关键之所在。当反-信息是——本性上是——或变成一种抵抗行动时,它才变得真正有效。一种抵抗行为不是信息或反-信息。反-信息只有变成一种抵抗行动方才有效。

在艺术作品和交流之间存在着什么关系呢?毫无关系。一件艺术作品不是交流工具。一件艺术作品与交流毫不相干。一件艺术作品不包含哪怕一点点信息。相反,在艺术作品和抵抗行动之间存在着一种基本的亲密性。作为某种抵抗行动时,它与信息和交流有些关系。当那些抵抗着的男男女女们既没有时间,也时常没有与艺术发生最微小关系而必需的文化时,艺术作品和抵抗行动之间的神秘关系会是什么?我不知道。马尔罗阐发了一个值得钦佩的哲学概念。他谈了一些关于艺术的非常简单的东西。他说艺术是唯一能抵抗死亡的东西。让我们回到开篇:做哲学的人究竟在做什么?他们发明概念。我认为这是一个值得钦佩的哲学概念的肇始。想想它吧……什么抗拒死亡?要发现马尔罗的回答是多么精辟,你只需要看看公元前三千年前的一座小雕像。因此,从关乎我们的观点来看,我们可以说,艺术抵抗死亡,尽管并不是抵抗死亡的唯一之物。抵抗行动和艺术作品的亲密关系从何而来。在某种意义上,抗拒行动就是艺术作品,尽管并非每个都如此。在某种意义上,艺术作品也是抗拒行动,虽然也并非每个都如此。

以斯特劳布夫妇为例,比如他们将声音和视觉图像分离的时候。他们通过下述方式实现:声音传来,它升起,它升腾,并且,它所谈论的东西在裸露的、荒凉的土地之下穿行,这土地以视觉图像的方式映入我们眼帘,与那个声音图像毫无瓜葛。这一其对象在地下穿行的升腾在天空中的言说行动是什么呢?是抵抗。抵抗行动。在斯特劳布夫妇的所有作品中,言说行动是一种抵抗行动。从《摩西》(Moses)到"最后的卡夫卡"(此处应指根据卡夫卡未完成小说《美国》改编的《阶级关系》——校注),包括——我并没有按顺序列举——《恨难解》(Not reconciled)或"巴赫"(《安娜·玛格达丽娜·巴赫的编年史》)。巴赫的言说行动乃在于他的音乐是一次抵抗行动,一次反对世俗和神圣相分离的积极抗争。这一音乐中的抵抗行动随着一次哭喊而终结。就像《沃采克》(Wozzeck)中的哭喊,在巴赫那里也有一次哭喊:"出去!出去!出去!我不愿再见你!"当斯特劳布夫妇把焦点放在这一哭喊上时,放在巴赫的哭喊时,或者放在《恨难解》中精神分裂老妇的哭喊上时,这势必要说明两个方面。抵抗行动有两副面孔。它既是人性的同时又是艺术行动。唯有抵抗的行动才能抵抗死亡,它或者是作为一件艺术作品,或者是作为人的抗争。

在人的抗争和一件艺术作品之间存在着何种关系呢?这是所有关系中最为亲密的以及对我来说最为神秘的关系。这正是保罗·克利在说这句话时要传达的意思:"你知道,民族(the people)正在失踪。"民族正在失踪,同时,他们并未失踪。民族正在失踪意味着一件艺术作品和和一个缺席的民族之间的基本亲密性将永不明朗。所有艺术作品都召唤着一个缺席的民族。

"方志小说"联合来自中国南部的5个村落,发起驻村写作计划,旨在从乡土方域的现场纹理出发,从地方记忆的人文肌理出发,基于文字文本、图像摄影、影像视频、声音档案、当代艺术等多种可能的形式,进行一场创造性的写作之旅。(点击图片查看详情

"

申请日期:7月5日至7月25日

投递邮箱:pulsasir@163.com

请注明"方志小说"

泼先生成立于2007年,是虚拟的非正式团体,致力于歧异情境之中的写作实践、学术思考和艺术行动。


Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

抛弃卡片目录后 图书馆失去了什么|界面新闻 · 文化


抛弃卡片目录后 图书馆失去了什么

《卡片目录》是一曲对图书馆的赞歌,以及一本书籍冷知识的合集。

Michael Lindgren · 2017/07/19 10:35评论(0) 收藏(3) 2.8W字体:宋

来源:界面新闻

图书馆

图片来源:美国国会图书馆

《卡片目录:书、卡片以及文学宝藏》(The Card Catalog: Books, Cards, and Literary Treasures)是一本关于卡片目录的图书,在国会图书馆的帮助下撰写并出版,成品精美,内容智慧且配图奢华。但这本书也让我在一周中都处在抑郁的状态。如果你是某个时代的图书爱好者,那你可能也会有相同经历。

"卡片目录"是很多东西:是文献参考历史的清晰综述,是国会图书馆的赞歌,是从前备受珍爱卡片目录的纪念品,也是关于图书各种小细节的插画集。这本书提供了从亚历山大图书馆的鹅卵石目录到先进的电子化图书数据库的文学概论简明史,其中对图书馆电子化的历程追溯,远至 1976 年。书中的插画也同样惊人:精美地复制了数打卡片、清单、封面、扉页以及其他保证让书呆子眼前一亮的图像。

对于在图书馆里和附近长大的人来说,这也是一个令人感伤的提示,提醒着我们一个世界的消逝。

现在,日益增加的怀旧情怀或是倡导图书馆的重要性已经成为了一件吃力不讨好的事情。你可以感觉到人们从 iPhone 手机屏上抬头一瞥,忍耐着微笑面对你离经叛道的行为。对此我的回应是,在最初的不敬过后,我会再次解释为什么图书馆对缩小不平等差距至关重要,以及为什么互联网对图书或图书馆来说不是合适的替代物。

国会读书馆卡片部,1919 年。图片来源:国会图书馆

《卡片目录》对于威胁着文化的电子产品上瘾是一剂有效的解毒剂。这本书展示了强大,却被轻视的,谦卑的卡片目录的性质,在 1969 年这一系统的巅峰时刻,曾每年印刷了高达 7900 万张卡片目录。每一张都是设计与实用性的完美结合,完美精确地提炼了书本的信息。在导言中,皮特·德沃雷奥克斯(Peter Devereaus)正确地将目录称为"历史上最多用途和持久的技术之一",这技术持续了近一个世纪,直到 1980 年,国会图书馆才完全转变成计算机化的系统。

尽管当代读者或许认为这本书有些过时,但卡片目录的概念结构恰好是互联网的基础,将某物进行"标签"分类储存,归为某一个标题下的创意,也出自国会图书馆。一个全国性的卡片目录系统是原始的"搜索引擎",不需要电力、服务器、宽带和智能手机,完全是民主化的。

这一精美信息结构的缓慢退化,让我们在面对书籍时感到怅然若失。德沃雷奥克斯引用了历史学家芭芭拉·楚曼来形容卡片目录是"我全部工作生活的伴侣"。历史上,芭芭拉曾在纽约公共图书馆做了一场感人至深的演讲,其中表达了对数字化搜索能力夸大的担忧:"(检索)的过程越简单,"她警告说,"搜索者在这一过程中就更少地自主思考"她接着说:"他们会得到更多自己想知道的信息,但同时也有更多用不上的。"

搁置技术不论,这本书同样召唤了一个过去美国信念的幽灵,即政府机构作为一种公共机构,提供服务的能力。国会图书馆实施着一套全国性的标准系统,来分类并追踪全国的集体出版历史,这当然是过去的一部分,正如蒸汽机或大礼帽一样。如此看来,卡片目录和其他 20 世纪伟大的民间成就一样,都是对社会和政府的潜力测试仪。

对于一些读者来说,这本书带来的个人怀旧是穿透人心的。当我思考那些塑造了我的书籍时——那些偶然选择的书籍为我的后大学教育提供了基础——我会想起凯尔和安吉尔,詹姆斯和狄迪昂,艾派迪克,罗斯和埃克斯雷的作品,他们在波士顿公共图书馆的塑料柜中,在我年轻时破旧公寓中的摇晃小桌子上,高高地堆放着。我作为一个读者,一个思考者,一个作家和一个人,都十分感激图书馆。这本书使我记得,我们如今已经失去了多少。

(翻译:李睿一)

……………………………………

欢迎你来微博找我们,请点这里

也可以关注我们的微信公众号"界面文化"【ID:BooksAndFun】

更多专业报道,请点击下载"界面新闻"APP

0

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

‘Proust is the godfather of fashion’: what writers’ clothes reveal about them


'Proust is the godfather of fashion': what writers' clothes reveal about them

Samuel Beckett had a Gucci bag; Dorothy Parker worked for Vogue. A new book on writers' style uncovers the hidden links between clothes and prose
Joan Didion in 1977. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

The title reads like a provocation: Legendary Authors and the Clothes They Wore. What? Shouldn't authors, especially "legendary" ones, be exempt from fashion scrutiny? Surely we should look at their words, not their outfits. If they produced great works of art, who cares how they dressed?

Gertrude Stein at Her Desk in 1936. Photograph: Hulton Deutsch/Corbis via Getty Images

"When I sat down the first morning and started writing about Samuel Beckett, I thought: 'Oh, my goodness. Am I doing something completely outrageous?'" says the book's author, Terry Newman, who teaches fashion journalism at the University for the Creative Arts, Epsom. As it happens, she soon discovered that Beckett was a great place to start: he carried a Gucci bag and loved Clarks Wallabee shoes.

Hemingway working while on safari in 1952. Photograph: Earl Theisen Collection/Getty Images

Newman's book is full of these crossovers between literature and fashion. There are obvious examples, such as Joan Didion, who appeared in a Céline campaign in 2015, and Dorothy Parker, whose writing career began at Vogue. But some alliances are more surprising. Gertrude Stein, with her monkish hair and opulent brooches, exchanged postcards with couturier Pierre Balmain. Vivienne Westwood was inspired by Joe Orton, and pretty much everyone was inspired by Proust. "Oh, Proust!" Newman says wearily. "He is the godfather of fashion. That 70s disco crowd was all so obsessed with him." Especially Yves Saint Laurent. This is unlike any Proust criticism I have heard.

Samuel Beckett in 1975. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

Living authors are underrepresented. Zadie Smith is here, as is Donna Tartt. But there is no Stephen King, with his curated casual look, and Karl Ove Knausgaard could feel unappreciated with only a brief entry in the "hair" section. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is another omission since she has a clear look based around graphic dresses. Her 2012 TED talk, We Should All Be Feminists, became a slogan on a Dior T-shirt.

Marcel Proust in 1896. Photograph: Corbis via Getty Images

No one questions the link between fashion style and artistic style for visual artists or actors or musicians, yet the idea seems controversial for authors. The writing-in-pyjamas trope is partly to blame. However, this motif is itself misleading. Writers like to say that they spend all day in sweatpants, but it would be wrong to see this as a dereliction of style. Often, the scruffiness is a way to preempt high expectations of what you are about to produce, to trick yourself into seeming unhopeful. It can be good to feel a bit undone. Who really thinks they will write their best if they go to the page fully clothed?

But writers don't spend all their time at a desk. They go into the world as authors, and, when they do, there may well be continuity between writing style and clothing style. "Strong voice" – that commodity so prized by agents and editors – is the verbal equivalent of a strong look. It follows that an author's style might unfold seamlessly from their wardrobes to their books.

Zadie Smith in 2001. Photograph: Sygma via Getty Images

"When people talk about fashion, they think of it as frivolous," Newman says, although it never seemed so to her. She grew up loving clothes and books. And if you love both, you know that it is possible to critique an outfit just like a sentence. The Booker-longlisted novelist Ned Beauman plays with volume in his prose and dress (he likes Rick Owens). Donna Tartt cultivates sharp angles in her bobbed hair, crisp collars and many-cornered sentences.

Tom Wolfe in 1976. Photograph: Alamy

Sometimes, a style can reinforce a writerly image and help to sell books, as it did for Ernest Hemingway, Tom Wolfe, Tartt herself – whose first author photo showed her severely bobbed in a snowy graveyard – or David Foster Wallace. His sports socks, trainers and very short shorts are the closest things to the mythical writer's tracksuit in Newman's book, but the mishmash doesn't look effortless. As befits his prose, every item of clothing looks like a footnote to some other outfit.

David Foster Wallace in New York in 2005. Photograph: Janette Beckman/Getty Images

As Wallace knew, style is inescapable. You cannot opt out of it, in clothing nor in writing. All you can do is to appear not to care. But, of course, that would be just another style.

Legendary Authors and the Clothes They Wore by Terry Newman is published on 27 July by Harper Design (£20). To order a copy for £17, go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.


Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

He’s Got the Fever


He's Got the Fever

. . . and the only cure is more literature

By Stephen Akey

Towards the end of Gabriel García Márquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold, a newly graduated magistrate is sent to a small Colombian town to investigate the circumstances surrounding the murder of the novel's ill-fated protagonist, Santiago Nasar. 25 years after the murder, the narrator, conducting his own investigation, travels to the Palace of Justice in Riohacha to examine the magistrate's report. Although the narrator can't find the magistrate's name on any of the surviving papers, "it was obvious that he was a man burning with the fever of literature. He had doubtless read the Spanish classics and a few Latin ones, and he was quite familiar with Nietzsche, who was the fashionable author among magistrates of his time . . . He was so perplexed by the enigma that fate had touched him with, that he kept falling into lyrical distractions that ran contrary to the rigor of his profession."

In the decades since I first read Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I've often thought back to that unnamed magistrate, for one simple and terrible reason: He reminds me of me. Not that I've ever been tasked with anything so consequential as a murder investigation. My professional responsibilities as a lifelong librarian have tended to such things as answering reference questions and pointing patrons the way to the bathroom. What I share with the magistrate is the "fever of literature," together with a choice of métier at variance with any literary dreams we might have had. Spiking our official reports about murder (in his case) and circulation statistics (in mine) with allusions to Nietzsche afforded some temporary relief of the fever but "ran contrary to the rigor" of our professions. Lamentably, no supervisor ever congratulated me on the lapidary elegance of my inter-office memos. I was lucky I didn't get fired.

If as a young person you discover that you're blessed or cursed with the fever of literature, you can decide to become a great writer and write great books, like Gabriel García Márquez, or, more realistically, you can become a librarian, like me. I would very much have preferred the first alternative, but lacking the talent to become North America's answer to the Colombian Nobel Prize winner or even a very mediocre poet (I tried), I chose to be a librarian by default. No doubt other choices presented themselves, university teaching foremost among them, but I dropped out of graduate school for reasons partly financial, partly personal. Although I sometimes wonder if I made the right decision, I'm quite sure I would be miserable in almost any present-day English department, where my "privileging" of aesthetic achievement over corrective ideologies would likely be seen as unacceptably retrograde, if not career-ending. Still, my relative independence has certain advantages. Although I do, alas, have to work for a living, I can choose to read and reread my favorite authors without worrying overmuch that many or most of them are undeniably what contemporary academics, and even I, would like them not to be: white, male, heterosexual, and dead. I couldn't agree more: the canon must be opened. Nor can I deny the truth of my experience: I've never read a better novel in English than Tom Jones.

So what do you do when you have the fever and work in a field more or less unrelated to your love for Friedrich Nietzsche and Emily Dickinson? Naturally, you spend your off hours reading books and talking about them with others who share the fever. There are legions of us, and in truth I'm one of the more dilettantish members of the tribe. In college I had envisioned my future as one given over to books and, as I then grandiloquently imagined it, "the life of the mind." But I got sidetracked. On the way to the illustrious career in academic librarianship that never happened, I had to stop off in New York City for a year to acquire my MLS degree from Columbia University. Within a month I realized I could never leave. The movies, the plays, the museums, the galleries, the concert halls, the rock clubs, the street life, the people who were a lot more interesting than I was — all of this, to my amazement, felt like the home I didn't realize I had been missing. The problem was that in falling for New York's endless cultural possibilities, I had — and still have — much less time for reading than I assumed would be my lot. In exchange for depth I got breadth. I relish, even when only half understanding, the paintings of Artemisia Gentileschi, the photography of Diane Arbus, the architecture of Henry Hobson Richardson, the operas of Giuseppe Verdi, the films of Kenji Mizoguchi, the theater of Peter Brook. On the other hand, I haven't come close to reading the major works of William James or Toni Morrison or hundreds of other major writers whose oeuvres I once fondly imagined would be at my fingertips. I'm reminded of a story about the librarian/fabulist Jorge Luis Borges, who was once asked in an interview to venture an opinion about Gustav Mahler. As ever, the most stupendously erudite man of his time was ready with a trenchant reply: "Who's Mahler?" How inspiring! Borges's province was the written word, and his blithe indifference to the other arts sanctioned my literary monomania. However, I read that interview with Borges when I was a student at the University of Connecticut. There wasn't much to do up there in northern Connecticut except read — other than rambling periodically through the woods, and even that was better in New York. (Not the least of the cultural blessings New York bestowed on me was the splendor of the twice-annual bird migrations through the city parks, of which I soon became an indefatigable observer.)

I've been speaking of a passion for literature versus a passion for the arts as if they were mutually exclusive, which they clearly are not. You can plunge into an intense involvement in all the arts while reading deeply and searchingly in the literatures of disparate cultures and times — if you're Gary Wills or otherwise endowed with preternatural energy, intelligence, and powers of retention. In other words: not me. I'm just an ordinary guy with too many enthusiasms — not excluding the National Basketball Association and action movies with jaded British supervillains — to do any of them justice. So I've had to make some choices. Literature will always be my deepest love, not only because it got to me first but because its medium — language — is the only one among all the arts I've ever had any facility in. Also because the mere act of speaking is itself a literary act. You might think, then, that my knowledge of literature would equal my passion for it. Not even close — because if I had committed myself to a comprehensive understanding of multiple literary traditions, I would have had to sacrifice my devotion to other arts that are no less primal and no less expressive of all human thought and experience. Which is to say, I might never have fallen in love with Anna Karina in all those Jean-Luc Godard films. Unthinkable.

So: I no longer read five hours a day. I've abandoned the effort to appreciate avant-garde jazz. I avoid the more cutting-edge Chelsea galleries, where the conceptual/political art on display repels any engagement that I can muster. That still leaves whole worlds of art, music, theater, opera, dance, film, architecture, and literature to move me, delight me, disturb me, turn me inside out. "O for a life of sensation rather than of thoughts!" John Keats exclaimed in a letter to Benjamin Bailey. Exactly: I'm not in it for exhaustive analysis or hair-splitting scrutiny. I go to the arts for the feeling, the sense that life is happening there or at least being refracted in a way that enlarges my perceptions, concentrates my awareness, connects me with others who have been similarly affected. Of course, if you have thoughts in the first place or are in possession of "a complex Mind" (as Keats called it), your sensations are going to be that much richer, and a certain amount of analysis and scrutiny intensifies any cultural experience worth having.

In another García Márquez work, Love in the Time of Cholera, the narrator comments on the "pathos-laden realism" of a portrait of the novel's protagonist, the eminent physician Dr. Juvenal Urbino. The entire city filed by to see the portrait's unveiling, but "it was pulled down many years later by art students who burned it in the Plaza of the University as a symbol of an aesthetic and a time they despised." If you live long enough, you might find that the aesthetic in which you came of age has come to be despised as well. My ideas about art and social responsibility are almost comically out of fashion. Maybe they'll come back, maybe they won't. Fashions come and go. What remains is the primary experience of culture — its beauty, its reach, its strangeness, its ability to transform an ordinary life like mine. •

Images created by Shannon Sands.

Stephen Akey is the author of the memoirs College and Library and of a forthcoming collection of essays, Culture Fever.

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

He’s Got the Fever


He's Got the Fever

. . . and the only cure is more literature

By Stephen Akey

Towards the end of Gabriel García Márquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold, a newly graduated magistrate is sent to a small Colombian town to investigate the circumstances surrounding the murder of the novel's ill-fated protagonist, Santiago Nasar. 25 years after the murder, the narrator, conducting his own investigation, travels to the Palace of Justice in Riohacha to examine the magistrate's report. Although the narrator can't find the magistrate's name on any of the surviving papers, "it was obvious that he was a man burning with the fever of literature. He had doubtless read the Spanish classics and a few Latin ones, and he was quite familiar with Nietzsche, who was the fashionable author among magistrates of his time . . . He was so perplexed by the enigma that fate had touched him with, that he kept falling into lyrical distractions that ran contrary to the rigor of his profession."

In the decades since I first read Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I've often thought back to that unnamed magistrate, for one simple and terrible reason: He reminds me of me. Not that I've ever been tasked with anything so consequential as a murder investigation. My professional responsibilities as a lifelong librarian have tended to such things as answering reference questions and pointing patrons the way to the bathroom. What I share with the magistrate is the "fever of literature," together with a choice of métier at variance with any literary dreams we might have had. Spiking our official reports about murder (in his case) and circulation statistics (in mine) with allusions to Nietzsche afforded some temporary relief of the fever but "ran contrary to the rigor" of our professions. Lamentably, no supervisor ever congratulated me on the lapidary elegance of my inter-office memos. I was lucky I didn't get fired.

If as a young person you discover that you're blessed or cursed with the fever of literature, you can decide to become a great writer and write great books, like Gabriel García Márquez, or, more realistically, you can become a librarian, like me. I would very much have preferred the first alternative, but lacking the talent to become North America's answer to the Colombian Nobel Prize winner or even a very mediocre poet (I tried), I chose to be a librarian by default. No doubt other choices presented themselves, university teaching foremost among them, but I dropped out of graduate school for reasons partly financial, partly personal. Although I sometimes wonder if I made the right decision, I'm quite sure I would be miserable in almost any present-day English department, where my "privileging" of aesthetic achievement over corrective ideologies would likely be seen as unacceptably retrograde, if not career-ending. Still, my relative independence has certain advantages. Although I do, alas, have to work for a living, I can choose to read and reread my favorite authors without worrying overmuch that many or most of them are undeniably what contemporary academics, and even I, would like them not to be: white, male, heterosexual, and dead. I couldn't agree more: the canon must be opened. Nor can I deny the truth of my experience: I've never read a better novel in English than Tom Jones.

So what do you do when you have the fever and work in a field more or less unrelated to your love for Friedrich Nietzsche and Emily Dickinson? Naturally, you spend your off hours reading books and talking about them with others who share the fever. There are legions of us, and in truth I'm one of the more dilettantish members of the tribe. In college I had envisioned my future as one given over to books and, as I then grandiloquently imagined it, "the life of the mind." But I got sidetracked. On the way to the illustrious career in academic librarianship that never happened, I had to stop off in New York City for a year to acquire my MLS degree from Columbia University. Within a month I realized I could never leave. The movies, the plays, the museums, the galleries, the concert halls, the rock clubs, the street life, the people who were a lot more interesting than I was — all of this, to my amazement, felt like the home I didn't realize I had been missing. The problem was that in falling for New York's endless cultural possibilities, I had — and still have — much less time for reading than I assumed would be my lot. In exchange for depth I got breadth. I relish, even when only half understanding, the paintings of Artemisia Gentileschi, the photography of Diane Arbus, the architecture of Henry Hobson Richardson, the operas of Giuseppe Verdi, the films of Kenji Mizoguchi, the theater of Peter Brook. On the other hand, I haven't come close to reading the major works of William James or Toni Morrison or hundreds of other major writers whose oeuvres I once fondly imagined would be at my fingertips. I'm reminded of a story about the librarian/fabulist Jorge Luis Borges, who was once asked in an interview to venture an opinion about Gustav Mahler. As ever, the most stupendously erudite man of his time was ready with a trenchant reply: "Who's Mahler?" How inspiring! Borges's province was the written word, and his blithe indifference to the other arts sanctioned my literary monomania. However, I read that interview with Borges when I was a student at the University of Connecticut. There wasn't much to do up there in northern Connecticut except read — other than rambling periodically through the woods, and even that was better in New York. (Not the least of the cultural blessings New York bestowed on me was the splendor of the twice-annual bird migrations through the city parks, of which I soon became an indefatigable observer.)

I've been speaking of a passion for literature versus a passion for the arts as if they were mutually exclusive, which they clearly are not. You can plunge into an intense involvement in all the arts while reading deeply and searchingly in the literatures of disparate cultures and times — if you're Gary Wills or otherwise endowed with preternatural energy, intelligence, and powers of retention. In other words: not me. I'm just an ordinary guy with too many enthusiasms — not excluding the National Basketball Association and action movies with jaded British supervillains — to do any of them justice. So I've had to make some choices. Literature will always be my deepest love, not only because it got to me first but because its medium — language — is the only one among all the arts I've ever had any facility in. Also because the mere act of speaking is itself a literary act. You might think, then, that my knowledge of literature would equal my passion for it. Not even close — because if I had committed myself to a comprehensive understanding of multiple literary traditions, I would have had to sacrifice my devotion to other arts that are no less primal and no less expressive of all human thought and experience. Which is to say, I might never have fallen in love with Anna Karina in all those Jean-Luc Godard films. Unthinkable.

So: I no longer read five hours a day. I've abandoned the effort to appreciate avant-garde jazz. I avoid the more cutting-edge Chelsea galleries, where the conceptual/political art on display repels any engagement that I can muster. That still leaves whole worlds of art, music, theater, opera, dance, film, architecture, and literature to move me, delight me, disturb me, turn me inside out. "O for a life of sensation rather than of thoughts!" John Keats exclaimed in a letter to Benjamin Bailey. Exactly: I'm not in it for exhaustive analysis or hair-splitting scrutiny. I go to the arts for the feeling, the sense that life is happening there or at least being refracted in a way that enlarges my perceptions, concentrates my awareness, connects me with others who have been similarly affected. Of course, if you have thoughts in the first place or are in possession of "a complex Mind" (as Keats called it), your sensations are going to be that much richer, and a certain amount of analysis and scrutiny intensifies any cultural experience worth having.

In another García Márquez work, Love in the Time of Cholera, the narrator comments on the "pathos-laden realism" of a portrait of the novel's protagonist, the eminent physician Dr. Juvenal Urbino. The entire city filed by to see the portrait's unveiling, but "it was pulled down many years later by art students who burned it in the Plaza of the University as a symbol of an aesthetic and a time they despised." If you live long enough, you might find that the aesthetic in which you came of age has come to be despised as well. My ideas about art and social responsibility are almost comically out of fashion. Maybe they'll come back, maybe they won't. Fashions come and go. What remains is the primary experience of culture — its beauty, its reach, its strangeness, its ability to transform an ordinary life like mine. •

Images created by Shannon Sands.

Stephen Akey is the author of the memoirs College and Library and of a forthcoming collection of essays, Culture Fever.

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Why the novel matters

  Why the novel matters We read and write fiction because it asks impossible questions, and leads us boldly into the unknown. By  Deborah Le...