Thursday, March 13, 2008


Thinking of Robbe-Grillet, I'm reminded of Simon Schama's great PBS TV series last year about artistic masterpieces. He wonderfully highlighted works by geniuses like Caravaggio. Then he did an episode on a 20th century American abstract painter-- I can't recall his name. Rothko? Schama went through his usual effusive explanation, then the camera panned and you were looking at a big blob of paint.

It's the same thing with Robbe-Grillet. The critical establishment can gush and point, but when you look at the actual work there's not a lot there. You're looking, basically, at a blob of paint.

Or as Oscar Madison said, "It's not linguine, it's garbage."


FDW said...

Yes it was Rothko.
I met Robbe- Grillet in the mid- Seventies. He also did a couple of films and he showed "Jealosie" based on his novel of the same name. All the academics were swooning and smarmy.
I found his stuff fascinating, but had no real emotional response but that might have been the point.
Thing is that your pointing out that "art" like Grillet (I doan agree with your assessment of Rothko) is for all its seeming control and sophistication is sloopy. The stuff is supposed to be "deconstructivist" and the fakery and sham is to be ignored because of this intellectual "ism".
This is what your decrying I believe.
Yet over on your Philly Lit blog you've got this local "poet", a self- declared "decon-structuralist" who is hiding a lot more than Robbe- Grillet is, in troth.
This person is so vehemently egomaniacal and narcissistic they believe they can get away with hiding their total lack ( what I mean here is that there is no concern for the AUDIence nor fundamental "skill" as their "affects" tend to neutralize themselves) of understanding of syntax and idiom ( in order to pull that off, first the poet must listen to the parlance of the palestinian- american street and live among the people, have a fundamental love and compassion for the people-- niether quality exists in this sociopath)IN ORDER TO BREAK IT, PLAY WITH IT.
THis poor person is mentally- emotional disturbed and potentially dangerous because of their pretty apparentm hatred toward the audience and their heedless in your face display
of authoritarian exhibitionism.
Any one who in ignoring the fact that the Emperor is not clothed but naked is simply dirty like that too.
Your ignoring this and attacking a postmodernist like Rothko or Robbe- Grillet is pretty telling.

K.I.N.G. Wenclas said...

It's telling only that my purposes for the two blogs are different.
With Philadelphia, yes, I'm reaching out to all literary people-- all those who will reach out to me. Including boozhies.
This blog on the other hand is focused on presenting a new way of viewing and creating literature.
I'm not a one-track person with a one-track mind, and I'll no longer either be pursuing a one-track strategy.
In fact, I'm going to come at literature, at the literary world, from all directions; all sides.
(When Bonnie is taught in the academies like Robbe-Grillet-- if that ever occurs-- I'll reconsider your remarks.)
One has to always keep in mind context. Context! Maybe Alain R-B lived in an abstract bubble detached from the world, but I don't.

K.I.N.G. Wenclas said...

p.s. Keep in mind that if Robbe-Grillet were around today (is he?) I would welcome posting his remarks on one of my blogs. I can disagree with someone yet accept their viewpoint. (As long as they accept mine!)

FDW said...

You are not being honest here.
I am assuming that either you have reached out to those many others who are in kind and degree totally anti- thetical to self serving "puppets" of the system and fakes like BM. And they haven't gotten back to you for their own reasons among them being that they are alienated from you. Or you haven't because you have some kind of agenda like this to stroke your own wounds.
I am to be honest with you really pissed off that yopu haven't respected my request to remove my post from Philly Lit blog.
I sent you in all confidence two requests to do so, by personal email, so as not cause a ruckus. Now I find myself having to do so public'ly such as it is. getting into a pissing match about ignorance and knowledge centered around a person who is not only not a pathetic writer but only usefull to the agencies of conformity and devisiveness as we both know well is true, no matter how much you pretend otherwise for whatever reasons.
Believe me you don't want to get into it with me. You need to respect my wishes and take down my post ASAP so we can start over and or continue on a new foot.
I want you to understand that I haven't anything personal against BM, she is insignificant and I haven't any need to deal with her on any level. Stylistic'ly she has nothing to do with Robbe- Grillet. His sentences are as clear cut as Hemingway's. I am the one as usual feeding you the ammo and knowledge and terms that you're using to justify this or that.
It's simply that I have also nothing really in common with the other wrieter that besides BM that are standing on top of my post. I have nothing personal against them but personally I would like to keep them at arms length. I feel duped and sullied by being "under" their collective miasma.
So I'll expect that you (since the Blog in question has been "loaded" by you to make it impossible to remove my own fucking work!)will take my post no later than Tuesday or there will be consequences.

K.I.N.G. Wenclas said...

??? The only request I received, Frank, was a request to rewrite it-- which I offered to you before I posted it. (I believe, even in a remark underneath it when you posted it as a comment.)
I'll gladly remove the post. Consider it done.
Your attitude toward Bonnie shows
1.) an ability to distinguish between those who are important, with power, and someone, as you say, merely looking out for her own interest. Yes, Bonnie is following her own agenda. So what?
2.) the everpresent ability of poets to enjoy engaging in petty feuds which benefit no one. Much of the ULA's momentum in 2003/2004, particularly in Philly, was dissipated by these feuds, when my original intent was to unite everyone. I made a mistake, sure, by getting involved in the middle of one or two of them. This will not happen again.
Good luck to you.