The Best of The Kugelmass Episodes

Dear readers,

I have been struggling for hours to get this blog to actually display this list as a permanent set of links on the right hand side, especially since I’m proud to announce that all the posts and comments from The World’s Forgotten Boy (my old pseudonymous blog) have now been imported here. Anyhow, I can’t get the widgets to work, and I’m half-crazy over it, but we’re not going to let that stop us.

Below are the very best posts I’ve written since I started blogging in December, 2005. It’s been over a year! The truth is, my writing was more stylized when I was writing as “forgottenboy,” and those posts were sometimes more fun. So I encourage you to read lots of them, starting with the ones here (it’s in rough chronological order, with the newest posts at the bottom, the forgottenboy posts at top). That blog was active from December 2005 to September 2006. (NB: In some cases, because the commenting system at Blogger sucks so much, I wrote follow-up posts rather than responding to comments with comments.)

In general, I’ve avoided the really long academic papers, and emphasized those posts with creative or funny parts; I’ve also thrown in some emo posts for good measure. There isn’t a whole lot of politics unless you read between the pop culture lines.

I really wanted to do a worst-of here, as an accompaniment, but that sounded better on paper than it looked online. To generalize, I would say that my worst posts fall into one of three categories: ones where I’m merely gossiping about trends (yuppies play Scrabble!), ones where I can’t bring myself to come right out and say what I mean (magnets and babble!), and links posts. Yeah, links posts. No more, but I am keeping my blogroll up-to-the-minute.

Have fun with these!

-Kugelmass

***

Dim lights, big city

I’m more of a Catiline person

The argument sketch plus Barbie

Kristeva died for your sins

Smoking and time

The stars down to earth

Ninotchka, it’s only a hat!

The cowboy and the stripper (Part 1 and Part 2)

A conversation with Bill Viola

Snoop, Clueless, Woody Allen, and the English Language

Ethics and melodrama

The Killers, Franz Ferdinand, Modest Mouse

Murakami’s Norwegian Wood

Adventures in Birdland

No Desert Island: Towards A Gutsy Aesthetics Via Nabokov

Pablo Neruda’s Sublime

Children Of Men And Frank O’Hara’s Personism

On Pitilessness

Buffy The Vampire Slayer (Part 1 and Part 2)

On The Accusation Of Totalitarianism

The Laundry Post

A Zombie Tale

One Art

Sexuality, Pop Culture, and Magic: The Prelude Starring Buffy

You are my sweetest downfall
I loved you first , I loved you first
Beneath the stars came falling on our heads
But there just soft light, there just soft light
Your hair was long when we first met

Samson came to my bed
Told me that my hair was red
He told me i was beautiful and came into my bed
Oh I cut his hair myself one night
A pair of dull scissors and the yellow light
And he told me that I’d done alright
and kissed me till the morning light

–Regina Spektor

*

Now that I’ve watched my way almost to the end of Buffy’s third season, I’m ready to write the sequel to my first post, which was Buffy The Social Anxiety Slayer. (Note: if you don’t want the larger context, just skip to after the break. But you probably do.) (Update: link fixed.)

This is a post about what the show does with sex. It is not about how the show caves in to goth-lite alternative rock at every opportunity, culminating in a prom scene where the cover of “Wild Horses” by the Rolling Stones made me so angry that I had to set one of my Mazzy Star records on fire. More generally, it isn’t really about the show’s alleged insight into the high school experience. Buffy is comfortably devoid of any such insight. Particularly annoying is the show’s equation of talking about studying with actual studying, and its helpful decision to reinforce the popular idea that SAT scores + money determine college admissions.

This isn’t insider criticism for fans of the show. It would be a huge mistake to think of Buffy as a cult phenomenon. It is the prelude to a larger blog project on sexuality and popular culture, tentatively scheduled to post this August. There I will take a look at the trickle that’s become a torrent: Swingers, Sex and the City (again), The Tao of Steve, Rodger Dodger, The Rules, The Game, Wedding Crashers, and so on. (It will come to light in a few years that Zizek was the only theorist ahead of the curve, since he actually does write about The Rules and seduction in his newer books.)

These works, which are collectively raising the bar for alienation, emotionlessness, and insincerity, are what is happening right now in sexuality. They totally subsume the “metrosexual.” The only significant sexual events they don’t enfold are at the frontiers of gender: transsexuality, transgendered individuals, and related phenomena. It’s really no surprise that the most controversial and, often, the most exciting things being written in the feminist blogosphere right now are by, for, or about “trans” persons.

So this post really continues the work I began in my TWFB posts on cowboys, strippers, and astrology. Ultimately, I’ll be putting together a whole book on magic and popular culture, tentatively titled Willing Fictions, which I see partly as an update of Weber.

One final note, before we get down to brass tacks: you can’t go home again. It’s a huge relief to be writing about Buffy, since last week I also watched Notting Hill and tried to watch The Notebook. No, I don’t know why I’m that dumb either. I insist that nobody told me that Notting Hill was going to be about a pitiable little whiner, played gamely by Hugh Grant, following around Julia Roberts despite her astounding self-absorption until she finally gives him a painting. In essence, it was the story of a guy trying to act out the ridiculous expectations of subservience and continual forgiveness that are usually imposed on women.

The Notebook was even more unfair, because it’s one of those films that tries to whisk us away to a more innocent time. The problem with films like that is that they always fall back on anachronistic tricks from the corrupt old present: the Ryan Gosling character is essentially a modern scammer, except that he really means it because, after all, this was a different America where you could say “aw, shucks” and mean it.

Enough with the classic-style romances. Let’s get to the vampires. Apologies in advance: somebody recalled my Zizek, so I’m gonna have to paraphrase instead of quoting.

1. The Red Herring

The word on the street about Buffy is that the show broke ground for alternative sexualities. As Brandon wrote in a comment to my first post, “The show may do more to ‘bring to light’ marginalized sexual predilections than it does marginalized members of the D&D club.”

I see this issue differently. While the show’s references to “safety words” and so on may be confusing or shocking to somebody who has been living under a rock for ten years, these references never go beyond the status of jokes for 98% of the characters, with the exception of the vampires Spike and Drusilla. Sado-masochism comes up as repartee when characters are being actually tortured or imprisoned. That is just pure sadism. It’s not the contractual relationships that have enabled these kinds of desires to become semi-mainstream. Likewise, erotic asphyxiation is just a goofy way for the show to joke about nerdy sidekick Xander almost getting strangled.

I am, however, interested in the fact that these perversions function as a kind of red herring, in part because that is the larger social function of perversion, outlined persuasively by Zizek in The Ticklish Subject. For Zizek, sado-masochism and other such complexes serve their function by making the requirements of sexuality so concrete and complicated that they provide the illusion of solid ground: the problem becomes the immediate practical problem of tying up one’s lover properly, rather than the anxiety-producing question of what one actually desires. The specificity of fetish simultaneously obscures the relationship between the fetish and the rest of life, and provides an illusory sanctuary from those other fourteen waking hours in the day.

On the show, the references to perverse or fetishistic behavior, which are always made as jokes and thus always refer to somebody else besides the principals, draws our attention away from the fact that the relationships of the principals are not what they seem, and aren’t reducible to “real” perversions like sado-masochism either. For example, the Television Without Pity recap of one show goes like this: “Does it mean anything that Angel shows the most personality we’ve seen from him after torture and bondage? Best not to read too much into that.” This skips over the fact that the Angel/Buffy relationship, which has no medieval props, isn’t ice creams and lockets, and isn’t just a case of the badass older guy either.

2. The Spell: Seduction and the Death Drive

In the very Freudian world of the show, desire is produced by the id. The vampires are id-mirrors of the human beings, and even the vampires have id-eclipses where they turn into ravenous Klingons (if you haven’t seen the show, I can summarize by saying this is when they turn from evil Jekyll into evil Hyde). The really bad vampires (usually henchmen), who don’t repress at all, always look like Klingons.

The id is the repressed truth of the person. The vampire form of Willow gives us the first clue that Willow is gay. When Buffy gets infected by demon blood, she acquires the ability to hear what everybody’s “really” thinking, except for Angel, who she can’t hear because he’s already id (being a vampire and all).

Desire is not a two-way street in Buffy. It is either active desire, which is the desire to kill, or passive desire, which is the desire to die. (Jean Baudrillard was the first to identify seduction with the desire for death, I believe, in his book on the subject.) The id aligns itself with the death drive. As the vampire Spike puts it, in amusing allegorical fashion, “I found her on a bench, making out with a chaos demon.” This is actually what is happening every time anybody in the show makes out with anybody else. Thus a vampire always interrupts trysts in Sunnydale, and rock shows at “the Bronze” are always under threat of vampires.

The active half of this equation should be pretty familiar: the satisfaction of desire equals the erasure of the other person, who is merely a means, and who is “sacrificed” on the altar of that instrumentality. (That’s why it’s so dangerous to be desired. When every woman in town is bewitched by Xander, they nearly kill him.) The greater the agency of the other, the greater the victory, and that makes Buffy the Slayer the object of disproportionate lust. This is an utterly masculine dynamic. Both men and women on the show are concerned about threats to their masculinity, a topic I’ll cover in more detail under the heading of castration.

Meanwhile, what about the desire to die? Why such a profusion of spells, hypnotic trances, and possessions? As Kenneth Burke argues in The Rhetoric of Motive, the “desire to die” appears frequently in artworks, and is very rarely literal, even if it sometimes expresses itself as literal (i.e. suicidal) intentions. In Buffy, the desire to die is the unconscious articulation of a desire for the interruption of normalcy.

Sometimes this takes the form of adultery, like the adulterous relationship between Xander and Willow that Willow tries to ward off with a Pez dispenser her boyfriend gave her (standing in for a cross). Here the normal romantic relationship is invaded by chaos.

In general, the desire for interruption is the desire to enter a world of different and greater bliss. Xander, the unpopular kid, wants the popular girl Cordelia. Willow, the studious nerd, wants Oz the rocker. Potential love interests for Buffy are criticized for being thrillseekers, but their real problem is that what is excitingly different for them is more of the same for her. Buffy’s dream world is made up of the fables surrounding normal events like the prom.

Buffy’s the most interesting case, because her predicament sheds light on the intersection between desire and duty (the work ethic). She doesn’t want to be a Slayer: she says so at the beginning of the show, and reiterates the point approximately twice per episode for seven seasons, except at the end of certain episodes where she realizes that being a Slayer is her job yadda yadda yadda. I say “yadda yadda yadda” because, after another fifteen minutes of screentime, we’re always back to the Buffy who doesn’t like the color of her parachute.

Her love for Angel suspends her obligation to her Slayer duties: here’s a vampire she doesn’t have to kill. This is the respite she cherishes in his company.

The reason she wants this respite, as she makes clear in the pilot episode, is that her destiny has been imposed on her, just the way studying is imposed on all the high school students, and the way work is imposed on adults. Being a Slayer is a “forced choice,” and the result is that she’s bound to want to express her freedom by subverting that choice. In general, just as the agency of the Slayer is the forced choice of the employee, the freedom offered by the vampire merges with the passive spectacle of entertainment and celebrity. Celebrities are the ones who got away, like Roxy Carmichael did: we assume their lives are more interesting and glamorous than our own, so we ambivalently either want them to return to our level, or we want to be consumed by them. We stalk them innocuously through magazines and celebrity gossip sites, and we are consumed by them in the mediocre mode of distraction.

Even the celebrities themselves don’t know how to escape this dynamic, so they mirror us back to ourselves in works like Eminem’s “Stan” or Sarah McLachlan’s “Possession.” The power of fascination is really a projection born of unhappiness.

The most hypnotically compelling vampire on the show, Dracula himself, is also the most famous, his legend stretching far beyond the limits of the show.

3. Love on Buffy: Don’t Blame Boreanaz

You can’t understand Buffy until you put it in reverse: Buffy loves Angel because he’s a vampire, Willow loves Oz because he’s a werewolf, Giles is a good Watcher because he was once a teddy boy named “The Ripper.”

The key to the love relationship is sublimation: most of the time, Oz’s werewolf nature is sublimated into his rock music. Giles and Angel both revert to their bad old selves on the occasions where they have to fight, at which times Buffy and the viewers alike are delighted by the show of machismo.

In other words, the love relationship is a fiction that keeps a lid on the real source of attraction, the lurking power in the other. When Drusilla hypnotizes Giles into thinking she’s Jenny Calendar, he’s really seeing Jenny as she actually was: he was in love with a computer teacher who was also a “technopagan” and occultist, but the only reason Ms. Calendar was a technopagan was that she was actually a Gypsy (with some other, silly “gypsy” name) sent to make sure Angel continued to suffer. Drusilla is only doing what Ms. Calendar did first. Ms. Calendar was the woman Giles loved because of her secret identity as a Gypsy witch.

If you’re one of those unfortunate types who happens not to have any obvious lurking chaos, you’re basically out of luck until magic comes to your aid. Xander’s two shots at attractiveness come when he’s possessed by demonic hyenas, and later when he is transformed by a magical costume into an actual soldier. He wins the right to Cordelia’s love on that one magical night. Willow is a different story: she’s just very repressed. Her tone of voice, her sense of style, and her luck all change as her desiring id (her Wicca powers and homosexuality) gradually surfaces.

If all this sounds a little less than romantic, well, don’t worry, it gets worse. The show is less sanguine than Freud about the virtues of sublimation, and invariably portrays love as a form of castration that affects men and women alike.

The funniest kinds of castration affect Buffy. Dracula, when he’s seducing her, commands her to put down her stake. In the same episode where Xander turns martial, Buffy dresses in period costume to impress Angel, and ends up transformed into a passive woman incapable of protecting herself. Angel, in a characteristic scene, tells her that he was always bored of helpless women like that. Later, he will tell her that he always gets bored of women who are like the wild child Faith. You can’t go one way or the other in Buffy: you have to be the voluntary Samson whose hair could always grow back.

That’s why David Boreanaz gets an unfair deal when he is criticized for playing Angel with the sensitivity of a cardboard cutout. It’s pretty hard to play a character whose inner conflicts are in a state of perfect equilibrium, and that’s what you get with Angel, since he’s both more powerful and more crippled than any other principal. He’s a vampire, but he has a soul. He’s wracked with guilt, but he has a reason to live because of Buffy. The impulses neutralize one another so perfectly that he’s left with no room for emotion. The slightest actual happiness will turn him evil, since it will break the spell of repression.

4. The Stakes

So what about the stakes? They’re sexual, right? They’re pointy (sometimes Buffy calls her stake “Mr. Pointy”) and both Faith and Giles make terrible jokes comparing killing vampires to having sex.

The moment of the staking is the moment of conquest and disillusion. The vampire is literally “seen through,” in that he or she turns to dust and disappears. When Buffy snaps out of her hypnotic trances (when she’s fighting the Master and later when she’s fighting Dracula), she gets down to the business of staking. Faith’s lust for the act is the mirror and complement of her completely cynical appropriation of her own desires, a la Samantha in Sex and the City. Angel has sex with Buffy, loses his soul, and begins to taunt her by saying the relationship meant nothing. Buffy is never fully disillusioned with Angel, though, so he gets stabbed with a mere sword and returns later, intact.

The vampire at the moment of its death is also the symbol of the betrayed lover, which is why the staking is so frequently dramatized as a surprise. Mr. Trick has the same look when he’s staked as Buffy has when she sees Angel with Faith.

When Cordelia realizes that Xander is cheating on her, she almost immediately falls through a rickety stair onto a metal rod. She sends Xander away as she lies in the hospital, recovering from being staked.

5. The End Scene Where We Look Wistfully Back And Sometimes Do A Voice-Over

This is the properly tragic dimension of the show: without the vampires, there is nothing, because according to the logic of the show, desire is what bodies forth the world. Willow can’t allow her vampire döppelganger to be killed, because that would mean a living death for her.

Duty and reasonableness are a vacuum, empty as the dusty air after a slaying. Desire teems with creation, but its law is kill and be killed, or else wear a false and crippling mask. That is our world through the eyes of this show. That is its spell, and its disenchantment.

Jubilee Part 2: An Accidental Account of Thomas Pynchon and A Brief History of Tom Robbins

Okay, I lied. In my previous post, I claimed that in high school I read nothing but elevated works of high tragedy. You have to understand that it was four in the morning. Actually, the other things I read in high school, very avidly and more than once, were the novels of Tom Robbins and Anne Rice. I suppose I still haven’t outgrown Anne Rice, even though Interview with the Vampire is eighty percent whining, and anything after Queen of the Damned is pathetically unreadable.

Tom Robbins is a more difficult case. He created a map for the enjoyable novel, almost after the fashion of some marketer highly placed in the publishing world.

Instead of the endless heartbreak of Gatsby or Salinger, Robbins substituted seductions and chance encounters taken more or less directly from the world of romance novels.

Instead of the metaphysical quicksand of lost time, or crime and punishment, Robbins substituted an unexplored cosmos of continual possibility. Different cultures and religions jostled alongside each other in friendly fashion, offering up all their myths for one’s own private wonderment.

Instead of pushing genre to the point of horror and banality, as Poe might have done, Robbins started with banality (a waitress stuck in Seattle, with her dissertation at a standstill) and then started uncorking genre plots like fresh bottles of champagne. There was fantasy (immortality! pagan gods!), mystery (international operators! the hidden body of Jesus!), and stock characters from a bohemian-infused commedia del’arte.

All that being true, I still grew tired of the way Robbins retreated into fantasy to prove his metaphysical ideas, and of the superficial relations between his winking, primally prepossessing heroes and their adventurous, but subservient, Barbie doll lovers. His endless, showoff sentences began crashing painfully against my temples.

Which means that I have been waiting for about eight years for another author capable of taking Robbins’s place — capable of bringing the open-ended life to life, without losing hold of prose or plotting like Wolfe (either Wolfe, Tom or Thomas) or Kerouac tend to do. It is one thing to write about the bohemian experiment as a nonfiction experiment in living — that’s what makes On the Road and Tropic of Cancer so great — and another thing to write from inside the ideas that make it run. Enter Pynchon and The Crying of Lot 49, and the word “Tristero.”

Tristero is a reference to the philosopher’s stone, via Hermes Trismegistus, and the allegory of that stone, capable of turning lead into gold, is the allegory for Pynchon of the possibilities of metaphor, “another set of possibilities to replace those that had conditioned the land to accept any San Narciso among its most tender flesh without a reflex or a cry.” This is still the dream he’s hunting down in Against The Day: the task of re-drawing the map of America, and the whole industrialized world, such that many Americas (by which Pynchon would mean something like many undergrounds of different common, intellectual projects) could exist spontaneously, undertaken in freedom.

These connections between people, more or fewer people, are necessarily coded, and not universally visible; the intimacy of the project or of the love affair demands it (hence the connotation of the secret “tryst” in Tristero). (If there is one work through which I could forgive Derrida, it would be A Taste for the Secret.)

So, the symbol of the Tristero is the post-horn, meaning the time after the sounding of the trumpet: “I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega’ ” (Rev. 1:11). Pynchon makes the parallel explicit: “Passerine spread his arms in a gesture that seemed to belong to the priesthood of some remote culture; perhaps to a descending angel. The auctioneer cleared his throat. Oedipa settled back, to await the crying of Lot 49.”

It makes little sense to call Pynchon post-modern. The man is post-apocalyptic, on the sworn evidence of his own metaphors. For Pynchon, the apocalypse is the moment where the mechanism, the mechanical in thought and deed, becomes totally ascendant:

Creation was a vast, intricate machine. But one part of it, the Scurvhamite part, ran off the will of God, its prime mover. The rest ran off some opposite Principle, something blind, soulless; a brute automatism that led to eternal death. The idea was to woo converts into the Godly and purposeful sodality of the Scurvhamite. But somehow those few saved Scurvhamites found themselves looking out into the gaudy clockwork of the doomed with a certain sick and fascinated horror, and this was to prove fatal.

If we ask ourselves what alternative exists to this triumph of the mechanical system, in Pynchon’s novel, it turns out to be a curiosity about alternatives: a curiosity about what the lethal apocalypse has remaindered, exactly in the sense of the remaindered books in Zapf’s Used Books, and in the sense that Oedipa has survived the death of Inverarity (“invariety”) and his San Narciso empire. (Also in the sense of the remaindered “zero” I discussed in the post on Paul de Man. “Tristero” of course contains the word zero as a complement to the triad.) It is the purest of intellectual enterprises: the suspension of the self in the name of the search, adventure qua adventure.

In other words, the dead genre-hopping and dead virtuosity of Robbins has been transformed here into the great narrative of curiosity (as it probably always was, with Robbins shamelessly ripping Pynchon off, and both of them stealing from Joyce). What has become of the mystery plot? It has become a plot about how Oedipa constructs meaning, even when she knows that the resolution of the mystery is also a moment of death:

San Narciso at that moment lost (the loss pure, instant, spherical, the sound of a stainless orchestral chime held among the stars and struck lightly), gave up its residue of uniqueness for her; became a name again, was assumed back into the American continuity and crust and mantle. Pierce Inverarity was really dead.

“It’s over,” she said, “They’ve saturated me. From here on I’ll only close them out. You’re free. Released. You can tell me.”

But the man Oedipa tells this to is already lost; like the victims of forgetting in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, he has been unwilling to move past the completed hermetic circle (sphere) of loss and trauma back the beginning with another love, instead choosing to isolate himself as a member of Inamorati Anonymous. In Pynchon’s world, love and curiosity are the same thing.

What happened to the fantasy plot? It became a plot about the function of metaphor; the catachresis, or original error that brings a metaphor to life, becomes a miracle:

    “The Machine uses both. The Demon makes the metaphor not only verbally graceful, but also objectively true.”
“But what,” she felt like some kind of a heretic, “if the Demon exists only because the two equations look alike? Because of the metaphor?”

“You know what a miracle is. Not what Bakunin said. But another world’s intrusion into this one. Most of the time we coexist peacefully, but when we do touch there’s cataclysm. Like the church we hate, anarchists also believe in another world. Where revolutions break out spontaneous and leaderless.”

So the metaphor is middle term, the third term, between two things: between two specific things, like information and thermodynamics in the case of Maxwell’s Demon, and between the thinking subject (Oedipa) and the impersonal “power spectra” of discourse (as revealed to Mucho in his hallucinatory perfect knowledge of corporate music). Hence Tri-stero, triad. It is the fantasy plot: miracle, alchemy, out of catachresis (if there’s one book through which I could forgive Derrida, it would be White Mythologies).

What becomes of Robbins’s seduction plot? It’s there as the first adulterous encounter between Metzger and Oedipa, and that moment, with its wonderfully comic explosion into Oedipa supplemented by every piece of clothing she owns:

So began, for Oedipa, the languid, sinister blooming of The Tristero. [...] As if the breakaway gowns, net bras, jeweled garters and G-strings of historical figuration that would wall away were layered dense as Oedipa’s own street clothes in that game with Metzger in front of the Baby Igor movie; as if a plunge toward dawn indefinite black hours long would indeed be necessary before The Tristero could be revealed in its terrible nakedness.

In other words, the seduction narrative (the striptease game) turns into the irony of the search for truth, for an unveiling which instead magnetizes an increasing number of objects (clothes) and events to it through unforeseen tunnels of historical figuration.
The glittering and uncountable world is the result of the attempt to unveil a truth.

So Pynchon became a Robbins for me, one who is not outgrown. What he does is certainly not the only possible function of literature. He has merely created a story about the  way narrative functions — the interplay of love and curiosity, the irresistible progress forward through revelations, and backwards through meanings, the re-minting of the world by metaphor, the symbolic death of final closure. In other words, he has created a story about the very peculiar and indispensable reason for prose, for teaching, and writing, and reading it.

That returns us to the beginning of this post, and to the earlier posts about fatalist tragedy. For Fitzgerald, there is nothing after the cataclysm, except perhaps for Nick Carraway’s bitter moralism. When I think about the way I gradually expanded beyond the Beatles towards darker music, I think of this conversation:

MY FRIEND’S DAD: I read the lyric sheet you left on the kitchen table.

ME: Oh?

MY FRIEND’S DAD: Yes, for “Nine Inch Nails.” “The Downward Spiral.” Those are pretty dark lyrics, man.

ME: It is [sic], yeah.

MY FRIEND’S DAD: I mean, it was too fuckin’ dark. If I read that and listened to that it would drive me nuts. We used to listen to the Doors and we thought that was heavy, you know what I’m saying? Up to you, but I bet you’d be better off listening to something else.

When I think back on it, think what it was all about, us getting suddenly into Nine Inch Nails and The Velvet Underground at the same time we were discovering Gatsby, I remember that I was supposed to write something in defense of sad songs but I never got around to it. I was going to claim that listening to them wasn’t a sad experience, and that reading tragic books isn’t sad. When I think about that music and those novels, I want to call it the traumatic sublime. The experience of a cul-de-sac, of failure and loss, is a humanising and perhaps inevitable experience, and it seems to me that me and my friends, in valuing tragedy, were trying to follow that apocalyptic doom-feeling (cf. “The Pit and the Pendulum” or anything else by Poe) to its limit and moment of transformation. One discovers oneself still persisting in life and consciousness, albeit in an afterlife of sorts. Think of the sympathy and humility of this cry, recently uttered by Spurious (quoting his odd friend W.):

I keep a mental list of W.’s favourite questions, which he constantly asks me so as to ask himself. ‘At what point did you realise that you would amount to nothing?’; ‘When was it that you first became aware you would be nothing but a failure?’; ‘When you look back at your life, what do you see?’; ‘How is it that you know what greatness is, and that you will never, ever reach it it?’

‘What does it mean to you that your life has amounted to nothing?’, W. asks me with great seriousness.

The one great unfinished project of my graduate studies so far is a study of the picaresque novel as an alternative to tragedy, leading from Cervantes and Tristram Shandy all the way to Ulysses and Gravity’s Rainbow. I suppose I am prone to feeling as though my life has frequently been the empty, becalmed remainder of better days and the traumas that concluded them; what is so miraculous about the characters in Pynchon is that they live phoenix lives as people renewed by words and the loves they contain:

The voices before and after the dead man’s that had phoned at random during the darkest, slowest hours, searching ceaseless among the dial’s ten million possibilities for that magical Other who would reveal herself out of the roar of relays, monotone litanies of insult, filth, fantasy, love whose brute repetition must someday call into being the trigger for the unnamable act, the recognition, the Word.

There is an end to the narrative of failure, like that moment listening to Nine Inch Nails when one realizes that Reznor makes jokes constantly. I have no idea whether the narrative of failure in Spurious will come to an end, and I’m certainly in no hurry to see that happen, since the writing is such a pleasure. As I implied in the recent post on Nabokov and the symptom, every cul-de-sac is presumably necessary at the moment Oedipa describes, the moment of saturation. It is also the Scurvhamite definition of evil, because at the dead-end thought becomes mechanism, fatalistic and helpless.

But for me, and perhaps for you, this New Year will be a time to start over again, and to consign whatever isn’t still vital to ash: “Behind the hieroglyphic streets there would either be a transcendental meaning, or only the earth.” Some part of ourselves, still alive, contains the seed of a life transfigured; that is how the Restoration comedy of Thomas Pynchon understands Invararity’s death, how Joyce understand’s Rudy’s death, how Sterne and Voltaire comprehend the aftermath of war. It differs from Robbins in its crucial awareness of the necessity of tragedy.

Forgiveness: the forgiveness of all debts, injuries, obligations. The cashiering of everything that happened this year that I couldn’t put in the blog. As Oedipa guesses, indefinite long black hours would indeed be necessary before the past can receive its burial and become “only the earth,” material but out of reckoning, eclipsed by other metaphors.

That’s why the law (in Leviticus) of the jubilee year has always stayed with me. Happy jubilee year, dear reader. May 2007 be picaresque indeed.

And now for something somewhat different

Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now
-Bob Dylan

I’d like to return to the small subjects, so you can get to know me, and so that I can write with no starting or stopping point.

Last night I posted my essay on Paul de Man, here, and over at The Valve. I’m exhausted by it, and pleased to have begun in earnest the project of critique that crystallized in my mind as soon as I recognized the consequences, for literary studies, of works like Aesthetic Ideology. I’m not sure whether I should be posting that kind of work to a blog, or not — I had my doubts about posting the essay on Hegel, too — but at any rate I’m ready to re-claim this webspace for the kind of micrological study of everyday life that I was pleased to churn out over at The World’s Forgotten Boy. (I’m still enchanted with the Valve, and will still be posting literary and philosophical reflections over there, with cross-posts here. But you’ll be forewarned by the x-posted header. By the same token, if you don’t see that header, you can expect a potpourri of the ordinary.)

I’m sure I’ve been led to this partly by Spurious, who continues to sing the Lacanian blues with a crazed fervor, omitting nothing. I’ve even felt the tug of some posts on the subject of blogging identity over at Rough Theory and courtesy of A White Bear. It is very difficult, writing under your own name, to write with the sort of abandon that produces style; reading AWB’s thoughts on the value of academic blogging (basically, that it allows you to talk about academic subjects off-hours, and informally), I was oddly conscious of how much the name of an academic person merges with their work, even during graduate school, because we are public figures as teachers, and multiplied out of our own reckoning by written work published on paper and online.

So, enough throat-clearing! On to the real work: that of throat-clearing.

* * *

The only thing I had available to make for dinner was pasta and tomato sauce: three packages of noodles, all the same, all spirals; three cans with varying quantities of Three Cheese Sauce. I thought about ordering a pizza with zucchini, which is not possible, and was followed by the more general plan of ordering a pizza with mushrooms. “Why am I ordering a pizza by myself?” I thought, feeling like a stoner. I briefly sat there, thinking about kung fu movies, and then decided to drive to Del Taco, after doing several Google searches to figure out which burrito had the most protein.

I saw a man sitting in his car, kitty corner from the Del Taco, wearing a Del Taco uniform, on break. I considered the line from my post yesterday — “the material fact of suffering” — and the fact that I’m in graduate school because I couldn’t survive temping. I got fired very quickly from my job entering medical records into a computer database. I don’t know why I got fired, exactly; the guy at the temping agency, who we’ll call Alan, was very hazy about it. “I like you, Joseph,” he’d say, after we’d broken the ice. “I’m going to put your name out there, shop you around.” Alan never called. He doesn’t have my new number. I’m not sure he was doing a good enough job looking. He always wore the same shirt, off-white.

I’ve started the new Pynchon novel. I’ve been struck with the feeling, which I get from certain artworks, that the premise of the work is much too comforting and familiar. Like Paul McCartney refusing to believe he’d written “Yesterday,” when I saw Godard’s My Life to Live, and considered the feminist ironies of the prostitute’s entrapment, combined with the fleeting moments when her life is actually suspended in its downward course by beauty (as when she waits to exhale smoke until finishing a kiss), I had to believe that I was reading onto it, in order to avoid the numbness of thinking I already knew it too well. Anyhow, the new Pynchon novel, which is called Against the Day, is about the buried potential of light. According to Tesla, and now to Pynchon, the universe is humming with magnetic “resonances” that are somehow related to photons. These resonances could be turned into a source of unlimited electrical power. So Against The Day is literally flooded with light: references to Edison, references to the chemicals in a photograph “turning into light,” references to a “White City,” symbolically constructed of pure light/energy, at the heart of a World’s Fair. According to the metaphorical logic of the novel, the exploitation of labor by capitalism has buried this omnipresent light and power in darkness — trapped it. There’s even a sentient ball of lightning that pleads with its human friend not to be captured and grounded.

Thus through this effusion of mystical passages about white rays and currents, Pynchon welds Platonism together with Anarchism, running exactly parallel to my own thinking about the potential for a different way of living the “good life” that has to do with the costless, unproductive state of being with things. (Although I’m not an anarchist.) When I was young, I used to trace my way down one of our white plaster walls with my fingertips, convinced that little circles of light were pooling around my fingers. The electrical sea of the novel is occasionally up-ended in the name of Marxist conspiracy theory, as when Pynchon talks about the “wardens” of America, who keep the democracy out of popular hands, or when Pynchon describes the structure of every city, and every inhabited, modernized country in the world, as an imprisoning re-creation of a state of siege.

I watched some of the sixth season of The Sopranos, with Tony in a coma. It’s such a piece of daring, and a game with the audience, to let the show run on with the central figure missing. In some ways it is an exasperated re-statement of what has been true all along — Tony’s in his own world, or he’s being controlled by the people around him, but between his solipsism and his obligations there is nothing to call a “self.” Now, here, he’s literally in his own world, in a coma-dream where he’s lost his name and is stuck, incredibly for a viewer like myself, in a dream version of Costa Mesa in Orange County. Meanwhile, it is impossible not to notice, after a fashion suddenly troubling, that Tony is the only person in the opening credits. It’s just him driving his car through the countryside, which becomes ridiculous when the viewer knows that the episode will have Tony lying like a vegetable in a hospital bed. The episodes play more and more games: now Christopher Moltesanti, the nephew, wants once again to get into the movie business. Thus the show is pretending to be fishing around for somebody to take Tony’s place, play the lead role — meanwhile, the ridiculous script Christopher has prepared, which is about a dismembered “wise guy,” is also a reflection of all the hopes and responsibilities centered in Tony that are now scattered across his two families, willy-nilly.

My own room is filled with lamps, all three of which are switched-on. There are two packs of cigarettes on my bookshelf. I don’t smoke, but I seem to remember that the box of Winstons only has one cigarette anyway. There’s also a pack of nicotinated, caffeinated gum from Japan that was taped to my door three days ago, and which still has a vestigial tail of tape. I was given a bottle of Johnny Walker Black, too. Reparations were made for the in absentia birthday party in a very unexpected and touching way, and yet I’m still not eager to smoke the final Winston or try chewing the gum. According to the note included with the scotch and gum, one should not chew the gum without a lot of water within easy reach. I don’t want to throw out all those exotic, alluring, bohemian scraps, but that part of the year is clearly over.

This is not a post

OK, so it’s quite late in the evening, and I can’t think of anything to write, so we’re just going to report the entire text of a conversation I overheard at the Steelhead Brewery tonight while drinking root beers.

THE WAITER: Another root beer, sir? It’s happy hour.

ME (indistinctly): Bring it over here and put it right in front of me, where I can reach it. I can’t lift my head.

PERSON 1, A GUY WEARING A STELLA MCCARTNEY MAN’S SUIT: Do you think that a person with possible ties to an academic blog must always write academic essays for their blog? Things didn’t start out that way, back in December.

PERSON 2, HIPSTERETTE: Well, you can see the argument, right? I mean, now you have people following links right over. It’s getting serious, Fashion Nugget.

PERSON 1: Right you are. But I have very serious objections. My first objection is that K. is not funny. He’s hardly even droll, nowadays. Whereas most academic blogs are extraordinarily droll because academics do have a playful side. When you get right down to it, they’re as playful as puppies.

PERSON 3, THE PROUST SCHOLAR FROM LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, EXCEPT THE ENGLISH VERSION WHERE STEVE CARRELL IS PLAYED BY RICKY GERVAIS: We shouldn’t ignore the very real danger of schizophrenia, either — of being unable to reconcile various voices within the self except through a performative — Oh my God! Fashion Nugget!

PERSON 1: Yes, it’s true. I’m standing on a lawn, in the middle of the night on a Tuesday. The police have broken up the first party extremely early — say about ten-thirty. It was a welcome week party for new graduate students.

DRUNKEN BARBECUER: Are you really not on speaking terms with someone in the Department? Why, for God’s sake? The voices of the past will come back to haunt you!

THE VOICES OF THE PAST: Everything’s exactly the same as it was in June! Only there are more speed bumps. But what seemed to be possible in the desert is not possible — life is uniform.

DRUNKEN BARBECUER: Don’t you think you should also finally empty your Burning Man suitcase and put those clothes in the laundry? You’ve been wearing stuff that would embarrass Gary Glitter, and all because you can’t bear to use the new laundry cards. You’ve even been sleeping next to a big pile of unfolded socks and blue jeans.

PERSON 1: It’s true. They often malfunction. I was sneezing today when I put those clothes in the hamper, amidst a cloud of the dust ported home.

PERSON 2, BREATHLESS, JUST ARRIVED FROM THE PREVIOUS DREAM SEQUENCE: It seems like a long time since the first essay on Burning Man.

PERSON 1: I could stand to reflect on a quote from Proust.

RICKY GERVAIS: “I myself who, without wishing to boast, have lectured to my pupils, in all innocence, on the philosophy of the aforesaid Immanuel Kant, can see no precise directive for the case of social casuistry with which I am now confronted.”

PERSON 2: Kant is the least of one’s concerns. I might add Stendhal’s On Love is proving viciously unhelpful, since it makes one very distrustful of the emotion of love.

RICKY GERVAIS: There is a contradiction between authority on the page and confusion in the apartment.

PERSON 1 (Now transformed into the woman from the end of Uncle Vanya): We cannot understand these things. We can only have faith. We must work — we must take out the dusty clothing to the laundry and consider making use of the gym. There is peace in working.

LIL FROM “BARTON FINK”: Fish! Fresh fish! Let’s spit on our hands and…

PERSON 2: What about K.?

LIL: He’ll be alright. Much ado about nothung. Except one man show.

PERSON 2: But why be so bad at living?

LIL: Oh, Hipsterette, never you mind. It’s only graduate school.

(I finished my root beer. I was the only person in the Brewery; the lights were out and the stars tucked behind a layer of smog. I paid my bill with useless laundry quarters and went home, bumping slightly whenever I picked up too much speed.)

Burning Man Demystified, Part 3

This will be my last post on the Burning Man Festival. It’s a continuation of two earlier posts, written almost as soon as I returned, and published on Blogger. Throughout I’ve tried to prove the statement in Part 1: “Whoever can find time and money enough to go, should go.”

* * *

I mean, look at something like that christening, that my group arranged for me in the forest of Poland. Well, there was an example of something that had all the elements of theater: it was worked on carefully, it was thought about carefully, it was done with exquisite taste and magic. And they had in fact created something! In this case it was in a way just for an audience of one, just for me, but they created something, that had ritual, love, surprise, denouement — beginning, middle, and end.
-Andre Gregory, My Dinner with Andre

The Art at Burning Man

I went to a high school in Northern California, and was privy to all sorts of terrible art, most of which was inspired by a belief in self-expression. In my high school English class, for example, we were given no instructions about how to do our final project. One girl stood up, played Tracy Chapman’s “Fast Car” on a boombox, and said: “This song is full of meaning for me right now.” That was fine. If she had been overcome with emotion, and unable to press the “play” button on the CD player, even then, we would have understood.

So Burning Man made me a little nervous. I thought that the desert full of “art” might be full of good ideas only half-executed, or full of nebulous abstract fingerpaintings…or full of drab gallery pieces, like one sees in gentrified towns in the California wine country.

The art was the result of an incredible investment of time and money on the part of both the artists, and the Burning Man art division, run by a figure (mysterious to me) known as Lady Bee. Most of it had a psychedelic bent, but it wasn’t limited by that tradition: the main psychedelic influences were the exuberant use of color, and the exploitation of so much open space for spectacle. The art borrowed from Dada a playful emphasis on interactivity.

Look at Dali. His shocking, distorted dream-images appear against pure skies and flat, usually brown plains, intensifying the sensation of space and events taking place inside the mind. The “playa” is a similarly absolute, Cartesian space. Even an abandoned bicycle is stark against the cracked ground; you can imagine, then, the feeling of coming across an actual creative work. The organizers make sure the playa is big enough to thin out crowds. I had a nearly continual feeling of serendipity, as one piece of art faded into the hazy dust, and another appeared.

About two-thirds of the way to the edge of the playa, I stopped at a structure of metal bars with rows of twine, and discarded plastic bottles suspended at intervals across the twine. On the bottles were discs of metal: more trash. The bottles twisted in the wind, and as they spun around, the stowaway metal looked to be the very incarnation of Joyce’s “sun flung spangles, dancing coins.”

This is, of course, quite like the pieces of real and imagined “trash art” in DeLillo’s Underworld. It is quite common to find pieces of art on the playa that bring to mind contemporary painting or sculpture currently on exhibit, or bits of a novel, or Frank Lloyd Wright. Art at Burning Man is year-round art; it is engaged with the rest of the world. There was no card explaining that the plastic soda bottles were trash, or explaining how the artist used the natural environment (relentless wind and sun) to create kinetic and dazzling beauty. The art did what it must to find a permanent place. It was a reconciliation between the givens of the nonhuman world, and an unmistakable constructed elegance. The “found” mobile was a fragment of a way of life.

There were some pieces of art that were simply fun. I was particularly fond of a phone booth that read Pacific Hell, and not because of the name, which is a meaningless pun. Seeing the name, I ignored the phone booth (which had a working light and a closeable door in the middle of the desert). Other people picked up the phone, heard a dial tone, and found out that they could dial any number in the world — it was a fully functional satellite phone, if you had enough curiosity to put it against your ear. I was reminded of a startling moment, unique in my experience, at Yoko Ono’s SFMOMA exhibit Yes. I came to a green apple, partially eaten, on a museum stand, complete with an exhibit card that said something like “APPLE (2002). Mixed media and fruit.” Looking in terror at the security guard, I gradually reached my hand out to the apple, carried it to my mouth, and took a bite. The guard smiled: that was the point of the exhibit.

* * *
There is a camp called “Dance, Dance, Immolation.” You put on a flame-retardant suit and play the faddish arcade game, with people watching your progress on a giant projection screen. If you misstep, a blast of actual fire engulfs you. The fire is harmless, because of the suit, but it’s very real. I know this isn’t art, and probably shouldn’t be in this section of the post, but I’m mentioning it because I think “Discourse, Discourse, Immolation” would be a really worthwhile variant.

* * *

When I saw Paul Oakenfold DJ at the Coachella Music Festival, I didn’t really get to see Paul Oakenfold. In order to see him, I had to jump in the air, all for a glimpse of a Jumbotron. I was hemmed in by thousands of other fans, who were also looking at the back of someone’s neck. He played an absolutely fantastic set, and I remember dancing furiously for about forty-five minutes. I remember looking down at the little patch of ground I’d eked out; here I was at a music festival, and what I remember now is the sight of my own feet.

When I went with two friends to a “dance camp” at the edge of the Burning Man “city,” a succession of six DJs were hosting a party that started at 11pm and would go until nine in the morning. One of them would be in the booth, playing a set, while the others were mixed in with the crowd, talking about their music and accepting gifts. When I ran out of water, I just went around to the back of the booth, where the tents and kitchen were stashed, and they gave me some from the camp supply. We’d fall to talking, of course.

” It’s so nice not to just be looking at my feet,” I’d tell them. They’d sort of look away, and laugh nervously. Sometimes it’s hard to make yourself understood.

The Burning Man Religion

In one sense, there isn’t a Burning Man religion, which is surprising considering the origins of the festival in one man’s idiosyncratic ritual. Without wishing to sound like Wikipedia, a while back a man named Larry Harvey burned an effigy of a human being (nobody in particular) as a way of cleansing himself of some lingering misery. That act became an annual event, with friends and acquaintances taking part, and snowballed into everything that Burning Man is now.

However, the entire time that I was at the festival I didn’t hear the word “spirituality” uttered even once. Undoubtedly, I would have heard it had I been awake for the various morning yoga programs. But I cut a pretty wide swath in eight days, and only heard people talking concretely about what they’d experienced. “There’s a huge skeletal rattlesnake, on fire, you should go see,” they’d say.

New Age versions of spirituality, which have snuck their way into practically every section of the modern bookstore, are a means of shrinking from life. The spiritual has become simply a droning, earnest counter-rhythm that disrupts the other rhythm, that of productivity — like hedonism, the spiritual is a momentary rebellion against productivity. Even persons of real merit, such as the Dalai Lama, are reduced by Western society to purveying a soundless, crystalline, impossible fulfillment, in which one continues to believe even as the books that preach it shrink to pocket editions the size of postcards.

Instead of this, Burning Man overflows with life, and the meanings of it come later. It didn’t occur to me until today that the Pacific Hell piece might have been satirizing the satellite dream of continual, total accessibility of all persons, to all persons.

Still, the conditions of the religious exist there. In addition to the burning of the Man, which is a darkly exultant celebration, there is the burning of the Temple, an enormous open building where over the course of the week some people leave tributes to the dead. Like the Man, it is constructed by volunteers in the weeks preceding the festival. Of the 40,000 attendees, probably around half were still around to witness the Temple burning. It takes a long time for all that wood to be consumed: the Temple was made of tall pillars of wood. The pillars vaguely resembled the piles of stones that mark trails. So 20,000 people stood for almost an hour, without moving, without even making a sound. There was no ideology at stake, besides a willingness to let the moment take on meaning amidst that stillness. And that’s how, right then, the silence of the desert emerged in its glory, just as the sun had minted itself on the sides of those empty bottles, that were suspended with such care.

Responding to comments on “The Cowboy and the Stripper”

Because of the move from The World’s Forgotten Boy, I thought I’d respond to comments from petitpoussin, tomemos, and Julie here. In addition, tomemos’s comment never appeared online, so I’ll reprint it in full at the bottom of this entry.

Petitpoussin writes that, because I don’t examine stripping as a profession, my post “precludes any real examination of people (women) who are strippers, or the reality of stripping.” If I understand her, she thinks it’s a little spurious to use a Britney Spears video to analyze what happens in a strip club, and she thinks that I’m appropriating Lily Burana while “implying ‘that’s not what she really means’ or maybe ‘she means it, but she’s deluded’.” She concludes, “Just because stripping is, for you, an isolating consumerist appropriation of bodies, doesn’t make it an accurate portrayal of stripping for women who choose and enjoy that work. Believe it or not, they exist. Pleasure isn’t ‘slow suicide’ for all of us.”

Britney Spears’s video for “Stronger” is relevant to a discussion of stripping because it’s a nice representation of the solipsism embedded in the archetype. Petitpoussin re-creates this isolating ideology by writing that some women enjoy the work. I’m certain that’s true, but it’s not responsive to the criteria of mutuality and honesty I raised in my post. The fact that petitpoussin can run through the whole of her response without once mentioning the men and women who constitute a dancer’s audience is significant; it reveals the barrenness of certain contemporary models of enjoyment, and a real contradiction where that enjoyment is based on relational qualities like power and desirability. (There is also a danger in letting oneself be convinced that protestations of enjoyment are equivalent to the “reality” of anything.)

I never doubt Lily Burana’s words or try to put a meaning over on them. When Burana says she lies about “everything,” I believe her. When she says a lap dance is the sexiest thing she’s ever seen, I believe her there, too. I just want to understand the implications of that judgement.

Let me clarify the comment about ‘slow suicide’: it’s a comment about the fear of pleasure as it manifests in American culture in general, and also about my own sensibility a few years back. The post is written at some distance from that earlier self, despite my nostalgia for the popular culture of the early 1990s.

One last thing: petitpoussin asked me what I thought of Britney’s “fall.” I think Britney was done in by a series of compromises. Critics were falling all over themselves to embrace “Toxic,” because it was a predictable song that processed Britney’s voice out of existence and used the same squiggly synth lines that Missy Elliott and Timbaland have been cooking up for years. (I know Britney can’t actually sing, but at least she used to occasionally sound like a human being.) The video was a rip-off of Alias, another “girl power” phenomenon, proving that Britney was now following trends rather than igniting them. Nothing about the new Britney is as provocative as “…Baby One More Time.” Her disastrous, highly public attempts at domesticity and motherhood just make her look pathetic.

Tomemos, nice comment (see below). I’d agree that some erotica is liberating where it challenges the mainstream, possibly including SuicideGirls, and certainly including art as ferocious as Liz Phair’s song “Flower.” However, erotica needs to be understood for what it is — a construction — not as authentic self-expression. I wanted to suggest that if my friend loses interest in a woman when he realizes that she’s trying to find herself, that may point to a certain amount of pressure on women (and on men) to consistently project false confidence. That’s at the expense of honesty, and maybe even at the expense of introspection, since introspection so often produces self-doubt.

Julie, let me make sure I read your comment right: you feel the problem with Sex and the City is that it privileges relationships over careers, rather than that it promotes feminine dependence? It seems like we’re saying basically the same thing.

* * *

Tomemos writes:

I would agree with what I take petitpoussin to be saying: there is an important difference between female sexuality (or any other sort, I suppose) as a cultural product in general, and the particular form of mass-market, commercial sexuality that you very convincingly identify with Britney, the Spice Girls, et al. Sex-positivity, to use the parlance of our time, is not incompatible with genuine feminism. After all, Sleater-Kinney had a number of songs that were fairly raunchy–”What’s Mine Is Yours” and “Let’s Call It Love,” and “Turn It On” before that. Liz Phair’s “Flower” is another one, even if it isn’t very danceable. These are songs that, in my mind, provide an alternative to the sex-as-trauma view that, like you say, permeates a lot of feminist art. I would say that Sucide Girls, and other indie (and, often, woman-created) erotica/porn/stripping, has the potential to do the same thing. Unlike Britney or Christina, the goal of such works and performers isn’t to appeal to as wide a range as possible; I don’t just mean because they’re R rated–because what could be more conventional and mainstream than Maxim?–but also because they do not conform to standard views of sex and gender relationships, and are, in their way, feminist. I’m also not bothered or disappointed by Katie Suicide being unengaging or Missy Suicide being rich, any more than I am by a successful actor or athlete who holds those same qualities. …interesting, though, that Suicide Girls seems to be a riff on Spice Girls, right? What with all of the girls taking the last name “Sucide”? I never noticed that before.

Welcome to The Kugelmass Episodes!

I’m Joseph Kugelmass, a graduate student in the English Department at UC Irvine. (Don’t worry, things get more interesting momentarily.) Because of the new Blogger Beta platform, I can’t import my old blog posts into WordPress. But you can find them at The World’s Forgotten Boy. There’s also a thorough explanation, over there, of why I moved here and started using my real name.
In particular, in order to understand what follows, you might want to read my last major post to Blogger, which was entitled “The Stripper and the Cowboy (Part 2: Cowboy Bob, The White Lady, and The Stripper).” You might also look at Part 1 of that series, and my posts on the Burning Man Festival: Part 1 and Part 2. Before that, there are posts on astrology, on the difference between philosophy and literature, and, going further back, artifacts of extreme sleep deprivation.

The name of the blog comes, of course, from the Woody Allen short story. We here at The Kugelmass Episodes greatly prefer “The Allen Notebooks,” oddly enough.

That will have to do for an introduction. I hope you’ll enjoy what’s to come.