Concluding Fragments.

…I think the most impressive part of this seminar was the way every week’s readings could’ve gone in a thousand different directions, precisely because we all offered lots of unique knowledge to shade them, point them up or down, and generally mis-read them–I am thinking of myself, here…–alas, the seminar is shuttered, and we’re all wondering about PGH unable to NOT notice materialities and the fibers that extend from them…e.g. I can’t help but connect everything I’m reading to the main questions we asked in class…Ruskin talking about the “costly tyranny” of an iron fence…Sir Philip Sydney on the history of poetry…craft essays on fiction…recipes for meals…

…I think the only antagonist to our class would be an angelic/ethereal/entity, should those exist…

…Watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about matter last night in COSMOS¬†made me think about how non-material we are…how if every atom were blown up to the size of a cathedral, the nucleus would be as tiny as a mote of dust floating in the middle…and how we never really touch anything because of the force that our electron clouds create against other ones…it only¬†appears as if we are touching…

…should so much of the universe be empty, then what does that say, or is there anything to say, about writing after that fact?…

…I think the materialities of writing can’t be a micro- or macro- discussion, but a practical one. That is, one could say that Everything is a materiality of writing, but that does no one any good…It must be contextual and must make a difference to practice.

Thus, I think our earliest conversation about what we need for writing was an insightful way to get at materiality in writing…

May you all be in possession of a surfeit of whole pants and comfy, shod feet.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.