the modern dream of authenticity

just went for a run and got totally soaked.

I reviewed Remainder because it kicks ass. it's not quite like anything else I've read. it has no real interest in some of the staples of storytelling - characterization or human relationships. the reason it works as a novel is because of its extreme attention to plot, which is, as Tom McCarthy knows, nothing more than a pattern. this book is very concerned with patterns. mostly, it is about space, and authenticity. the latter idea is the one which connects the whole enterprise to the tradition of philosophy, in my mind.

McCarthy isn't usually a novelist; he runs a theoretical group called the International Necronautical Society, which ostensibly has something to do with death and space, or death as a space, more specifically. this comes up in Remainder, although the novel isn't about death, I don't think (I might change my mind after a re-read). at least on the surface, it's more about that authenticity theme, which is explored through the use of re-enactments and re-creations of scenes.

I'm not sure exactly how McCarthy came upon the idea of writing a novel; I think he's probably trying to promote his theoretical group, which is half-fictional by his own description, in every form and medium possible, and had just come around to the novel form. I really like this idea: creating a philosophy (however much it is really original or just a response to older philosophies) and then distributing it through every form of media available. however, I also like to think that novels are the perfect form for exploring ideas, and that story is a privileged form of information that can be used for the communication of highly complex thought. I have seen this done in a number of ways - Blanchot, one of McCarthy's heroes, writes these distended riffs where nothing at all happens except subtle shifts of philosophy - and I feel like McCarthy's example was one of the more successful. at no point did the drama overwhelm the ideas of the novel, and yet it was still a page-turner. I think there's a lot to be said for the thriller form, which Paul Auster used to his advantage in City of Glass. in fact, a lot of points in Remainder seemed directly related to the moments with the man wandering around the city in Auster's work: that obsession with space, the conviction that it will reveal something essential and transcendent.

this is a video of the INS' Manifesto on Inauthenticity, delivered at the Tate museum in London. I love this video. it seems to be the best outlet for INS, in my opinion; especially if you do a little research and figure out that the man speaking is not actually Tom McCarthy, but an actor. I also think this manifesto gets closest at the themes Remainder is about.

the half-fictional aspect is the other thing I find really fascinating. there are some moments where the Manifesto is clearly imitating staid academic prose and absurd overwrought theory (there's a pretty banal analysis of Queequeg, although I'm actually not certain of how serious McCarthy was about that bit), but then ten seconds later one of the speakers will come out with a really fascinating idea. I love the idea of tragedy being a reconciliation of inauthenticy and authenticity - the recognition of the inevitability of cause and necessity on one hand, and the free acceptance of that on the other.

the awesome part is that it seems to rely on me to determine whether any of it is serious or not; I might find one part insightful and fascinating, but someone else might think that's part of a joke. by making his movement "half-fictional", McCarthy puts the onus on us.

movies I want to see, like, right now

it's still technically summer, for a week, so I can get away with such a frivolous post...

synecdoche, new york - I have been waiting like a patient disciple for the newest work by my patron saint, charlie kaufman. it seems like forever since I read the leaked screenplay for this...and was pretty confused, I have to say. I have no idea how this film is going to work. what I read of the screenplay was about a main character who had lots of lovers and health problems (I remember something about green feces), all in crisis at once. it didn't seem to match the description of the movie, which is supposedly about a man who constructs a version of manhattan for a play that is as big as manhattan itself (or something) - look up 'synecdoche' if you don't remember anything from AP english. I want to see this so bad, philip seymour hoffman is starring, and kaufman is directing. you can see a couple little clips of it here.

lou reed's berlin - forget shine a light, give me a documentary on berlin anyday. berlin was one of those albums that, when I was sixteen, perfectly matched my developing conception of what adult life was really like. it's not a happy album, but songs like "men of good fortune" and the "caroline says" series seemingly had no melody, which laid the focus on their fantastic, if bleakly existential, lyrics. I couldn't get over lines like "it's so cold in alaska" paired with depictions of domestic violence - that was totally poetic to me. I marveled at how reed could get away without really singing. I'm still somewhat indifferent toward the velvet underground, but reed's solo work was a huge deal to me in high school. there's a weird kind of determination that emanates from songs like "how do you think it feels" and "sad song". don't even get me started on "the bed".

brief interviews with hideous men - I have been waiting for-fucking-ever for john krasinski to release this film version of a david foster wallace book (!!!!). I'm having doubts that it will ever come out, but I continue to monitor it. this is a complicated book and I'm interested to see how it gets made - if krasinski uses voiceovers, I will kill him.

the curious case of benjamin button - an adaptation of probably the strangest f. scott fitzgerald story I've ever read. this sounded like a horrible idea, except that david fincher is directing.

w. - uh, obviously. actually the trailer is good enough. I think josh brolin is going to be fantastic, and I get the feeling oliver stone's not going to just slap together the same old rise-to-fame biopic, but also not going to do an obvious parody but something more nuanced.

I watched roger & me, which came out when I was still a kid, and was so moved, until I read that a lot of it, including the fact that moore never got to meet with the CEO of GM, is rearranged to moore's liking (must be satisfying kicking aspiring documentarians out of your functions after it's been done to you by roger smith!). this supposedly from an oscar-winning maker of "documentaries" who went up on stage and called bush's war a "fiction."

then, later, I watched an episode of the west wing about capital punishment which was supposedly "fiction" but left me feeling far more enlightened on the issue, which is dealt with through the perspective of a leader who must choose whether or not to let another human die, than I did after watching moore's film.

I guess this means pure fiction is more powerful than corrupt nonfiction. either that or aaron sorkin is just smarter than michael moore.