Showing posts with label literary illuminations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literary illuminations. Show all posts

Saturday, 18 December 2010

i want my tongue to be my own again.



It's not as easy as saying I don't write in my tongue to hide myself. I run away from my language because I cannot face it. Nor can I face myself, my family, my landscape. There are bits of December sunlight in Madrid that I miss. There are streets in the gay neighbourhood. Sounds. Cafés and bars and certain menus handwritten in chalk. Because I run away from the town I cannot return to the town. Because I run away I miss it.

And then the faces, which are not the faces of my friends. I miss my friends but I do not think about the faces of my friends. I think about the faces of actors. The face of Tristán Ulloa, whom I've been in love with since Mensaka. The face of Roberto Enríquez. The face of Alberto Jiménez. The face and the voice of Marta Belaustegui. Also Leonor Watling whom I've last seen in Lope and who was incandescent in it. Lope is a very mediocre film but it made me long for my mothertongue. We all have secret saints we construct secret private altars to and mine is Lope De Vega. For him I do not dismiss my mothertongue completely.

That is to say, I miss the films of my country because I miss people's faces.

The problem of how to write in your own language when one has felt so divorced from it. The other side of the story, I have help there: if I feel anguish about writing in a language that is not mine - an imprecise language, words that don't come naturally to me - then I turn to Nabokov and his own anguish. But, how to come back to the other side?

I am losing my language word by word. And each word is illuminated, at the same time. I am falling in love and I have no language to speak my love. In love with the loss of my capacities. To seek out the cure I read: that which I love, I read Pablo Rivero, Javier Calvo, Luna Miguel.

To return I read Lope De Vega.

Sunday, 12 December 2010

69 by ryu murakami


This I know.

This landscape is familiar. These boys, sitting on the grass reluctantly sharing a bento talking about Rimbaud and Godard, making up impossible stories to satisfy their egos. The revolution will not come: they are just looking to shag some girls.

I am at ease here and though much of my approach to reading is find out that which I know nothing of sometimes I fall in love with familiarity. Here is a book I can recognize, it is foreign to me and yet it makes me think of all those years of Japanese cinema, it makes me think of my love for Oshima, which is true love no matter how you look at it, his youth films, his pessimistic disillusioned youth films. The memory of a conference by Robert Cueto about cinema and taboo, with bits of Tokyo Decadence shown, with the exploration of masochism as something cathartic. The memory of the years and the thousand of hours of loving fictional japanese teenagers. Everybody falling in love with Ryuhei Matsuda in Blue Spring while I was busy falling in love with Hirofumi Arai. Falling off rooftops. Rooftops are a very japanese fictional device. Now I think about the end of 21st Century Boys. Now I remember all the rooftop scenes in all the doujinshi I collect. My Prince of Tennis doujinshi are full of rooftops. I want to write books full of rooftops. I can't remember if there are any rooftops in All About Lily Chou-Chou but whenever I think about Japanese teenagers I think about Shunji Iwai's film. Now I can't listen to Debussy without thinking about the green grass of Lily Chou-Chou.

All this inform my reading of 69, and my love for it. My love and frustration at Murakami's novels Almost Transparent Blue and Coin Locker Babies. The other ones, In The Miso Soup and Audition, were easier to read but maybe for that very reason I liked the earlier ones more. 69 is like the earlier ones but also easy to read.

It's also a very funny book.

This is the kind of humour I want in a book. Here is my fondness of unreliable narrators (here is me thinking about Kyon in Suzumiya Haruhi and here is me thinking about Tomokazu Sugita's voice, which is the voice I hear when I read the Suzumiya Haruhi books, which I read in Spanish, so really it is Tomokazu Sugita's voice speaking into my head in Spanish, a very private experience). (Now I can't listen to Satie without thinking about Suzumiya Haruhi). The adventures of the narrator trying to shoot a low-budget film reminds me of reading a biography of Shinja Tsukamoto. It must have been 2001 or 2002. I still have that book. I have all the books on Japanese cinema that I once bought. I have sold many of my books but not these.  In 69 I find all that I love about Japanese fiction, about why I love these films, these manga. When I say love I realize I should be saying "obssession". But in 69 there's also the protagonist's obssession with the French. With the nouvelle vague. With looking like Alain Delon or feeling like Jean-Paul Belmondo, or the other way around. About dreaming of French movies he has not seen. In this I recognize myself almost painfuly. I spent my youth dreaming of French movies I had not seen.

69 by Ryu Murakami is the anti-Haruki Murakami novel. This is a good thing.

My love for this book works by association. When the protagonist says that terrorism is the only option I remember all the Wakamatsu films I've seen. All the Wakamatsu films I haven't seen but I say I've seen.

All books should have a scene where two teenagers share a bento in the grass. (They also should have a character that could be played by Tadanobu Asano because if not, what's the point in writing a novel?) Now I remember how, last year, I wanted to write a novel which was a sad, gay version of Touch! I wanted to write about the relationship between the silence of unrequited love and desire and the silence of mute manga panels. I still want to write this book. All my books are a form of fanfic.

Of all the novels I've read this year 69 is probably my favourite.

Friday, 22 October 2010

Sunday, 19 September 2010

the writer is a receiver and the content is already out there.


The question is: what is culture for? Is it a vanity mirror for liberal society to see itself reflected back in the way it wants to see itself? Or is it something else, something more disruptive? I think culture should disrupt; it should be troublesome. If it's a mirror, it should be the cracked one that Joyce talks about; or Lewis Carroll's one that opens up on huge abysses; or the mirror in Jean Cocteau's Orphée, where you look in to it and you don't see yourself reflected back, instead you see the void – you see death at work, "like bees in a hive of glass". Fucking great line.

interview with Lee Rourke and Tom McCarthy at The Guardian.

Thursday, 8 October 2009

why we love fyodor


"Loose women would gather in the house right in front of his wife, and orgies took place."
The Brothers Karamazov.

Apart from being a kickass writer in the truest sense of the word "kickass" reading Dostoevsky is always an exercise on regaining the pure, unadulterated joy of late-teenage reading. It brings me back to the time I first started reading Borges, Cortazar, Faulkner. Because, and this is something I don't hear people say nearly enough, reading Dostoevsky is a lot of fun. The kind of books you lose hours of sleep upon, reading into 3 or 4 in the morning for the sheer pleasure of the story, the language, the pathetic and unforgettable characters, the dry sense of humour, the humanity. 2007 saw me falling in love with Crime and Punishment. Last year I read The Idiot voraciously and loved every page of it. I decided to tackle elusive Karamazov (I remember trying to read it when I was 14 in an atrocious Spanish translation, I gave up after 100 pages or so). Sleepless nights to come.

Other cool things read this week:
- Andrew Borgstrom's "Stories with teeth in them" at Lamination Colony. Clever with great turns of phrase.
- JA Tyler interviewing Sean Lovelace for the new Chapbook Review.
- Jimmy Chen's "Check, please?" which I have no idea why I hadn't read before. Sometimes it's hard to be up to day with favourite authors. Also, May was a difficult month.
- Page 94 of Le Clezio's The Book of Flights, specially "let me see the reverse, the interior, life's red hollow, the fissure..."
- Bookslut's interview with Brandon Scott Gorell. I find it hard to talk about poetry, not because I don't read a lot, quite the contrary. What I mean to say, Scott Gorell is amazing.
- George Saunders' "Sea Oak" at the Barcelona Review. For some reason the line "It's Father Brian with a box of doughnuts." has stuck in my head.
- Adam Thirlwell's Miss Herbet, which I've been reading on and off in the uncomfortable couches of Foyles South Bank.
- Senses of Cinema's article on the Straubs & Cézanne. Quite rad. I've only started getting into Straub's and Huillet's work seriously this past summer, it's heavy stuff, even for us former film students but it's completely gorgeous and essential art. It makes me excited about cinema again. Also, glad to be reading Senses of Cinema once more. I had lost track.

Also, Blake Butler got a deal with Harper Perennial. That's really great news. I can think of few authors that feel more exciting than Butler nowadays and it's great to see cool people doing well.

Also, ML Press is going to publish an anthology with all their chapbooks. I am so tempted to pre-order like right this very instant. So many amazing stuff in there; Brandi Wells and Jac Jemc and Brian Evenson and Peter Markus and Johannes Goransson and Eugene Lim and... Well, you get the picture. I wish I wasn't broke (and/or saving for a trip to New York next spring). Maybe even so I will give into the temptation. It's damn cheap, too, if you ask me.

Question: Could buying another edition of Chris Killen's "The Bird Room" just because it has a different cover be considered a waste of money? If the answer is yes, I don't want to know. After all, I own 6 different edition of "Lolita", thank you very much.

Sunday, 21 June 2009

love stories are bresson paraphrasing at best.




when i was 18 i wanted to be chuck palahniuk for like two whole minutes.
i guess it's a phase we all have to pass.
oh edward
oh edward
oh
oh
o e

Friday, 22 May 2009

we've just lost the color red.


MF: Fassbinder felt that film had lost a great deal of its original content in the process of commercialization. He often deliberately overused clichés in an attempt to show the emptiness of the Hollywood film. Do you think that Fassbinder was correct?

Steve Erickson: That may be Fassbinder’s version of why he used the clichés, but I think the real reason is he loved them. I think he loved all that classic iconography of “empty” glamour and artificiality, and some part of him yearned to make Now, Voyager. A gay German Now, Voyager, maybe, but still.

This interview with Steve Erickson is rad. Still reading my way through Our Ecstatic Days -not sure, if it's completely the right place to start (him) - but I can already feel he will become a major thing for me. I like the way his pages look.

Sunday, 30 November 2008

is it a happy ending or a broken heart


The optimism of the open ending of Wonderland is not synonymous with a perpetuation of the traditional values which govern "boy meets girl", it does not mean a silly and idealistic mystification of love, it does not respond to to a revindication of the adolescent fantasy of our other half, served on a silver plate by destiny. If the viewer experiences it that way it is because Winterbottom manages something which belongs only to the realm of good filmmakers: to know how to connect the soul of the viewer with that of its fictional creatures, to have finally broken Alice's looking glass, another looking glass.
Sergi Sánchez, "Michael Winterbottom: El orden del caos"