Bruce Hainley: ...But I wonder if it is a new structure, exactly, since post- and past structuralisms have too often allowed too many to balance on the crutches of someone else’s thinking instead of striding” for themselves; the structures have too often become prisons or corporate headquarters rather than the liberating, libidinally radicalizing energies they started as. Should this duty be criticism’s, should it be a clearly, genre-stabilized problem of the “critical”? Shouldn’t art, shouldn’t writing, attain something beyond critique? I’m convinced that this new narrative would have to avail itself of the fictive and the poetic, the abstract and nonnarratological, as modes of intellection and to lycanthropize the critical with bites under the full moon of cross-genres. Such intellectual lycanthropization would start to mark a no-place, situate no place, except a moving address “in- between” – from which to terrorize the system. A self-reflexive writing and writer attempting to allow meaning to drift or skid would have to question writing’s form and formalizations as its producer attempted to confront, something which has to find a way to syncopate the digital onslaught: since instaneity is no longer immediate or fast enough (?), what should occur is a pause or nonplace, an untimely oasis – mirage? – for contemplation and from which we’re yet ricocheted back to the contextual spinning. Because of the permanent discontinuity or scrambling, this “something” may require a search “forward”, toward futurity, as much as it may require dusting off methods too long in the attic. Everything cannot be seen at once, but there should be more striving for fly-like observation, seeing many ways at once... (continue reading on the magazine downloadable here)
