From: "Orpheus/Writin'Machine" <cw_duff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 02:33:35 -0500 (EST)
All these texts (with the exception of Episode 12 - which is a panel, a
scene, an excerpt, an episode from the Fictions of Deleuze and Guattari
and Mona - these series has some variant titles , andthat might confuse
some readers on some of these lists) are part of another work I have
been workin' on./ It is from a novel about Civil War. One can and should
assume that everything in it is fictional; yet what is fiction? whatis
real when it come to writing, especially the events it writes about are
happening and actual to real other people with real bodies/ there is of
course a plethora of answers to those questions. Every writer, or at least
this writer, is a little mole, a little mole-cule line of flight rushin'
betweent eh big molar mad institutes some good/bad some
reterritorializing/some deterritorializin'/ The situationin Kosovo began
to pour into mytexts: A while ago it was Bosnia, before thenit was Iraq.
Itwas Iraq and the French Civil War, and the Oka crisis here in Quebec
which really got this whole thing started. that andthe gender wars, Which
see in my own body and everywhere everyday and the class war as well. all
these wars whichone fights so as not to fight. Easy to say,, not fight,
so easy to do. Easy to say not judge but hard to do. Fear and paranoia,
all those biological instincts, all those actions which appear to have
lost their agents, theose authorless actions,, `they' slash and
lash us and smack us around each day from amillion places around
us. You know all those places as wellas I do.. All the `I's' in the
fictions are [of course the fictions spill over into the real, and vice
versa,, or arsey-versy]fiction. it is all a writingmachine andthe purposes are not necessarily
known to me.... One writes to live, onelives to write. One writes from
blanks and gaps in one's life. Then stops. One writes to get rid of the I,
but, it keeps coming back. It is the phenomenological ego I think it was
maybe Husserl called it. If thatis not what hemeant by his use of the term
that isfine by me. I use it this way as it seems handy and is the ready
expression, andworks for me, gets my point across. Each of us lives with
our need for meaning and courage and truth, that desire which struggles
constanly with the parnoid paranoiac in each of us but beingparanoid is
also a method when used critically and intelligently. How many bombs can
you split on the head of a dead baby in Kosovo? Or Somalia or Rwanda?
Old Machievelli - spellin' check there friends, tells us that every word a
politican speaks is a half-truth in reverse or upside down, or inverted,
or something else,, some other scramble we can never imagine or get at the
truth of. Trostky slept with a copyof the Prince under his pillow. Where
did he end up with that book whenthe axe pick came smashing down on his
head. There are men tonight saying theywant to go and fight for their
country. They are members of the KLA. I will not, and do not judge them.
I will not call them victims ofthe paranoid molar machines, because that
would be reductive, and not hearkening to their small moves inbetween
these big and mad machines.
- the reference to a character named Claire Parnet was purely fictional
and haphazard and, I thought rather funny. Maybe I ought to have spelled
it `Clear' Parnet,,Hahah,, of any charges or responsibility for these
'enunciations'- call it a movable feast,, a personal happening fit for
immediate consumption, as Carlos Fuentes described his novel, A Change of
With best wishes to all, and happy Easter. Whatever works for you.
CD. have text will write.