AK: In an interview with Andrew Shelley you talk of a writer's onus to contribute to "the historical timeline of civilization." Is this not an extremely conservative, linear conception of how civilizations run their course? Is not the very notion of the literary canon, "tradition" an inherently flawed one, based on phallocentric imaginings of the recta linea form of time and being? Surely the real subversion would be in rejecting the concept of the timeline altogether?
AH: About the western literary tradition, the canon, the lineage. The lineage of the western literary canon is both linear and cycling. I think of it as a spiral. We continue to return to the same point but on a higher ring in the spiral. So the canon is not purely linear nor non-linear. This paradigm extricates us from the intellectually limiting view that compels us to choose antithetical positions, one being the old-school traditional linearist and the new school subvervise deconstructivist.
AK: You describe a process whereby the reader is invited to "infuse the work with his/her own metaphors." Does this mean that the writing is analogous to a join the dots drawing? You provide clues towards an intellectual region or an emotional tone, and the reader labours to complete that tone in whatever pitch they choose? Can such a piece of writing ever be said to be finished? Are you against the notion of closure? Against ending things?
AH: Addressing the reader's need to connect the dots or to labour to input meaning into my literary work, I want to say that I don't perceive of my work in this light. I perceive it in the light of a different analogy, the analogy of a relationship or interaction. It takes two people to have a relationship. They bring to the relationship all of their self. They also concentrate all of their self on a subject or issue. My literary work is the subject or issue. The relationship is between me and the reader.
I don't believe that things end. Things are never finished. There are only changes in the state of a thing.
AK: I am fascinated by your use of Jungian concepts in terms of the self/selves that are always archetypally at play within the writing. Please would you elaborate.
AH: Archetypal psychology arrived at the pinnacle of Jung's contribution to the understanding of the psyche. This was his most important contribution to the understanding of the self. Freud introduced us to complexes. Jung fathomed the psyche uncovering the archetypes. The complexes are personal. The archetypes universal. They are part of our genetic structure. They are engineered into our DNA. The individual self or ego is a construct through which the archetypes are expressed in ways unique to each individual because each individual has a unique set of complexes originating from his/her life experiences. No two people have the same life experiences and so the archetypes are never expressed the same through different people. What makes us different from each other is our complexes. What makes us alike are our archetypes. I was in Jungian analysis for ten years with an analyst who studied under the first generation of Jung's students. Jung's contribution to humanity has still not been fully recognized. His concepts are soul-healing and flowered in response to Hitler, Hiroshima, and the Cold War when evil was globally pervasive. He committed himself to the mission of healing the traumatized collective psyche while writers and artists during this time were producing work that reflected the psychological casualties of this period of history.
Beckett is an example of this and Ballard another. Barth another. These writers are engaged in desconstruction and the isolation and fragmentation of the individual. This is because evil in the world was so globally prevalent. Their work was seeded by destructive acts performed by ignorant and criminal leaders. Their literary works are the dark flowers that blossomed in decaying societies.
But now we are rebuilding. Now evil is localized. The superpowers are allies and working together to eradicate evil which is isolated in the form of terrorism. This has happened because our consciousness has evolved and we are becoming more and more aware of ourselves and accountable for our actions. This evolution of the psyche brings into focus the face of evil. Evil is one of the archetypes. Now that mankind as a whole is becoming more conscious, the face of evil is becoming more identifiable, something we can confront and engage with in an open dialogue. All the personas in my work are representative of the pantheon of archetypes which form the bedrock of human consciousness. I don't believe at all that the novel or that the author or that God is dead. What is dead (numb) is the awareness of the thinkers who made these statements. The author is alive: his/her role is now one of admistrating or managing the multiple voices of the archetypes. The novel is alive: its role is now one of engaging the reader as an active participant in the literary work. God is alive: his/her role is now one of revealing himself/herself within each individual as that individual's consciousness evolves and he/she becomes steadily more mindful.
If there is something dizzying about my work that leaves the reader feeling shaky and worried it is because the reader is confronting the enormity of space. I have produced in one year over 100,000 volumes of literary work. The author is not dead: he/she is immersed in space. The novel is not dead: it is a portal opening onto space. God is not dead: he/she is space. Space accommodates all the archetypes, supplying them with an infinitely extensive stage on which to enact their roles. The internet furnishes me with the raw material which I fashion into literary work that is an ever-evolving epic in which the archetypes describe their patterns in the space-time continuum of human consciousness.
AK: The Spanish artist Harkaitz Cano has written, "The umbilical cord, this is the clue. An umbilical cord that now becomes silicon wire or rudimentary wolfram wire, because nowadays communications and embraces are more fragile and we are more susceptible (the homo sapiens sapiens stopped being so to become homo cellophane cellophane)"
Your writing takes off where Deleuze & Guattari's mille plateaux left off. It slices between everything that we already know. It is itself -generically, formally, technologically. But what does it communicate? What do you communicate? Beyond the obvious jouissance of creation that swells from every paragraph (where one is still able to speak of para-graphos at all).
And, getting back to Cano; shouldn't that read homo cell phone cell phone?
AH: It is very difficult for a writer to purely abandon the sensual or palpable jouissance of creation when working with words for which a writer by nature has a passion. But this is not my primary aim in the production of my work. It is desirable that the jouissance emotes a response in the reader for this is a form of beauty and communication in itself. But beyond this I have a greater purpose that informs my work. All of my work is monumental in scale. Monumentality in symphonic works and in floorto- ceiling works of art on canvas is not the exclusive domain of music and painting. Literature has always been a mass production medium. Now I have made it a "massive" production medium by creating tens of thousands of one-of-a-kind literary works. By myself I can out-produce the entire publishing industry. And what I am producing is not cloned and disposable reading material but original, irreplaceable literary works. The value of literary monumentality and originality is one value I am communicating. The other element that I am communicating in my work beyond the expressiveness of language is "structure". Each of my collections are modeled on a structure/set of instructions/design/formula. The structure of the literary work is what is of primary importance to me. I am a literary architect designing literary structures for the mind to occupy and contemplate. The most interesting dynamic in my work is the convergence of monumentality and structure. This is the fulcrum powering my work because on the one hand I am producing 1,000-page literary works, while on the other hand the structure of the work is identifiable on the very first page or in the very first paragraph. So there is a macro- and a micro-communication co-existing in my work. This is not unlike looking up at a mountain and then kneeling down and picking up a pebble and seeing the mountain in the pebble. The mountain is comprised of an infinite variety of pebble configurations. This is the essence of my work. Each volume is a mountain made up of a infinite number of configurations that all can be reduced to one structure or model.
Meaning is not transmitted alone through connecting words together in narrative form. This is one structure that has dominated literature and handicapped it while the affiliated arts continue advancing and outpacing the world of letters which traditionally lags behind by several decades. This is not the case anymore. I replace the narrative model with new literary structures and forms which replenishes the world of letters and delivers it from constraining doctrines. At the same time I am not rebelling against tradition or abandoning tradition. I am not abandoning conventions and writing subversive material. I am creating new conventions and expanding tradition; I am giving tradition new directions in which to grow and thrive. There is nothing revolutionary or underground or experimental about my work. I am simply creating new literary models that are viable and communicative through new structural design.
I will give one example of a recent new genre I originated called "Next-Gen Nanopoetics". One project in which this literary form is represented is called "COW Gallery" or "California Online Writing Gallery. "Next-Gen Nanopoetics" is my first poetic project. What I have done is replaced rhyme and meter with truncated textstrings (abbreviated phrases). I have formulated a schematic design for this project that is based on three phrases that are repeated in the same sequence for each stanza. The sequence is a-a-b-b-b-c-c-a. This comprises the stanza. There are intentional deviations from this sequence throughout each work but the stanzas always revert back to the primary set of instructions. Here is an excerpt from one of the six series that is called "Nominal Quiescent Current"
Nominal Quiescent Current #0001 (excerpt)
www.cowgallery.com
going on with.
going on with.
make a greater
make a greater
make a greater
pointing out before
pointing out before
going on with.
which, instead of
which, instead of
a Druid curve; an
a Druid curve; an
a Druid curve; an
Still the man
Still the man
which, instead of
as a result of
as a result of
liked
liked
liked
great book like
great book like
as a result of
and security as
and security as
how a particular
how a particular
and security as
heart. Stooping
heart. Stooping
tight pussy. I want
tight pussy. I want
tight pussy. I want
beforehand with him.
beforehand with him.
heart. Stooping
some means or other;
some means or other;
turned
turned
turned
virtuous
virtuous
some means or other;
Whether it was the
Whether it was the
there was truth in
there was truth in
there was truth in
I feel as if I
I feel as if I
Whether it was the
fit." fit." and returned,
and returned,
and returned,
he is recovered, but
he is recovered, but
fit."
(Footnote:
Or were
(Footnote:
Or were
(Footnote:
Or were
'Unless there is
'Unless there is
has she at
has she at
has she at
not have any
not have any
in the spiritual
in the spiritual
she edged nearer to
she edged nearer to
she edged nearer to
I do not apprehend
I do not apprehend
in the spiritual
might mean a
might mean a
is just; and such
is just; and such
is just; and such
mountainous tract
As you see the stanzas conform to the a-a-b-b-b-c-c-a scheme with some interruptions in the pattern. The persona for this project is Alexi Waterhouse. Alexi has produced six series with 1,000 volumes in each series.
Now that you see how structure is the most essential element in my work it will not be difficult to approach any of the other more dense and opaque projects like "Voice of the Village" or "The Hyper Age" which are prose projects. This material at first appears impenetrable and without laws (random). Nothing could be further from the truth. All of my work is based on clear laws and concise structure.
One question that also could be asked is "Is your work meant to be read?" The simple answer is yes. There are a few exceptions to this. But the simple, unqualified answer is yes. How then is my work meant to be read if structure is the raison d'etre for my work and if that structure is identifiable on the very first page of one of my books?
Since this question was not asked, I will save the answer for another interview :)
"Although Atlas is not a machine built to handle textual materials, he uses the dead hours of the night to get it to print out thousands of lines in the style of Pablo Neruda, using as a lexicon a list of the most powerful words in The Heights Of Macchu Picchu, in Nathaniel Tarn's translation. He brings the thick wad of paper back to the Royal Hotel and pores over it. 'The nostalgia of teapots.' 'The ardour of shutters.' 'Furious horsemen.' If he cannot, for the present, write poetry that comes from the heart, if his heart is not in the right state to generate poetry of its own, can he at least string together pseudo-poems made up of phrases generated by a machine, and thus, by going through the motions of writing, learn again to write? Is it fair to be using mechanical aids to writing - fair to other poets, fair to the dead masters? The Surrealists wrote words on slips of paper and shook them up in a hat and drew words at random to make up lines. William Burroughs cuts up pages and shuffles them and puts the bits together. Is he not doing the same kind of thing? Or do his huge resources - what other poet in England, in the world, has a machine of this size at his command - turn quantity into quality? Yet might it not be argued that the invention of computers has changed the nature of art, by making the author and the condition of the author's heart irrelevant? On the Third Programme he has heard music from the studios of Radio Cologne, music spliced together from electronic whoops and crackles and street noise and snippets of old recordings and fragments of speech. Is it not time for poetry to catch up with music?"
—J.M. Coetzee, Youth
visit http://www.cultureanimal.com/
or
http://www.muse-apprentice-guild.com/
Kaganof was born again in 2001. He used to drive a Toyota Corolla but that got stolen. He shoots Glock. He has three books available from Pine Slopes Publications.