Anyone reading the text of
"Chronic Meanings" by Bob Perelman would be amused by its adoption of
a poetic format to enumerate, in an archival sort of way, the contents of what
we still consider common and modern linguistic idiom.*
I cannot ignore the feeling
that Perelman is just behind me watching as I write with the same expressions
from a linguistic or literary repertoire he has so amusingly and sharply
parodied. For what he has listed and played with are some of the fossils of our
discursive library, semiotic artifacts that we pass around, whose age we are
not often too conscious about.
By a method of suspension and
fragmentation, the text forces us to reconsider the form and the syntax, but at
the same time makes us aware of the way we process our thoughts into the
meanings we find ourselves habitually supplying. For example, the line
"The point I am trying." would usually need "to make" to
complete it idiomatically, and doing differently would require justification in
context or signal some attempt to call our attention to its (mis)construction
and strangeness.
By underlining the facility
by which we supply the missing parts of the equation (or quotation), Perelman
redefines reading as a game of paleontology where language use completes itself
pathologically via formulaic artifacts of meaning.
However, by fragmenting, by
coupures, by the suppression of the remainder, by the suspension of syntax, the
text also implies, predictably, inevitably, the ludic refusal of fossilized
idiom. There may never be absolute escape from this library, even with
neologism, especially when the most common is also the most useful and
transparency is defined in terms of familiarity, but at least we can understand
how dinosaurs worked when they still existed.
(*In theater, you will remember Ionesco, and how the meanings of expressions, truisms, sayings, factoids, logical threads, etc. seem to strip away, by dumb repetition, from the dry shell of language.)
No comments:
Post a Comment