At first, watching this video dramatized the land’s natural beauty and, especially, the lack of consequences of production. Shortly, I was no longer dismayed of production’s indifferent marring, but thought, ‘Wow, what a nice place to work!’ My change, evidence of baneful, capitalist pedagogies? Worse yet, evidence of adscititious industrial inveterateness supervening upon an antecedent elysian earth?
“And I think this is going to be a new spring for Connecticut and our country.” 1
‘Spring’ has to be declared anew, it was – unlike capitalist oligarchy – becoming problematic.
Thank God mankind has been such a boon to the state of nature. Or is it instead, ‘Thank God nature’s lyric primitive has been such a boon to obfuscation.’; Contemporaneously, neither capitalism nor oligarchy – neither now nor ever – having evidenced cupidity and maledictive sodalities.
We cannot acknowledge the concept of intrinsic natural benediction. [Why would we acknowledge such? Everything is competitive (winning or losing) and thus demands a calculating and serpentine.] Every fraud is felicitous, a skill in demand; Every natural benediction is barbarism.
Our cupidity is deemed aliment rather than plethoric. Aliment is inalienable. Thus, our cupidity is deduced our inalienable right.
Note: I’m aware ‘spring’ is used – at least allegedly used – metaphorically. ‘New spring’ meaning ‘new beginning’. However, every avaricious sodality has its beginnings or continuation ensconcing itself as common.
No better guise of commonness than invoking benedictive nature.
Clive James assesses Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce’s view of art and the creative impulse. As always, Croce [Benedetto Croce] defeats ordinary expectation by looking for the creative impulse in the natural instinct rather than in the developed mind. . . . According to him, a heart in the right place, rather than a mind in a high state of training, was the more likely source of truth, and the only source of creativity. 2
Clive James’s assessment of Benedetto Croce’s artistic view seems to me to, fortuitously, characterize Dino Buzzati’s – also Italian – collection of 20 short stories entitled Catastrophe and Other Stories©. 1
My initial response to Catastrophe© was ‘meh’, so-so. I couldn’t quite interface with the first few pages. The literal narrative was invigorating but the cultural description, despite its regard, kind of overwhelmed a thematic. A ruminant seemed abandoned for an hearty, sensorial, Italian culture. [In hindsight, this overwhelming seems significantly indicative of my own cultural ‘otherness’ as non-Italian and of a different era.] I seemed to be sinking rather than sailing among the text. But, if one ruminates – that which I just, unjustly it turns out, accused Buzzati of remitting – and parses the narrative then themes not only arise but are second only to a sensorial in narrative importance. With rumination the work seemed to become more common, less foreign. Themes arose, poignancy unfolded.
“Would you please come out Miss? The fountain is for the children. . . . [Another minor character] Adults aren’t allowed in the fountain. It’s for the children.”
Anna turned around in surprise, still smiling, “Children or not,” she answered, I must do something to cool down. . .” 3
Shortly, this fountain scene within the story ‘Just the Very Thing They Wanted’ becomes a depiction of mudslinging shambles. Some of the works sensorialness is evident.
My favorite story of the collection, ‘Epidemic’, examines linguistic labyrinths.
The two main characters of ‘Epidemic’ are Colonel Ennio Molinas and Sbrinzel. They work within differing dept.s. of the same intelligence agency. A flu epidemic has struck the country resulting in numerous sickouts within the departments. Sbrinzel reveals – or claims is probably more apt – to the Colonel that this flu is, in fact, “State influenza” [sic]. ‘State influenza’ means the influenza is controlled or operated by the State. This is in order to reveal opponents or recreants of the state. Anyone infected by this ‘State influenza’ is just such an opponent.
. . . A magnificent idea for taking the country’s pulse . . . State influenza! Don’t you think its wonderful? Influenza which attacks only pessimists,, skeptics, opponents, enemies of the country lurking all over the place. . . . 4
The Colonel can’t believe such, but Sbrinzel doesn’t budge of the claim. As ridiculous as this seems, another twist lurks.
State influenza while presented as State-controlled influenza may also be understood as the imperative, ‘State,[ i.e. Say] the word influenza!’ The Colonel seems non-plussed at such a possible imperative and hesitates to accede to such an imperative – which of course isn’t admitted as an imperative.
. . . Thoroughgoing influenza in fact. And not being able to mention it to anyone, because that would make it worse….
No, he [The Colonel] mustn’t give in. The following day the Colonel was still at his post, though his temperature was almost 103 and his head felt like molten lead. “How come, sir, you’re so flushed, eh? [asks Sbrinzol]
“The cold perhaps”, answered the Colonel, determined not to weaken.
. . .
“Eh, sir, it sounds as though you’ve caught bronchititis, eh?” . . . 5
Since Italian is one of the Romance Languages and these short stories were originally writ in Italian, they and the author can be said to be of the Romance Languages. A caution of Romance Language is for one to realize ‘Romance’ within this context of Romance Language means ‘of the era of the Roman Empire’, it does not mean ‘the language of love’. Pepe Le Pew® does not represent an exemplar of Romance Language per se. However, probably no one would claim such classification prohibits affective expression by the Romance L Should the Colonel say the word ‘influenza’ to Sbrinzel a colleague to prove allegiance? Does stating ‘influenza’ at Sbrinzel’s imperative – or potential imperative – subjugate the Colonel to Sbrinzil, thus elevating Sprinzil from colleague to superior? Is stating or not stating ‘influenza’ the real test of loyalty or opposition? The Colonel goes on, disbelieving of the noun phrase ‘state influenza’ yet trying to avoid saying the word ‘influenza’. All this happens within the setting of an intelligence agency which makes the story exponentially absurd.anguages. Affective is, simply, not part of the definition of ‘romance language’.
But It seems to me, some kind of disservice is done to the people of Romance Language communities by demarcating romance as scion of the Roman empire. Necessarily, romance as affinity is cocooned, to be called upon rarely. Classification/typology – as more genuine than mutuality – propagates a formulaic, even forensic, quality to a people. Such circumscribing – of a rather contrived dichotomy – necessarily prioritizes and deprioritizes. In some sense, romance as affinities or affect is deprecated or cauterized. Humanness and its affective aspects are culled, if not obviated, for the promoting of analytics. Romance as affinity yields, becoming alterity yet romance as classification/typology – i. e. ‘of the Roman Empire’ – has been accorded congruence. Analytics snowballs while affect reels. [I suppose the scientific revolution has had baneful effects upon more than just climate, namely the socio-cultural experience.] This is a terrible implication which doesn’t seem addressed at all by any of the synopses of the Romance Languages which I’ve read.
Certainly, an aspect of Catastrophe© is this especial, companionable tone and style of Dino Buzzati. Lacking of imperiousness, writ with charm and enchantingness, equanimity, and mutuality, it seems impossible to find literary conceit among the stories. [Unless one wants to identify equanimity and mutuality as ‘conceit’. Frankly, within this day and age, I wouldn’t be surprised such mutuality and congeniality were asseverated as conceit.] To call the style romantic in the inspired rather than typological sense seemed more than deserving or apt, it seemed inescapable.
So, for me, not only is Catastrophe© of the Romance Languages, the style and tone of his fiction can also be described as romantic in the more affective sense.
Stylistically, Buzzati’s surrealism – which is certainly more a noetic surrealism than chattel surrealism – seemed to embosom realism not disown it.
Catastrophe and Other Stories© acknowledges an arcane aspect of literal language without remitting mutuality, as such, Buzzati’s ‘surreal realism’ is quintessentially socio-cultural.
1 Catastrophe and Other Stories, Dino Buzzati, ©2018 Zelda Buffoni, Ecco Edition, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY
2 Cultural Amnesia: Necessary Memories From History and the Arts, Clive James ©2007, W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York, NY, ‘Benedetto Croce’, pg.146
3 Catastrophe and Other Stories, Dino Buzzati, ©2018 Zelda Buffoni, Ecco Edition, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY, pg. 39,40
4 Ibid, pg. 18
5 Ibid, pg. 20, 21
Other Consulted Material
I don’t like being polemical because I’m aware I’m overstepping my competency but sometimes it can’t be helped.
. . . in demanding universal acceptance, it shows our judgements are always already social. 1
Said the tiger to the zebra.
Universal’ as metaphor of societal infers of monolithic. Monolithic, in turn, infers authoritarian. ‘Authoritarian’ is not synonymous with ‘social’.
This so-called ‘universal’ is nothing but factional seeking access to further such monolithic. It is self-serving and, ultimately, manipulative.
Such affirmationss, should not be left uninterrogated, otherwise continues diffusion which is in no way very different from propaganda.
I haven’t been able to download off archive.org 1 for months now, probably close to a year. The site offers downloading of various formats of available written works or, alternatively, borrowing the works. This ‘borrowing’ is limited to an hour and requires I submit an email address. [I’m referring to the initial ‘borrow limits’. Since I haven’t borrowed any works, borrows subsequent to an initial borrowing may be delimited differently. I am not familiar with all ‘borrowing’ entails other than that just noted.] Previously, if a book was available upon archive.org I could almost always download rather than borrow the work. Now – seemingly all of a sudden – I search books, find it listed, and for whichever reason, I can only borrow not download the work.
I can be conspiratorially-minded when I want to be. Well, transitioning – if such is the apt word – to ‘borrowing’ from ‘downloading’ without any apparent logic is enough to occasion my conspiratorially-mindedness. I won’t submit the required email and thus ‘borrow’ a work. I want to ‘download’ it, which such downloading used to be fine. [Downloads may still be fine for all I know but, as I noted, it doesn’t seem to be the case for most of the past year.] So now I’m left wondering, ‘Why the change?’
In these kind of circumstances, precedential tactics is frequently my first thought. In this case – i.e. capitalism – sundry financial aspects might need some evidence before demands are made. So, the change may be an establishing of evidence leading to either advertising or paywalls or both. Maybe, ad revenue will suffice for a year or two then proceed to paywalls. Since, reading books is involved, I can’t rule out Machiavellian tactics – again precedential at this point – by which access is not just charged but entirely unavailable without placating authority which means, for example, ID cards, certified status, etc.
Regulations of capitalist abuse and corruption I love, regulation of learning and awareness . . . mmmm . . . not so much.
So, obviously, I think something nefarious may be at work with this change of downloadable access to borrowable access.
Couldn’t the new world order just commend their own authoritarian bent instead of limning ‘downloads and borrowing’, feigning – apparently – an heedfulness of selection and preference, then wantonly transfiguring the heed into ‘allowance’? [I should note at this point, in addition to the possibility of myself being all wet of the matter, third parties other than archive.org or myself may be ‘playing’, shall we say, internet access codes of conduct or protocols. Cutthroat Machiavellianism ring any bells?]
Anyway . . .
Maybe they – the new world order, the old world order, archive.org, third parties, myself, etc. – don’t like protocols or codes of conduct as mores, standards. Such protocols – despite being par for democracy – had some sort of preceding authority and thus entail a subjugative facet. Maybe ‘downloading/borrowing’ commonness of selectivity and preference is, for some people dictative, imperious. I can empathize. I mean, I have something of a post-modernist worldview. I understand a ‘Rube Goldberg’ facet of language; Only consent accredits claims. A prior, a posteriori, well-founded, dubious, etc., any kind of claim relies upon consent. I feel certain the same holds true with socio-politics and protocols; One person’s shared protocol, is another’s Caesarism.
But, maintaining ‘borrowable’ while banishing ‘downloadable’ is to maintain half of this Caesarism not eliminate the Caesarism. I mean, if the drift is one of, ‘In the allowance of ‘download or borrow’ preference, we’re being told – like dogboys – to heed preferences.’, then allowing ‘borrowing’ of the archived material is no less Caesarism; It is simply less alert as it furthers half the Caesarism; The half-Casaerism ‘borrow’ is still allowed. I have a solution of this supposed Caesaerism . . . or half-Casareism.
Rather than allowing the dictative ‘download or borrow’ as preferences, rather than banishing a ‘download’ half but retaining the ‘borrow’ half, rid the imperiousness entirely. Offer an alternative to the ‘download or borrow’ appellative while maintaining protocols of selectivity and preferential. The newly constituted appellative I propose is ‘bownloab’ instead of ‘download’ and ‘dorrow’ instead of ‘borrow’.
With this solution, archive.org could still offer selectivity without abiding the protocol . . . er, I mean Caesarism . . . of ‘download or borrow’. As well, a half-Caesarism of ‘borrow only’ would be sacked along with ‘download’. With this, I could still download . . . er , I mean bownloab . . . the works rather than borrow . . . er, I mean dorrow . . . the works. This new appellative is free of the imperiousness of precedent (if such imperiousness is an actuality). Additionally, with this change, the new world order wouldn’t have to continue limning ‘borrowing or downloading’ as ‘selection and preference’ thus ending the song and dance of the bipartite as the path to nirvana. Rather, such imperious protocols will be peremptorily quashed.