Today published an excerpt from a much more extensive. This is a book that is many books, from a script that invokes a lot of reading, a tour around Latin American poetry. We're talking about masks, transparency of the Venezuelan writer Guillermo Sucre.
The excerpt is a third part of the text, entitled Language and critical awareness.
Guillermo Sucre on one of its best-known images.
Basque Photo Szinetár, 1979.
XIII. words (AND THE WORD) *
I doubt for the writer is that true reality is facing the reality of language . If for every human being the l imitate their world are those of their language [1] , it is obvious that fact is even more dominant in the writer's experience. This not only knows that what he says and the way you say are ultimately one and the same thing, even knows the value of what he says lies above all in how you say it. The central passion that drives it first passes through the language. This passion means, of course, taste or the pleasure of words, but it would be wrong to confuse it with the mere pursuit of a style "beautiful" or "perfect." It is more tense or predicament: no exercise of idolatry but of lucidity: an ongoing debate between fascination and rejection, between recognition and criticism.
That debate is in line with the nature of language. Indeed, language is both an enemy and an ally. You can not say anything without being subject to a syntax and meanings already established, even on intuitions m ore original slide phrases or stylistic habits that will reduce the initial intensity of the same intuition, and if given invent new relationships between words, we know that this possibility has its limits. Is not there also, finally, a remote and even a distortion between what is written and what I wanted to write? Is lucid writer who is aware of that Slavery and, for that matter, is to overcome the language and to dominate. That act created the work. But not mastered the language to be submitted, in turn, to another slavery, but to liberate, to bring to the fullness that somehow holds. If the work is a triumph of language, the truth is that it also happens to be a triumph of language itself.
Is not the work, perhaps, where the word or words is closest to the Word? And already created is not the work tends to become independent of its author and reveal meanings that he had not planned at all? That is, does not exist in the language itself intrinsic energy, a force of infection, which, far from enslaving, acts as a creative force? Even the poverty of language (we have no words, really, to name all) has not served to engage the metaphorical systems and even mythical? In that way, it is not uncommon for writers to be more rebellious against the language's greatest passion you profess. That passion is liable to , in itself, an absolute. "In the spiritual life there comes a time when writing, to be constructed in principle autonomous, it becomes destiny," he said, therefore, Cioran [2] .
Pasi ng language and rebellion against the language, these two attitudes may not represent the same for the writer before, or you were partially or totally unknown. Earlier, in effect, the language did not start but was founded on a truth or a higher order and transcendent. The writer may or may not ask about the language, but ultimately trust their validity to that guarantee superior, believing in their world and expressed it, put it into words. The language, therefore, could not be a problem: he had confidence in him and therefore could not questioning. In modern history, all from a guarantee of greater significance disappears and so the language loses its foundation. Nietzsche and noted that no one can say ie but this means; thus not only highlighted the passage of transcendence or immanence absolute or relative, but also gave the language a central role in the world. Thus, any theological or philosophical problem, but also the more everyday, it became a linguistic problem, a semantic problem. If the language on the one hand, lost its foundation, became, on the other, on the basis everything. In modern thought-one might say, "replaces the language of truth. Similarly, in modern poetry, the language replaces reality.
This situation central ng language does not lead, as one might think, in total confidence by the writer. On the contrary, it begins its interrogation work, reflecting on its power or effectiveness. On the one hand, wants to take the language to its greatest possible expressive on the other hand, is aware not only of the impossibility of achieving maximum but also the misunderstanding that holds the same expression. In either case, their attitude is critical. In their search for the greatest possible expressive writer, certainly, which tries to create another language : verbal alchemy, a magic evocative. O as proposed by Mallarme from certain words, the verse must redo a whole word, new, strange as encantatoria language. " Thus, creating another language is not only change we have, is also postulated a sort of verbal way capable ("again? Why first?) To govern the universe.
This excess, as seen, is problematic attic and even leads to extreme stress. No wonder, therefore, that the history of modern poetry is the history of many failures, these failures, however, can be seen as so many victories: the victory of a consciousness that does not give up the highest ever proposed or the most difficult and thus somehow sheds light on the opacity accusing the world today. Arguably the victory of not. modern literature, or m ore live it, is anti-literature, but as he wants to transgress all literature, the works chosen to be fragments or traces of works, but to the extent that try, but they will not will succeed, be the Work. Although the formula as a reproach, Cioran himself does a fairly accurate description of this fact. "We care more and more," he says not what the author has said but what he wanted to say, not his acts but in their projects, less in their actual work in his contrived. "Also adds:" We strongly of the work is aborted, abandoned on the road, impossible to conclude, undermined by their own standards. " [3] Needless to note that this fascination with the negative or inconclusive is merely the result of lucidity than corresponding to a discipline and ethics, is also critical of the world and man. Is it not also preferable extreme ambition, which cancels itself to mediocrity or routine accomplished?
Language is the greatest of goods given to man, and m ore dangerous also said Hölderlin. It is perhaps dangerous, and above all, by the fatality of his own nature. It puts us in touch with the world while we are away from it, enter an order or intelligibility in existence, but also death: the words are abstractions that "set" or "freeze" a reality (and us within it) that is in constant motion. Literature, meanwhile, is nothing more than an attempt to transcend the inevitable verbal, underlined from Hegel to Barthes, as well as almost all modern poets. This attempt is always predicament: how to transcend that fate without become aware of it and, secondly, how to become aware of it without the creative power of literature to be affected? It's not all. The literature get along with this dilemma and it is obvious that if it exists is because somehow manages to overcome it, his language, in fact, is a metalanguage.
Instead, is not There is another fatality of language and social, that is even more decisive? We know that the ambiguity-some would say today-indeterminacy of language can be a treasure: a way to embody the diversity of the world, the hidden complexity of life, Borges would say. But it is obvious that this ambiguity can be employed for other purposes: to falsify the facts, manipulating or directing consciences. Dominated by the propaganda at all levels (ideologies, even the art itself, seem to be governed by the same principle of advertising), contemporary society has shown its expertise in achieving these ends, taking advantage of the mistake, the disquisitions semantics, euphemisms, and even metaphors. Since language is not just for all and, of course, not at all, also has created a dual language whose code is still working to strengthen the power : cunning, not truth. And George Orwell, in a well-known essay on the subject, has made a ng description of such mechanisms; [4] not going to repeat now. The important thing is to note that, according to this description, there is no pure or innocent words any words refers us to a contrary reality, which hides away to reveal it. The commissioner and the psychologist mass-say-Paz are now direct our language. Paz himself also, in one of his books, remember: when a society is degraded, politically and socially, the first thing is language gangrene (Postscript, 1970). Conversely, we should say that all justice and social policy, have to start by the reunion of the right word.
Doom social charter or language: should we not also wonder if the "verbiage" is not an evil inherent in Western culture, others, with rare exceptions, the silence and inner experience and wisdom of the world like? This evil tendency, of course, more acute in our time. If the famous aphorism "silence, gives" holds some truth, and is now common to find the investment of their practice: they are the worst offenders and even those who have little or nothing to say the least (if ever) are silent.
The cr Notice of language by the poet, provides, explicitly or not, all these planes. Is a critical incident, therefore, in the consciousness of man does reconsider its position in the world and take responsibility with his words, his words keep the word (and Word). This is not change of language but, in truth, change the language. Change it is to rescue, restore its fullness, or discover, invent. "To give a purer sense to the words of the tribe" is not merely an attempt to prices, as some believe, but further purified. One criticism of imposing these requirements within the work itself is not creative insight holds true even when you're constantly on the verge of its own destruction?
[1] L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (5.6).
* Text taken from MASK, TRANSPARENCY. ESSAYS ON LATIN AMERICAN POETRY. Guillermo Sucre (1990). 1st reprint. Fondo de Cultura Economica. Mexico, pp. 221-224.
born Guillermo Sucre Figarella Tumeremo, Edo. Bolivar, Venezuela (1933). He is a poet, writer, critic and literary creator.
born Guillermo Sucre Figarella Tumeremo, Edo. Bolivar, Venezuela (1933). He is a poet, writer, critic and literary creator.
0 comments:
Post a Comment