|
This
essay was published in IN SEARCH OF (NON)SENSE by
Cambridge Scholars Publishing in 2009. The book,
edited by Elżbieta Chrzanowska-Kluczewska and
Grzegorz Szpila, is a collection of various essays
written by narratologists from all part of the world
who took part in a conference at the Jagiellonian
University in Kraków. Although I'm not a
narratologist I was invited to present my books
which can easily be labelled as (non)sense books...
Why a book is so imp-ort-and... As the saying goes, “One image can
say more than one thousand words”. This is true in
some situations. When I want to learn how to replace
the ink cartridge in my printer with no doubt it is
better to look at pictures than to read a circuitous
description. Or when you buy a new desk, bring it home
and want to assemble it... But this is not true in
some other situations. When my daughter comes back
home and I ask her “what were you doing at school?”
then the reverse is true... But when I want to learn
something about the music on the just released CD
neither words nor images will satisfy me. Reading a
review I will learn only the opinion of a critic, no
matter how experienced he or she is. Of course, an
information that “the guitarist plays even faster and
more precise than John McLaughlin” can be quite worthy
indication what kind of playing I can expect and what
sounds I can try to imagine. Luckily I know who John
McLaughlin is, what he plays and how, but if somebody
does not then such information makes no sense at all.
Using names (of persons, styles, things and whatever)
makes sense only when a reader (or listener) knows
what is hidden behind them, otherwise names are but an
empty sounds or combination of sounds (of course
sometimes you can work out something due to certain
associations or similarities, but you can never unveil
the mystery entirely unless somebody gives you a
proper explanation). So, instead of words and images I
need sounds. It's enough to switch on the CD player
and everything is clear...
Nevertheless,
there are situations where words, images and sounds
are useless. I suffer anosmia. Well, I don't know if
the word “suffer” is the right word. Looking at
someone's reaction I may think of my disability in
terms of being blessed rather than cursed. This is
not so important. The point is that I don't know any
smells. More. I don't know what a smell is. I don't
know what it means that something or someone is
smelling. Any descriptions of smells assume that a
reader or listener experienced smelling hence they
know what smelling means. So far I haven't
experienced smelling hence I don't know what
smelling means, so a statement that something is
stinking means for me absolutely nothing. All
metaphors and comparisons are for me meaningless and
empty (“you look like a just baked roll” tells me a
lot, but “you smell like a just baked roll” tells me
nothing; although I can read Proust or Suskind with
utmost interest, their descriptions will recall in
my mind nothing since there are stored in it no
memories of any fragrances, scents or odours; nor I
can imagine anything since we can imagine only what
we know, we can't imagine what we don't know - I
know it may sound like a paradox or heresy but
that's the way it is)... Luckily I know tastes,
although with no doubt my sense of taste is rather
simple, maybe even primitive. But even if I have the
most sophisticated sense of taste, the best
description of an unknown taste of a meal I have
never eaten in my life will only help me to imagine
how it might taste if I ate it. I must be aware that
these will be but mental constructs, concepts,
ideas, approximations – I will not really learn how
this meal tastes unless I put a piece of in into my
mouth.
However, even
if I was not disabled and could smell (so also
imagine and recall various smells) this would be of
no importance, as well as words, images and sounds,
in case of space (and probably time, too). Models
and mock-ups seem to be more helpful in that case.
They will say more than words, sounds or images.
Yes, even than images – of course I mean drawings or
pictures made on a flat surface and trying to create
the illusion of three-dimensionality with a help of
perspective tricks. Yet due to the used scale
(models and mock-ups are bigger or smaller than what
they present, although sometimes we deal with 1:1
models) they are but approximations of situations
and objects they present... Generally speaking (and
writing), we are condemned to approximations,
because it's simply impossible to experience all
sounds, tastes or smells, we can't visit all places
in the world, we can't live in all times...
Approximations
can be more or less close. Usually we consider
words, images, sounds, mock-ups as opposite
elements, as enemies, rivals, competitors. This is
wrong. And very willingly we hierarchize them
placing words on the top. This is wrong, too. Words,
images, sounds, mock-ups and the others are just
complementary. Together they can say more, much more
than separately provided that they are used
complementarily: when words not suffice, use an
image, when image is helpless use a mock-up and so
on. I don't mean illustrating! An illustration is a
picture added to the text; it can help the text or
it can disturb the text, but the text can do very
well without this picture. In case of an
illustration text and picture are independent while
I'm thinking of a relation of total dependency. A
book must be like a car: all parts the car is
composed of are necessary to make her go – we can't
neglect wheels or drive shaft saying that only
engine matters... MUST or CAN? That's a good
question.
When a book is
regarded as a mere container for text (words) then
it can but don't need. A text (words) is independent
of all other elements a book is composed of. At
least this is how it seems to us and what we assume
and think to make our lives easier. But life is not
that easy as we suppose and would like it to be. The
paint and paper exist physically and they impact on
us, whether we want it or not; perfect indifference
of a printed copy is sheer wishful thinking.
When a book is
not regarded as a mere container for words, then it
must.
A container
for letters (words) is a domain (area, zone,
territory – label it as you like) of literature.
Such a container is usually called a book, although
it shouldn't since a book is something more that
just a container for words. Or a book which is
something more that just a container for words
should have a different name. Names and labels are
not the most important problem, although they are
imps that can bring us a lot of misunderstandings
and confusion.
When we regard
a book as not a mere container for letters (words,
phrases), then we are skipping from the level of
literature to the level of liberature. In case of
literature only text (letters, words, phrases...) is
the conveyor, transmitter of a message. In case of
liberature a whole book conveys messages. Shapes,
colours and size of letters, page layout, colour and
texture of paper, binding, covers, the way the book
is opened and closed, flow of the text, sound of
turning pages... all book components take part in
telling the story. Or at least can and should take
part.
Skipping from
literature to liberature will probably need a few
other important conceptual shifts. Usually we regard
writing as a graphicised talking. This is wrong. For
many reasons but I will mention only two, basic and
essential: talking can only be heard, while writing
can only be seen (or touched). These are two
absolutely different ways of perceiving the message,
and it has crucial consequences. We both generate
and perceive spoken text in a linear way (although
it is possible to sing two or even three sounds
simultaneously using the overtone technique, I have
never heard two different words uttered in the same
moment). Although the written text is also generated
in a linear way, letter by letter, word by word, it
is never read in that way. We never see only the
words which are being read, we always see the entire
page, it means a lot of other words around the one
just being read, and in fact also many other things
surrounding the text. And another essential
difference: spoken words vanishes at once while
written words stays on the page.
Not only
writing is something else than talking – thinking is
not talking, too. I mean talking silently in one's
mind. This is how we usually imagine the process of
thinking. However mind talking is just a part of
what is going on in our heads. So, as usually this
is a problem of definition: if we define thinking as
just “talking silently and voicelessly in one's
mind” then it's all right. But if we define thinking
as “everything that's going on in one's mind” then
we will face a drastic simplification. This is also
a problem how we define a notion, a concept, an
idea... Usually we regard them as words, as names.
To conceptualise means for us to turn something into
words, to name. But quite easily a notion, a
concept, an idea, a name can be a sign or a picture.
A few years ago a well known singer and composer
Prince (of course this is a nickname, so a concept
as well) decided to stop to be Prince. He
transformed himself into... a sign. The sign looked
almost like a Zodiac sign and seemed a combination
of female and male signs. So, the new CD had this
sign on the front cover. One could also find an
information: performed, composed and produced by
^\/^ (well, I have replaced IT with a simple
emoticon-like combination of strokes I could
generate with my keyboard). Imagine now the
confusion of DJs trying to announce a new song sung
by ^\/^... Prince or ^\/^ or whoever, with no doubt
has his mind full of sounds when composing. An
architect, designer or painter with no doubt has
their minds full of pictures when drawing, painting
or designing – words are useless. If we define
thinking as “talking silently in one's mind” then
composing a symphony or designing a poster occurs
thoughtlessly. Even when I think (?) of a book I
don't use words – I imagine it as an object, I
imagine situations I'd like to describe. So, even
books would be the result of thoughtless (at least
partially) process.
And last but not
least: distinguishing form from content has no sense
or make very little sense.
Within a book (but not within a
text!) one can find film, theatre, painting,
sculpture, installation, performance, happening,
music, dance, architecture (in fact a book is like a
building or like a town: letters-words-houses,
sentences-phrases-streets, chapters-districts... while
rambling around a town is like reading a book)...
almost all other domains of arts. A book seems a
territory shared by all of them. This makes a book
something unique, what not necessarily means something
better, but with no doubt means something very, very
difficult to master. It demands more various skills
than only to write. It demands a different kind of
imagination. It demands far greater responsibility and
courage because you enter the territory not exploited,
not searched well, poorly civilised, still quite wild,
with a lot of traps and threads.
Imagine an
almost square plot of land. 2100 m2. At
the edge of a pine wood. There's a wooden fence
around the plot, a small summer cottage in the
centre, some trees, bushes... Now imagined this very
place, once possessed by my parents, in an invisible
cuboid. The bottom part of the cuboid sinks in the
sandy soil while the upper part protrudes above the
tree tops. Now use a literature-liberature tomograph
and slice the cube. Thus you will receive 365
sheets. Make of them an accordion (a leporello). When it is folded it is just a cuboid
of the same proportions as the invisible one
standing in the forest. When you turn the
pages leftward you will move across the space,
from the top of the cuboid to the bottom. At
first you will be among colourful birds and
blue letters and signs – then you will be
among green needles of twisted pines – then
you will look through the window – then you
will be an ant walking along the purple
Mushroomy Way – then you will be among dirty
yellow grains-letters of sand and humus...
When you turn the pages rightward you will
move across time – from the present (or maybe
a few vague visions of the future) to the Big
Bang or even further... The journey through
space – it's a day part of the book, colour
printed. The journey through time – it's a
night part of the book, dreamy (history is
very close to dreaming and even closer to
nightmares, isn't it?), printed (mainly) in
shades of grey... On each page there is a
separate story – thus the book has a discrete
structure...
Because making
so huge leporello is very time consuming and
toilsome, while reading it is very uncomfortable,
you can transform it into a bi-codex. Now a day part
(journey across space) is one codex and a night part
(journey across time) is another codex. Two codices
are joined with their last sheets (dos-á-dos) Thus
an hour-glass-book is being formed. A day replaces a
night. The world turns. A day-and-night cycle
contains a year cycle which contains an eon cycle...
Theoretically the book has no cover. It has only a
stiffening pad inside: a (card)board where day
joins night. You may call it an insider if
you wish. There is a window cut in it enabling
trespassing the day | night border.
Alas, practically the book has the cover. To avoid
almost instant damaging the first sheet (page number
001) must be made of thick paper – this means each
of the codices is soft bound. What a filthy
compromise! Yes, sometimes the practice of everyday
life can be really upsetting.
I
imagined the third part of my Nondescription of the World in
1988, I guess.
I remember it was a
kind of illumination and for some time I was
walking in the glory of a future Nobel Prize
winner (the glory noticed by nobody except
myself): creating a book whose every component
was meaningful seemed as important as
discovering America. Maybe a month later I
bought a facsimile edition of medieval Russian
illuminated manuscript The Story of Boris and Gleb
(published by “Kniga” in Moscow in 1986) with a
very interesting scientific commentary where
Yefim’s book reform was mentioned (but Yefim himself
was not mentioned at all). According to it the closest relation between
external form of a word and its meaning (...),
sense of every, even the smallest orthography
and graphic phenomena
should be shown; one has to assume that every letter in a word has
its meaning and can change the sense of
predication... And then it turned
out that all parts of this book were closely
related, none of them appearing accidentally. A face is a sign of the soul. A
letter, sign, text is a face of the book. To
read a text is like to look into eyes, read in
the eyes of a hidden interlocutor.
That is why the height of the letter is the same
as the distance from the mouth to the eyebrows
of figures in miniatures, while their heads have
the size of two lines. This is how various structural
levels are linked artistically. The scale of
outer world space transforms into the scale of
the book inner space...
Was I disappointed that I was not the first? No,
I was not. I was awfully glad to know that I am
not alone although my way is not exactly the one
of Yefim. Columbus didn't discover America,
either. Neither Yefim was the first, nor I am
the last.
A
book as a world. A book as a model of the world
whose tiny part it is... A book itself is a
world. And the world itself is a book. Not
metaphorically, but really. Or an enormously
huge library. A book is a tiny crumb of the
world that contains the entire world whose part
it is. What an impish ort. A part that contains
the whole – it sounds pretty quantumish. And
this is just the magic of a book, a book
regarded as a container for the whole world...
World or mind? Both... Does it mean that world is mind? Maybe. Who knows... |