Tampilkan postingan dengan label Bruce Benderson. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Bruce Benderson. Tampilkan semua postingan

Dodie Bellamy – Language squirms like a living thing, dense and gelatinous; texts filled with metaphors stretched beyond the breaking point

Dodie Bellamy, The Letters of Mina Harker (University of Wisconsin Press, 2004)

"A fixture in the San Francisco literary scene for over a decade, Dodie Bellamy will surpass the expectations of her many fans with this book - which traces a woman's relationships with three very different men and her involvement in 20th-century vampire culture. This is a nearly indescribable epistolary novel that brings the heroine of Bram Stoker's Dracula forward into the acronymic age of MTV, HIV, ATM, VCR, etc."

"This book is the culmination of a posession, a spirit that haunted San Francisco a decade ago. Bram Stoker's heroine inhabited the body of Dodie Bellamy and wrote letters to Dodie's friends, who were also writers, some of whom were also posessed. Unlike the book Real: The Letters of Mina Harker and Sam D'Allesandro, in which the letters of Mina alternated with those written by Sam, this book is solely composed of letters written by Mina Harker. We hear one side of the conversations, but there are echoes on the line." - Queer Book Reviews

"I do not mean I perform-see my swiveling neck my changing mouth, arms that open wide-a tremendous pile of meat that sings 'I love you'-then I explode." People used to say that a poem should not mean, but be. Today, we might better say that a text should not mean, but perform. Dodie Bellamy's novel, The Letters of Mina Harker, is such a performative text. It's not what this book says that matters, so much as what it does. It dances its way through the minefields of female desire. It steps lightly from spot to spot, even as explosions detonate all around it. It cuts a swath through language and life alike, shattering identities wherever it goes. Warning: this text is dangerous, it bites.
On one level, The Letters of Mina Harker seems to be about certain events in Dodie Bellamy's life. The book speaks of her marriage to "KK." It narrates her tumultuous affairs with two other men, whom she calls Dion and Quincey. And it movingly memorializes Sam D'Allesandro, her close friend, now dead of AIDS. All of Dodie's relationships are described in intimate, sometimes embarrassing, detail. No secret is too private to reveal, no event too trivial to recount, no emotion too fleeting to be analyzed in depth. Most of all, the book is about Dodie's sex life. It feels as if every erotic fantasy, every twinge of jealously, every last orgasm, has been transcribed into the word processor and pinned down on the page. And the realistic vividness of all these happenings is only enhanced by the fact that they are set against the background of everyday life: domestic chores, art world gossip, and recognizable scenes from San Francisco during the Eighties.
Yet despite all this, The Letters of Mina Harker is not a confessional text. Even if the facts it recounts are true (which may or may not be the case), it isn't an autobiography. This is because The Letters of Mina Harker is, above all, a book of and about writing. It's a verbal performance, not a series of revelations. In this postmodern reinvention of the epistolary novel, the story itself is relegated to the past. The present tense of the book is the time in which its letters are written. These letters are addressed to the Reader, to the dead Sam D'Allesandro, and to other lovers and friends, fictive or real. Unlike in traditional epistolary novels, these letters can never receive replies. They are rather like messages in bottles, urgent communications sent out with no hope of return.
The only thing truly present in this text is a voice; or better, a pair of hands typing. The novel's main character is not Dodie Bellamy, the woman to whom all these things happened. Rather, it is the narrator, Mina Harker, the one who actually signs and sends the letters. Mina is a ferocious vampire woman, the undead companion of Count Dracula. She is not Bram Stoker's compromised Victorian heroine, but a fiercer, harsher, more independent figure. Mina haunts Dodie, possesses her body, takes her outside of herself. For writing, like falling in love, is like falling prey to a vampire. The person who yearns, like the person who writes, is taken over by an alien entity. She finds herself acting in all sorts of ridiculous, dangerous ways. She finds herself saying things she does not mean. The writer, like the lover, is a vessel for outside forces, a host for a ghostly parasite, an echo chamber for voices of the dead.
The aim of confessional writing is to achieve an absolute transparency: to get through the words, and arrive at life itself. But Dodie Bellamy knows that this is an impossible task. Life and writing can never coincide. Each thrusts repeatedly against the other, without success. At best they may trade places, as in a perpetual dance. "Writing versus life-is the one flight, the other hot pursuit?" The body cannot be spoken in its entirety. Sex is forever beyond language, or before it: "my cunt has lips but no tongue it clenches dilates and drools but will never speak." To write about something is necessarily to transform it: to distort it or embellish it, but in any case to lose it. Experience is always being exchanged for words, and body parts for parts of speech: "there's metaphor on one side and literality on the other and I'm stuck between them two mountainous silicone tits crashing against one another." Speech is a huge and cumbersome prosthetic organ. Even if it's bigger and heavier than whatever it replaces, we can't help noticing how phony it looks and feels.
But of course prosthetics also have their own pleasures and rewards. Language, like a cheap horror film, is moving and scary not in spite of its fakeness, but precisely because of it. No wonder the novel is littered with lurid, hilarious descriptions of horror films seen on VCR or on late-night cable. Dodie (or is it Mina?) see herself as Jennifer Jason Leigh being torn apart in The Hitchhiker, and as Drew Barrymore playing the teenage slut in No Place to Hide. And yes, I admit it: this grotesque, artificial heightening is what really lures me into The Letters of Mina Harker. I'm seduced and intoxicated by the novel's viscous prose. This language never sits still on the page. It gestures, it screams, it sings; it ties itself into knots. It squirms all about like a living thing, dense and squishy and gelatinous. The novel is filled with metaphors stretched well beyond the breaking point. It crackles with epigrams, anagrams, and brilliant throwaway aperçus. And it's loaded with distorted, rewritten citations of texts both famous and obscure (including--conflict of interest warning--one from a book of mine). The Letters of Mina Harker is hot and cold, immediate and distant, passionate and ironic, all at once. In the way she calls forth the myriad pleasures of sex and texts, both high and low, Dodie Bellamy may well be America's answer to Roland Barthes. I can say of her book what she (or Mina) says of one of her lovers: "I may not have liked what he did but he made me feel alive, overburdened with random meaning." - Steven Shaviro


"The Letters of Mina Harker collects a number of epistolary texts that Bellamy has published over the last ten years in a variety of public (and private) forums, written under the pen-name Mina Harker. Mina is no simple pseudonym, however, but a performative rewriting (and rewiring) of Van Helsing's secretarial adjunct from Dracula, and as Dodie Bellamy's mouthpiece, Mina becomes a feminist vampire for the 90's. Over the course of the letters (written to person[a]s living, dead, and "invented"), Mina chronicles the events of her (and "Dodie"s) colorful life as a writer living in San Francisco, as well as the ongoing (and playful) "tension" between the "author" Mina Harker and the "character" Dodie Bellamy, whose body Mina sometimes inhabits.
As an experimental, cross-genre foray into intertextuality, Bellamy's writing itself is vampiric, resurrecting the classic horror corpus and inflecting (infecting) the corpse with the blood of her own desires. In addition to the "primary" textual site of Stoker's Dracula, Bellamy borrows, bends, and breaks a number of other diverse sources and cultural-intellectual traditions: epistolary fiction, Kathy Acker, the confessionalism of Plath, horror films, French feminist theory, sadomasochism, film theory, erotica, working-class identity, and the gay and artistic circles of 1980's San Francisco, where the AIDS epidemic haunts the novel, extending the vampiric erotics of sex, blood, and death into the contemporary.
The above is not meant to be a mere listing of influences or reference points. Bellamy does not simply raise the flags of hip tropes and "sexy theory," nor does she superficially pastiche these notions as hypothetical parlor games - her text enacts them, structurally, in a real-time melange of flesh and blood, where theory just happens to be the after-the-fact explanation for what is the case. In Bellamy's fiction, the world and the self (and all attempts at explication) are fundamentally hybrid, cyborg, "both-and," and the moments of crisis (horror, abjection, disgust) are only a result of our attempts to repress experience into tidy categories with solid boundaries. These boundaries (between bodies, between worlds, between genres) press up against and penetrate one another, enacting an unmitigated new world of "trans." It is this moment of "trans" - the slash in outdated "either/or" binarisms, the "cross" in cross-genre or cross-dressing - that becomes the site of self (and textual) (de/re)construction, that heightened moment of horror where boundaries and categories break down, enacting a kind of reconfigured utopia (literally no-place) that in Bellamy's hands becomes freeing rather than threatening.
The ultimate utopias, of course, are to be found in sex and death, the abject "loss" of self within the formless dissolution of being and intentionality. Orgasm, for Bellamy, is not merely an exalted state of some escapist bliss or sensationalist subject matter, but rather an exemplary moment of immediacy that Mina wants to capture in writing as well. "Sex, no matter how fondly recalled, comes across as generic" - i.e., descriptions of sex are genre-laden - but the orgasm (as ineffable, as l'petit monde) exceeds descriptions or categories, exceeds the literary per se: "This [orgasm] is an ideal state of discourse - unmediated, with a totally receptive audience." The second half of this quote demonstrates Bellamy's humor, a performative, self-conscious pleasure-of-the-text that is erotic as well as "embodied."
However, as the novel (not "progresses" as much as) proceeds, Mina (as construct, as persona, as corpus/corpse) begins to take on a cyborgian self-consciousness that questions the presumed jouissance of the performative and eroticized text. In a text so attentive to the physicalized politics of gender and sexuality, the realization that writing (in the form of letters, or gossip, or narrative) places yet another set of boundaries on the "feminine" self, presents Mina with the double-bind of writing her own demise, performing her own self-deconstruction: "life as a corpse to be embalmed by the writer... THE TEXT IS NOT A BODY it is a coffin." This self-reflexivity adds yet another layer to an already dense and complex narrative. For Mina Harker, as for Bellamy, writing is a matter of breathing life into a literary corpse (contemporary fiction) so that the living dead (the pulsing, erotic, written words) may startle us into self-recognition. If the novel is dead, The Letters of Mina Harker are missives from beyond the grave, as well as letters from fiction's future." - David Buuck

"The Letters of Mina Harker by Dodie Bellamy is a history of a young unlady writing in San Francisco in the 1980s. Stoker's Mina Harker, "this plain Jane secretarial adjunct," in Bellamy's hands becomes her own subject who vows never to "perish in domesticity like a Jane Austen heroine." In the wings: AIDS and death exercise their insatiable appetites. By blurring the lines between sexual and literary articulation ("my throat is a cunt"), Bellamy/Harker "suck up the silence." Gender, genre, and class crash in The Letters in a culture bomb. "I am a post-punk Milton waging a one woman war against structure, taste, logic and even words themselves."
Bellamy's "bestiare d'amour" has an affinity with Kathy Acker's no-holds-barred approach and the work of Dennis Cooper and other "new narrative" writers. Identity is always in question; boundaries always at risk. Mina and Dodie defy pinning down. They're shifting, in constant motion. Bellamy constructs a sophisticated doppleganger effect between author and subject, undermining her own position of mastery by implicating herself on the page. "Dodie's so much more constructed than I. She makes a clone of herself, Mina Harker." Mina/Dodie's voracious appetite/cunt/writing (where does one end and the other begin?) gulp down everything–cum, pop, cock, culture, films, history, literature, horror, philosophy, fast food, sex, and anything else she can get her hands and mind on–spewing it back "bursting with plots you never stop narrating." (Although this is said about Sam D'Allessandro, it also describes The Letters.) Narrow and binary definitions of form and content, theory and creative work, high and low life, authenticity ("Who cares if it's true or merely a dream spiraling into the darkness, a piece of cheap dinnerware covered with jewels"), class, and gender are uprooted and exposed in all their complexity in The Letters.(62) This mish-mash of high and low raw matter is the stuff used to create a glittering universe. "Yet all that was sick or hysterical about her behavior in day-to-day life could be turned into something valuable through the act of writing."
Historically, the epistolary novel has its origin as a form used by male writers to tell the private, supposedly "authentic" (read unmediated) story of a woman's seduction, abandonment, and fall. Claire Goldstein points out that "from the seventeenth century on, the letter becomes associated with the feminine" and is encoded feminine in several ways: "as an activity engaged in by women, as a published genre appreciated by a largely female audience, and also as a reflection of a certain cultural image of female character."(emphasis added) The letters are usually presented as written for private not public purposes. Once they have been made public–after some remarkable or fortuitous chance–they are presumed to be part of a secret and therefore more revealing, more authentic text. Frequently the female subject, as in Les Liaisons Dangereuses or Clarissa, is of a "propertied" family. That is, she is not working class. There would be no tragedy to reveal in telling the tale of a poor or working class woman's fall. She is already fallen. She is always the other woman: sexualized, disposable, already erased, not part of the cultural economy. Middle and upper class women are located as pure, clean, virginal, marriageable, and therefore part of the cultural economy though often as an object of exchange and consumption. Goldstein notes that "the style and format attributed to epistolary prose–natural, light, naive–resemble the style of conversation cultivated in aristocratic women and enforced by cultural discourse and instruction."(emphasis added)
As Kathy Lou Schultz points out, "while it is now possible to identify a trajectory of experimental women's writing, to inhabit a vocabulary of gender and sexuality, references to class often remain just that: mere codes." Bellamy's The Letters of Mina Harker challenges codes of social decorum and propriety, and their relationship to class, at every turn. In The Letters, Bellamy takes the form of the epistolary novel and wrests it from its "high" ground. She launches her culture bomb, exploding the discrete notions of anything that could be considered "natural," "authentic," "light," "naive," and makes something new and endlessly expandable, exponentially multiplying the details, descriptions, digressions sounding out–"in medias mess"–"the joyful, troublesome, gender, genre [class] exploding noise."(Retallack)
Bellamy’s challenges expose even while acknowledging that the codes of gender (and I’d add class) make anything she does twice as shocking than anything a man might do. "I like to talk dirty too," Bellamy states, "But sometimes it's such a yawn since all the cards are stacked on my side–being female, anything I do is automatically twice as shocking as anything you do...". She out-others the notion of Other, thereby overturning one of the organizing principles of the epistolary genre: "...having been an Other since the day I was born, being the other woman was small potatoes to me." Our author is seductress; married woman (to a gay man and writer, "KK"); the other woman; a woman fantasizing about her favorite "Victoria's Secret" model, Fredrique; the frump in a torn bathrobe at the keyboard, writer; woman who sits apart from another woman–"her face every inch of it covered with lipstick"–to "show they have different futures", and a host of others.
Identity is always fluid and gender open for appropriation: "I loved it when my tits or my cock or my asshole would destroy my own ego with their needs." "I'm amazed at my erection long and hard and colorful." And while the effects of class in the hands of many may be buried in codes, Bellamy takes a different tactic: "Thus did I understand that Rendezvous and I were involved in a conflict of form–he approached me from behind sneaking up on my subconscious like a tracking missile (he calls this letting things pass, I called him a passive-aggressive asshole). I'm the William Tell type, firing at a person point blank (he called me a controlling bitch, I call this getting things out in the open)...". Bellamy eradicates boundaries between what can be articulated and how in public or in private and risks the consequences of doing so, particularly at the heart of the intersection of class, gender, and innovative writing. Bellamy has remarked on the SUNY poetics listserv that "the feminist poetics scene in San Francisco nourished me–but it became quite clear fairly early on that I was not going to be supported there (quite the opposite) for the sexuality and vulgarity I was moving towards. (Though it wasn't as bad as when I recently read in Cambridge and nobody would look me in the eye or talk to me after my reading.)"
By assuming multiple positions (or what Schultz calls "complex and mediated identities"), Bellamy marks herself as someone struggling against the system of fixed social, class, literary, and gender structures/strictures. She is then invested with the power to address, unseat, lay bare, redress whatever may fall under her gaze and pen. And yet, as Bellamy says in "Reading Tour" from Tripwire 2, "While I believe–really believe–that formal innovation opens new vistas of expression, better allows me to track a psyche's collisions with a fucked-up misogynistic culture, I'm still plagued with self-doubt. Am I an elitist, I ask myself, am I like one of those social climbing neighbors my mother scorned, the ones who traipsed around with shopping bags from Marshall Field when Sears and J.C. Penney have everything a reasonable person would need?"("Reading Tour" 127-28) She still questions her particular strategies for addressing vulgarity and sexual and innovative literary pleasures/pressures (class, gender, genre). She remains poised, sometimes hilariously ("Life is like marriage: who could stand the constancy if you didn't take it for granted") at an outpost on the edge of some nether world.
In Bellamy's hands, Harker is no polite, anorexic, aristocratic debutante. Right at the outset, Bellamy's voracious appetite ("This book is the bag. So is my cunt.") is unleashed, chowing down everything from Nosferatu, Duchamp, Bram Stoker, "Hill Street Blues," William Gibson, The Hunger, Newton's machinery, herbaceous plants of the Amazon, bloody sanitary napkins used as literary and sexual fodder, literary theory, and Gregory Corso, to name just a few (and this is just in the first letter or two!).
As Joan Retallack has said in another context, but which aptly describes Bellamy's Letters, "[T]he very act of attending entails a radical figure/ground shift." Good middle class girls and women are polite, taught not to discuss (or even see) the monstrous; indeed this is part of the education for becoming a woman in middle class society. In discussing the social pressures to silence adolescent women, Michelle Fine notes, "The voices... echo powerful, diverse, and yet share messages to domesticate, submit, and be nice, if not mute." Bellamy speaks about topics which are often veiled or kept hidden by the codes of polite, middle class conversation, literature, and sexual politics, such as "my nose against his soft-hard cock, nostrils itching with fabric softener and urine."(11, emphasis added) As she states elsewhere, "The monstrous and the formless have as much right as anybody else."
Bellamy addresses these things using a vocabulary and diction that is the marriage of street and poetry, "I am so aroused my clit flicks like a tongue." She violates rules about where it is O.K. to speak as well: "...in...the Roxie Theater...I shout, 'That's me on the screen you assholes!"(9) "Bad metaphors are the only way we can approach the really important things, don't you agree?" she confides, continuing by way of example, "the stars are astonishing, the sky speckled like the black-suited shoulders of a guy with really bad dandruff." She understands the conventions of authenticity, privacy, gossip and voyeurism on which the epistolary novel rests: "DON'T TELL ANYBODY are the three most erotic words in the English language." Bellamy challenges what one can speak about (subject matter), how one can talk about it (vocabulary, diction, form, taste), where (context), and by whom (gender). This Mina is no disgraced, fallen woman. Having joyfully positioned herself in opposition to this system, she revels in the full menu of pleasures (and pain, rage, etc) to which she has access and can give voice. In The Letters, sex, life, death, characters, the body, desire, the text will not be contained by rules of class, gender, and social decorum. There is mutiny here, but no muteness.
This is writing without shame. Bellamy presents the particular details of her characters' existence, giving voice to their complexities as educated people living at a lower economic status. An example is her description of the Kentucky Fried chicken wedding meal, which is had while sitting on a sofa with "springs poking my butt" in front of a 12 inch black and white TV (this is not a description of a first married meal in middle class land!), alongside an invocation of a Duchamp nude. Others might include "KK" fixing his zipper with a staple gun or the kitschy apartment with a photo of Deneuve ripped from a magazine, strewn dirty clothes, and an ashtray from a local restaurant. "KK's" face is lovingly described as being "like his thrift store clothes: worn but to the innovative never beyond mending" while his TV dinners come from Canned Food Outlet. Or there is the description of sex in the car with Dion, whose day job is hauling around carcasses–and Dion holding up a bloody finger (She has her period and he's not cleaned up from work).
Bellamy addresses without simplifying the intricacies of class, suggesting that any elision of such distinctions would itself be a wrong: "Voice spit tears shit a cry–the refusal to emit seems like a crime." This notion of complexity is enacted formally, as the letters are addressed to multiple others: the reader; an individual who is dead (the writer, Sam D'Allessandro); fans; lovers; personal friends; and others who may be "fictional" characters (Qunicey, Dr. Van Helsing). Bellamy locates the class, gender and social pressures/conventions underlying the epistolary form and plays with those conventions. Out of this is created a form that performs a complex relation. It's both kitschy and sublime.
In The Letters, Bellamy marries high and low culture. Texts, movies, and a host of other second-hand material are used as jumping off points to create something new. And because the reader may be familiar with many of these other materials, and because of the resemblance to seemingly real people, say in the San Francisco writing scene, the boundaries between these things are constantly moving and in question. The novel is a performance in which, willingly or not, everyone participates.
The writing itself is sexualized in what could be considered a particularly female strategy. As Genre Tallique says, "Attention to the complex discontinuities of the feminine in language will explode the shortest distance between points and turn it into a field of sinuous, labyrinthine lanes." Dodie/Mina say that "the simplest narrative is the history of a gratified desire" but then go on to create a world/text in which "she cannot resist cannot withhold she reveals things too early, slips in the vulnerable the unwise the embarrassing the scandalous." Writing is sexy, sexual, generative, voracious, expansive: "Writing has always been more sexual than sex, the sustained arousal of never quite getting it right." Desire is anything but gratified, certainly not simple, or linear. Yet Bellamy understands the allure of narrative, "I am eager for his ejaculations as I was for Emma Woodhouse or Elizabeth Bennett to marry," although she refuses the mousetrap of plot. The book openly struggles with how to "end" such a text: "So here I am, working on my ending, going crazy with endings...". The writing is full of desire at every turn. "Eagerly he licks his cum from my mouth: I want to bring the reader this close to writing." And she does.
Perhaps the social and reductively defined codes of middle-class life and literature, or any bounded area–feminist writing, the novel, relationships, for example–attempt to too narrowly structure the world, whatever particular world we're talking about. Bellamy gives voice to the complicated, the messy, the vulgar and explicit. Her writing is multiplicitous and interwoven, blowing up boundaries of silence and absence in whatever guise in the class, gender, genre big bang. Like Jane Austen, an author Bellamy talks about reading in The Letters, and other writers who have gone before, Bellamy provides an important role model for writers breaking with traditional strategies and codes about what can be explored in a literature interested in narrative and how to address class and gender issues in the context of innovative form." - Robin Tremblay-McGaw

Dodie Bellamy, Pink Steam (Suspect Thoughts Press, 2008)

"Dodie Bellamy sows poetic bedlam in Pink Steam, an introspective collection of bits of fictionalized memoir and reflection that explore everything from sexual desire to the temptations of shoplifting. Bellamy deconstructs Barbie's Dream House, recounts a run-in with "Venus" and reports from "the field" (read: her mother's couch in Indiana) on the 2000 Republican National Convention. Her offbeat, flirtatiously subversive prose puts a fresh spin on countercultural life in San Francisco and the Midwest from the 1970s to the present." - Publishers Weekly
Dodie Bellamy, Barf Manifesto (Ugly Duckling Presse, 2008)

«Asked to write a paper on alternative forms of memoir for the 2007 Modern Language Association conference, Bellamy wrote an admiring analysis of "Everyday Barf," the essay that concludes Eileen Myles's recent poetry collection Sorry Tree. Bellamy's talk, "MLA Barf," became a rousing defense of the "barf" as a literary form. Here "MLA Barf" is joined by its sequel, "CCA Barf," delivered as a lecture at the California College of the Arts some months later. Together the two talks celebrate Eileen Myles—especially her genius for bringing the body into writing—as well as the conceptual practices of two British visual artists, Tariq Alvi and Bridget Riley. In addition, Barf Manifesto, like The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, is an intimate account of a long, sometimes tortured, but enduring friendship between two female writers.
In the words of critic Ramsey Scott, "Bellamy asks us: how can sloppiness become an intellectual stance, a methodology with its own aesthetic and political priorities? How might a permeable editorial screen that allows for error, parataxis, and the non sequitur serve as the basis for a hybrid kind of writing that is at once critical and autobiographical, factual and fictional? What does it mean to insist upon the disorderly as a means of cultural critique and political engagement?»

«Novelist Dodie Bellamy’s pamphlet Barf Manifesto—about, among other things, the author Eileen Myles—shares significant thematic DNA with [Phillip Lopate's] Notes on Sontag. Both texts are interested in the art of writing about writers and in the essay as a literary form. But even as these two books make excellent companions, they bear out significant differences, too. Though a significant force, Myles is less famous than Sontag was; she is also more humorous, more comfortable as a fiction writer, and (hooray) alive and well. Unlike Lopate, Bellamy counts her subject as a close friend, though the deeply honest and ocassionally cranky Barf Manifesto gives us a taste of how complex their relationship has been.
The biggest difference between the books lies in their tone and structure: Where Lopate polishes his meditations into self-contained reflections, Bellamy shifts, sometimes midsentence, among her themes. She opens with a paean to Myles’s poem “Everyday Barf,” gives an evocative portrait of the artist attacking a birthday piñata with a hammer, and then begins to zigzag between motifs—mothers, death, fiction, anger, creative communities. Her verbal upchuck could have become a mess, but the shifts are so exquisitely structured that they rarely fail to marvel. When one steps back from Bellamy’s narrative, her discrete thoughts somehow contrast and interact like the dots on a Seurat canvas, forming a vivid portrait of art and friendship. You’ll wonder how she did it. Barf has never looked so good.»—Michael Miller

"First of all, in case you don’t know who Dodie Bellamy is, Sonic Youth reference her.
Second of all, Sonic Youth are fans of Dodie Bellamy’s work.
OK. So I’m a huge fan of Sonic Youth and Dodie Bellamy so their friendship excites me on many levels.
A few months ago I was able to go to the book launch for “Barf Manifesto” and then I went home to visit my family a few days after. I finished reading the book on the plane then gave “Barf Manifesto” to my mom and cousin to read to see what their reactions would be since both are avid readers – neither had heard of Dodie and neither really looks at books as having any weight outside of what the Oprah Book Club says a book is worth (so basically book burning isn’t happening – which Sarah Palin is for btw – but making sure pop culture only sees that Oprah Book Club books are important is just as good as burning as far as I’m concerned because no other ideas are tolerated). After they both read the book they each looked at me a bit bewildered and said they’d need to know a lot more about the movements she is apart of to understand what she is talking about, unfortunately both will most likely remain more obsessed with putting gas in their cars than caring to think about art and contemporary ideas.
Anyway, if you aren’t well versed in feminist theory, critical theory, contemporary poetry, ect then Dodie’s “Barf Manifesto” will projectile all over you and if you are well versed then I’m sure you sat open mouthed as the reigning Queen sprayed all over you – you water sport slut – Dodie Bellamy barfs on that idea – a good old fashion chunky barf that I’m sure Sally Jessie Raphael would take the time to try and understand.
HERE IS AN EXCERPT:
Passion in writing or art—or in a lover—can make you overlook a lot of flaws. Passion is underrated. I think we should all produce work with the urgency of outsider artists, panting and jerking off to our kinky private obsessions. Sophistication is conformist, deadening. Let’s get rid of it.”—Dodie Bellamy, from Barf Manifesto
The image on the cover of Barf Manifesto is a Raymond Pettibon image, when I asked Dodie about her cover choice she said she wanted the cover to represent a disheveled crazy women so she could, in theory, pass out her newest chap book on street corners. I pictured a Valerie Jean Solanas type character passing out their manifesto and working the street corners as I included the above image of me, naked, holding the book, I admit it, I do look fat in the image but that is because I had yet to finish reading and projectile vomit all over my signed collectors copy (OK – I didn’t barf on it but I did puke in the ocean, it’s only cause I ate a gigantic burrito before opening up the essay and my petite bod couldn’t handle the ridiculous amount of beans and cheese I dumped into it but the fish ate the puke, I’m sure and I know cause I put on a snorkel and watched)! I couldn’t write a review of Barf Manifesto without somehow including myself because I want to be an extension of her new call to literary vomit, I sat through plenty of college English courses and I’ve talked to enough pompous assholes to know this conclusion is not unwarranted. Dodie Bellamy is the professor everyone goes to college wishing for, she fights Academia and all the boundaries and hierarchies they perpetuate. Check out Academonia!
In Barf Manifesto, Dodie Bellamy challenges one of the last places in the literary world where subjectivity has yet to be considered appropriate – the academic essay. Dodie was asked to write an essay about alternative forms to memoir and she chose to discuss a work by Eileen Myles. Dodie doesn’t believe readers must sit through objective essays alone, instead she has brought her innards into the world of the essay – the food yet digested. Readers watch her struggle with Eileen Myles essay, “Everyday Barf” and with Eileen herself, as they battle over a toilet bowl with pleasure and power and barf. The end product is a conversation between two female writers about the very things writers discuss; each other, fiction, toilets, pets, egos, narrative forms, and more.
So basically, get yourself a copy of the book, head to the beach, stock up on some food and alcohol along the way, grab yourself a notebook that you plan on writing in, then get there, get naked, read the damn essay “fingers down throat, one, two, three, bleh” then send me your own manifesto as you step into the squiggly circle inhabited with all those that are a part of the barf that is “feminist, unruly, cheerfully monstrous…. The Barf is messy, irregular, but you can feel in your guts that its going somewhere, you can’t stop it, can’t shape it, you’ve just got to let it run its course.” - Minor Progression

"Dodie Bellamy's Barf Manifesto is one of the best essays I've ever read. It only takes about half an hour to read, and I'm slow. If she asked me to barf for her, I would. No questions asked. Her break in the traditional essay structure allows for something many essays don't, pleasure. The language is beautiful and entertaining without giving up analysis or content. BARF BARF BARF. She draws a line in the sand for readers. She allows in the personal. She totally barfs all over the notion of "objectivity," which, although it may seem out-dated or trite in this "post-modern" world we live in, it is still very much entrenched in academia. BARF. She contextualized the poetry of Eileen Myles (whom I've never really liked) in a way that resonated in me and led me to actually the poem "Everyday Barf." So basically, she's awesome and crazy smart.
I'm head over heals about her writing, and anyone who hasn't taken the time to read her, you definitely should." - Maurice Burford

From Barf Manifesto:
«Passion in writing or art—or in a lover—can make you overlook a lot of flaws. Passion is underrated. I think we should all produce work with the urgency of outsider artists, panting and jerking off to our kinky private obsessions. Sophistication is conformist, deadening. Let's get rid of it.»

Dodie Bellamy, Academonia (Krupskaya, 2006)

«In this lively, entertaining collection of essays, Dodie Bellamy has written not only a helpful pedagogical tool, but an epic narrative of survival against institutional deadening and the proscriptiveness that shoots the young writer like poison darts from all sides. By the 90s funding for the arts had dwindled and graduate writing programs—“cash cows”—had risen to fill the slack. Simultaneously, literary production moved from an unstable, at times frightening street culture where experiment was privileged beyond all else, to an institutionalized realm—Academonia!—that enforces, or tends to enforce, conservative aesthetic values.
Among the questions Bellamy raises: how does the writer figure out how to write? How will she claim her content among censorious voices? Can the avant-garde create forms that speak to political and spiritual crisis? Can desire exist in a world of networking structures? To the keepers of the status quo, what is so goddamned scary about experimental writing? Bellamy’s textual body morphs through sex, ravenous hunger, aging, displacement, cuddling with animals. Along the way she invokes Levi Strauss, Kurosawa, Marvin Gaye, Christiane (the faceless daughter in Georges Franju’s 1959 horror classic Eyes Without a Face), Alice Munro, Michael Moore, Quan Yin, Cinderella, and the beheaded heroine Lady Jane Grey. On Foucault’s grid of invisible assumptions, Academonia casts a blacklight vision, making it glow in giddy FX splendor.»

«There are the institutions that are created without our input and the institutions that we create with others. Both sorts of institutions define us without our consent. Dodie Bellamy’s Academonia explores the prickly intersection among these spaces as it moves through institutions such as the academy, the experimental writing communities of the Bay Area, feminist and sexual identities, and group therapy. Continuing the work that she began in The Letters of Mina Harker pushing memoir and confession out of its safety zones and into its difficulties, this book provokes as it critiques and yet at the same time manages to delight with its hope.» - Juliana Spahr

«Way back in the seventies, and before Bellamy, pastiche and bricolage as applied to literature made me yawn. Smug attacks on linear narrative through the use of tired language games aroused my contempt. As far as I was concerned, theory had ruined fiction by making critic and artist too intimate. Then Bellamy’s pioneering graftings of storytelling, theory and fractured metaphor changed all that, giving birth to a new avant-garde. Her writing sweeps from one mode of thought to another in absolute freedom, eviscerating hackneyed constructs about desire and language and stuffing them with a fascinating hodgepodge of sparkling sensory fragments. The result is true postmodernism, not the shallow dilettantism of the “postmodern palette.” She sustains it on page after page, weaving together sex and philosophy, fusing trash with high culture, injecting theory with the pathos of biography and accomplishing nothing less than a fresh and sustained lyricism. What is more, her transfiguration of the trivial details of life by the mechanisms of irony, fantasy, disjunction, nostalgia and perverse point of view prove that it’s not the life you live that matters, but how you tell it.» - Bruce Benderson
Dodie Bellamy, Cunt-Ups (Tender Buttons Books, 2001)

"Dodie Bellamy continues and extends Tender Buttons' legacy of publishing radical, cutting edge writing by women. She writes, CUNT-UPS is a hermaphroditic salute to William Burroughs and Kathy Acker… Is the cut-up a male form? I've always considered it so -- needing the violence of a pair of scissors in order to reach nonlinearity. Oddly, even though I've spent up to four hours on each cunt-up, afterwards I cannot recognize them - just like in sex, intense focus and then sensual amnesia."

"Cunt-Ups is a hermaphroditic salute to William Burroughs and Kathy Acker. I started the project as cut-ups, in the original Burroughs sense, as delineated in The Job. I used a variety of texts written by myself and others. Per Burroughs’ rather vague instructions, I cut each page of this material into four squares. For each cunt-up I chose two or three squares from my own source text, and one or two from other sources. I taped the new Frankenstein page together, typed it into my computer and then reworked the material. When my own source text was used up my cunt-ups were finished. The body with all organs slithers and lunges through netsex, psychic oozings, alien invasion, and serial murder. In ecstatic peristalsis the lover endlessly re/turns to life.
Is the cut-up a male form? I’ve always considered it so—needing the violence of a pair of scissors in order to reach nonlinearity. Is the pornographic a male realm? I think so. Women are usually stuck in the more wishy-washy "erotic." These cunt-ups are my version of Take Back the Night. I’m barging in on pornographic language and subverting it to my own ends. Cunt-Ups is also very much about sexual obsession and desire. In American English we have a language for romance and a language for pornography, but the two rarely meet. In Cunt-Ups, which I see as a very romantic text, I’m collapsing romance and porn. Sex can’t be reduced to events that happen to a person. Sex is a trap, a labyrinth, a matrix that engulfs you. Oddly, even though I’ve spent up to four hours on each cunt-up, afterwards I cannot recognize them—just like in sex, intense focus and then sensual amnesia. They enter the free zone of writing; they have cut their own ties to the writer. She no longer remembers these disembodied shreds of desire as her text. (Dodie Bellamy)"

"Dodie Bellamy in Cunt-Ups uses overtly sexual texts, her own and ones written by others. She arranged her pages whole cloth, cut 'em into quarters and re-arranged them like tiles. She smoothed the resulting page out till it seemed right. The "cunt-ups" of the title refer to William Burroughs's famed cut-up technique. I think there's a deliberate air of domesticity (like working-class moms making dresses from patterns) to how she describes her project--this female riffing on the historic practice of the quintessential "outsider" man. Especially when I think of Burroughs's prophetic railing against the corporate monstrosity, while taking into account the irony of his being the scion of a huge corporate family; and when I recall how much Burroughs hated women, calling them (us) "two-holed monsters," and how he shot his wife (allegedly a lifelong sorrow for Burroughs, yet still how much worse for her!). There's something horribly fitting that Dodie Bellamy, who incidentally comes from a Midwestern, no-privilege background, would construct a small book of endless romps like:
I contact either myself or you, I recall being involved at this time when I moved our hand across my body and I felt like I had one of those small water pistols. You were dripping instead of shooting your victims, you were living in your stomach penis and balls. I fuck you in a garage, I fuck you as if you'll be recovered like a sledgehammer in a garage, like you'll eat my brains. I get all stirred up, I was still half asleep and started flopping about, I was shown to have my right hand cupped around the sledgehammer's base, I used to break up the bones to reach your balls, kneeling before you, here, a sledgehammer will be placed on inventory, your cunt is comfortable, that and your tits, orgasm, after orgasm, but I can't shake wanting to plant myself inside you, gray handle, my hips spreading across the chair, feeling me over. I just want to suck on your nipples.
In a way Burroughs could say anything--he couldn't be thrown out of anything, could he?--being a man, being on a small trust fund, living at the end of the world. Already killed his wife. What's to lose? I think about how Bellamy's appropriation of his method is not unlike Kathy Acker's, but Kathy was also a trust-fund kid, and was personally safer being bad--because the upper classes are entitled to transgress for us all. I applaud this dedicated act of replacement, the joyfully willful construction of a Frankenstein text, one where the genitals are all confused in a timeless flow--all present, as a particularly ballsy female accomplishment. Going one further than Bill, the avant-garde's Dubelyew, in taking this sublime stab at pleasure, the rearrangement of hundreds of cunts and clits and dicks and pussies: The exhausted "I just want to suck on your nipples" has tremendous immanence, all gesture, a mad kind of one-time power." - Eileen Myles

"Three Love-Visions (after reading Dodie Bellamy’s “Cunt-Ups” and kind of inspired also by Johannes Goransson’s more lively posts)
I’m putting you in a barrel. I am fucking you. I’m placing your head in a bag. I am fucking you. I’m smearing your blood all over your tits. I am fucking you. I’m slicing your cunt up like a smile, and I’m fucking your mouth. Your sliced-open bleeding mouth. Baby, don’t you just love these new storage bags? At the bottom of a lake. I’m kissing your tits. Kissing them to death. On a jetty. O, my baby. Only you.

My sweat’s dripping on to you as I fuck you. I am kissing you. I am slicing off your nipples. On the beach the sand in my hands is definitely not so white as I’d like it to be. The water not so green——the Cancun sort of green I adore. I’m rubbing my head against your jaw. I’m carrying you over my shoulder. You’re gurgling. And now you’re not. There’s so much blood. There’s hardly any at all. I’m posing you in a crucifix and I am kissing you and kissing you.

I’m in love with you.
And here’s my fantasy:
I’m fucking you from behind
And I’m taking your head in my hands
And I’m kissing your ears
Breathing into your neck
And snapping it..." - Rauan Klassnik

From Cunt-ups:
http://www.stretcher.org/features/images/2002/bellamy/cuntups_db.php

Pierre Guyotat – His books stink of sperm and killing, they are a malignant orgasm; he is the last great avant-garde visionary of the 20th Century

Pierre Guyotat, Tomb for 500,000 Soldiers (Solar Books; Revised edition, 2009)
Pierre Guyotat, Eden, Eden, Eden (Solar Books; Revised edition, 2009)

«This is the shit beneath your fingernails. You are appalled because – Christ – there is shit! – beneath your fingernails! You are appalled but you must know how that shit got there. That is why you read Eden Eden Eden.
Things you should know (and these things will arm you, these are things you require: think of what I am about to tell you as an enormous pair of boots to help you wade through the sickening morass of shit, spew, jism and mud here): Pierre Guyotat masturbates as he writes. As such, his sentences rarely include punctuation or follow straight grammatical rules, rolling on and ever on, dreamlike (or nightmarish), insistent, perplexing. Guyotat has displayed his manuscripts (spunk encrusted telephone directories) in galleries throughout the world. During the writing of The Book and The Story of Samora Michel, he gave up eating, lost half his body weight and eventually had to be resuscitated from a near fatal coma. Guyotat is, if nothing else, somewhat driven.
More importantly, Eden Eden Eden is viewed by those who know as a significantly biographical work, set as it is during the war between Algeria and France, a war in which Guyotat was held prisoner. Saying that, to view Eden Eden Eden as a biographical work – to approach it as a way of attempting to understand what Guyotat does – is wrong, in my opinion. You need to approach this as if it was the combination of an extraordinary piece of abstract art and a nail bomb. There is beauty here, but there is also great, savage pain. (Imagine a wounded wolf howling, and then imagine that the sound – the howling – can generate similar, equally awful, wounds in those that hear: that is the experience of reading Eden Eden Eden.)
The hero of the book is a teenage prostitute called Wazzag, and the novel follows his participation in a series of sex acts, which constantly escalate in scale, intensity and number. In his introduction, Stephen Barber says: “The book stinks of sperm and killing. It is a malignant orgasm. It is the perfect book for contemporary Europe.”
You do not expect entertainment. You walk like a refugee through these pages. Nothing is what you would precisely deem pleasant. Sentences read like the foundation stones for the pyramids (stones that you must jar your shoulder against, stones that need pushing thirty or forty miles). This is work, work that requires a particularly distinct heroism. You are reporting from the front line. You are witnessing that which nobody else is doing, that which few others have seen. It is frantic and unpleasant, yes, but what you are bearing witness to is something brutally unique.» - bookmunch

«You think you've read them all—all the writers with powerfully wicked imaginations, that is. Maybe you caught the bug in high school: there you were in English class, slumped on your desk, cuffing The Ticket that Exploded like a Playboy inside a rented copy of Catcher in the Rye. Or maybe it started on an unusually cool and foggy Saturday morning in July, when you fished that grocery bag out of a dumpster and let your friend have all the stuff with pictures while you kept Blood and Guts in High School. Eventually you got to the point where Hubert Selby and Lautremont are old hat to you; Sade, simply clunky. You wonder why no one other than Bernard Noel has yet to try pulling Bataille's sword out of whatever it is he left it in. You're still waiting for The Story of P. In short, nothing on any page in the world fazes you.
The above comparisons are here for one reason: if any of what you've read above strikes a chord, you've come to the right review. If not, avert your eyes and move to another piece without delay, for we are about to enter the most desolate, the most brutal, the most unabashedly depraved realm in the history of the printed word: the world of Pierre Guyotat. Here's a typical scene, both savage and poignant, from the "First Chant" of his deliciously debased work Tomb for 500,000 Soldiers:
—Buy me, buy me, or I will die torn to pieces, yesterday they seized me and sewed me inside the horsehair of a mattress, cutting a hole in the cloth at the place of my thighs and everyone could then fuck me choking inside the horsehair, eyes pricked by the sweat, and the cloth, around the hole, blackens and sticks to my belly; I can't see them, I recognize them only by their cocks. Set me free, I'll work for your living.
The guard strokes the hair, the temples, the slave's forehead, strokes, soothes the restless forehead, the quivering neck, his belly touches the belly still wet, the stain on the dress called "slave's stain," his wooden leg crushes the foot of the now silent slave, motionless and quivering against the guard.
Of the two [books], Tomb provides the easiest point of entry into Guyotat's realm by far; plotless for all intents and purposes, the novel at least provides a modicum of description cumulatively over time, and approaches conventional narrative a good deal more closely than Eden, Eden, Eden, a single sentence in which one action immediately follows another with absolutely no intervening description or reflection for 181 pages. Both of these editions contain useful introductions by Artaud scholar Stephen Barber which help situate Guyotat's "supremely resilient and innovative body of work" for English-language readers.
While Tomb conveys some notion of time's passage, albeit strangely, Eden's temporal perspective is completely exploded. Ostensibly the book presents the story of an increasingly degraded male prostitute, but its language is pared to bare essentials, each page different from the next only in the exact composition of the scenes and sentences upon it. Whether it's "Wazzag crouching alongside apprentice, licking cold sweat pearling on forehead, on navel" from early in the book or "vipers, in warm cavity of laterite covered by rustling almouz, copulating, striking jaws, horn, entwining" from near the end, Guytotat's torrentially presented lines and images are all but identical in tone and rhythm. In the preface to the book, Roland Barthes champions it as "a free text... outside all categories and yet of an importance beyond any doubt."
Structural particulars and challenge factor aside, the novels have much in common. Each consists entirely of concatenated vignettes situated in a world constantly at war, inhabited only by masters, slaves, and beasts—basically a 150-proof version of the world around us. Each is about sex, death, cruelty, and little else, excepting the occasional glimpse of potential for transformation on a purely animal level. To some degree, personal experience inspires and informs both. Guyotat, born in 1940, has seen time on both sides of the gun—as a child during the Nazi occupation, as an occupier in the French army during the Algerian uprising. He's written and spoken extensively about the relationship between writing and masturbation, apparently a familiar combo for him in real life. He's been hospitalized in the midst of long writing binges during which he neither eats nor sleeps. Guyotat transforms writing (his) and reading (ours) into physical acts. He pitches, we catch, again and again—if we're up for it.
Tomb for 500,00 Soldiers translator Romain Slocombe and Graham Fox, his Eden, Eden, Eden counterpart, have both demonstrated great courage simply by tackling these monstrous entities. The fact that each has successfully wrestled his monster to the ground and pinned it—wriggling, kicking, growling, and hissing, all simultaneously—only sweetens the deal. Despite Guyotat's obsession with death (or maybe because of it), each translation brims with raging life; each retains the sense and the savagery of the original, if not its exact rhythmic constituents. For Guyotat, those constituents are of paramount importance, albeit far more in his post-1970 work than in Tomb or Eden. By all reports, his more recent fiction, written in heavily phoneticized colloquial French with innumerable convolutions, seems all but untranslatable, meaning these two epic prose poems posing as novels might be all we Anglophones see of his work for a while. To paraphrase Martin Luther, it is no great matter. There's more than enough here to keep us busy.» - Rod Smith

«France's most controversial living writer is virtually unknown in this country, thanks to difficulties in translating his extremist oeuvre - extreme in style and in content. Pierre Guyotat is the uncompromising heir of De Sade, Artaud and Genet. He writes violent and pornographic books in his own invented language. Edmund White has called him "the last great avant-garde visionary of our century." Roland Barthes wrote an introduction to one of his books Eden Eden Eden - a work of which Michel Foucault remarked: "I have never read anything like it in any stream of literature", praising its "startling innovation". It has been labelled pornographic, a charge that Guyotat revels in. "Pornography is certainly more beautiful than eroticism," he observes. "Eroticism is ugly. Eroticism is an ideology... there is nothing more boring than eroticism, it's worse than poetry, even. I say three cheers for pornography."
Born in 1940 in a small town in a mountainous area of France near Lyons, the son of a doctor, Guyotat joined the army while still a teenager and served in Algeria while that country fought France for independence. Guyotat instinctively found himself more sympathetic to the Algerians (one can see a similarity with Genet and Rimbaud here), and incited the Algerian conscripts to desert. After getting involved in brawls with officers, he was arrested by the military police and interrogated for 10 days before being thrown into an earth pit beneath the army kitchens where he lived in semi darkness for three months in constant fear of his life. "They threw me scraps of food, refuse," he recalls, "not fit for a dog." He managed to write on a piece of paper which he kept hidden from his captors. The link with De Sade, scribbling away in the Bastille, is unavoidable.
Drawing partly on his experiences as a soldier, Guyotat has set many of his celebrated avant-garde novels in hallucinatory north African war zones. Soldiers rape and pillage. Bereft of narrative, and using short rhythmic phrases, he detonates sex as bestial act of power, and piles on atrocity after atrocity. With all the eidetic and visionary power of Rimbaud's illuminations, he burns images of war into the retina. War is a monstrously glorified exchange of fluids and solids.
"War is a situation in which one is totally insecure - sexually insecure as well as afraid for one's life," he has said. Imagine if De Sade had written about Vietnam after fighting in it, and you will get some idea of Guyotat's cultural significance for the French - both reviled and adored in equal measure.
Eden Eden Eden is published this week in Britain. The British academic and biographer of Artaud, Stephen Barber, remarks: "It stinks of sperm and killing." It's a novel that has become legendary in its own time. Originally published in 1970, it was immediately banned by the French government until President Mitterrand personally intervened in 1981. That's also the year Guyotat famously nearly wrote himself to death; he was so absorbed in the completion of an intractable work that he forgot to eat properly and ended up being rushed to hospital in a coma. "I was mad," he says. "And at the same time I was living in a camper van. I was driving and hallucinating and getting into very extreme situations. Once I got into a fight on a road near Marseilles, and my attacker threw me off a cliff into the sea. I was covered in blood and so weak it took me a day to climb back up to my van."
Guyotat has been described as a hermit. He has always lived in some poverty, at one time in a grim block of flats in the southern suburbs of Paris, living only on his small royalties and occasional fees from the Pompidou Centre where he goes every few years to deliver long extemporisations in the form of performance art (one photograph shows a naked man and piles of meat on a cart). Edmund White describes meeting him in his book Sketches from Memory. White says: "He has a powerful hieratic appearance and you feel you are in the presence of a priest of Baal - or perhaps he is Baal. He's stark raving mad but a very gifted writer who staked out the extreme limits of how far you can go."
Like many Anglo-Saxons, White betrays an amused and slightly baffled interest in the French passion for the avant-garde. He describes Guyotat as stealing food from his plate at a dinner party, and how he fell asleep in one of Guyotat's two-hour improvisations. "In his language every other word sounded like `testicles', for some reason."
As a biographer of Genet, White was intrigued by the Guyotat phenomena. He recalls asking a doctorate student about Guyotat's sexual proclivities. "She said his sexuality did not involve other living creatures."
I presumed Guyotat would reject labels about sexuality and I was right. At first he was evasive: "to be homosexual, to be anti-sex, pro-sex - "to be" something does not exist." Yes, I asked, but do you prefer men or women? He laughed and finally relented. "I like both - it's very clear - and it's very difficult to like both sexes, it pulls you apart."
He has very little time for sex; for Guyotat work is sex, and not just in the conventional "creation as sex". Guyotat is notorious for his habit of masturbating while he writes. The resulting soiled manuscripts are then shown in galleries as works of art. "Sex is the most relentless and powerful force in the world: it is all life, it is reality. It is not obscene." I asked him about scenes in Eden Eden Eden set in an Algerian boy brothel. Had he visited such a place? He seemed a little shocked. "No, no I 'ate them," he growled while admitting he had been to female seraglios in the desert zones.
Like Rimbaud, who ended up as a gun runner and coffee trader in Ethiopia and Somalia, Guyotat is drawn by the desert. He talks of the Saharan wastes with all the tenderness of a lover; he particularly likes the intermediate landscapes between desert and pasture, the mountainous areas "that look like moonscapes but with beautifully coloured rocks" given a chance, he would happily live in Algeria (he listens to Algerian popular music with a passion). "But it's impossible." He has watched with horror the rise of fundamentalism in Africa. For him fundamentalism is rooted in an attack on the writer (Guyotat has been vocal in supporting Salman Rushdie from the "great gestures of beard and robe"). "Asserting the divine character of a text is an insult to the human writer of it - it erases him, makes him disappear. Fundamentalism is an attack on writing itself and all writers should see this."
The British may laugh at Guyotat or be shocked by him. But his dedication to the idea of "being a writer" makes British literary preoccupations with Martin Amis' teeth and Julian Barnes' pool game seem quite banal. Though Guyotat's preoccupations with remodelling the French language and dwelling on French colonial atrocities may not have quite the same reactive effect in this country, his power as a writer, even in translation, is deadly and pure.» - Roger Clarke

«A new book by Pierre Guyotat (b. 1940) is always an "event," little matter whether one reads it. When Progénitures appeared in France, to the sort of consternated fanfare that has frequently greeted this writer’s output, one well-placed critic declared that neither he nor anyone else could, or would, read all eight hundred, bizarrely spelled, meticulously versified pages of this "novel" that is probably more akin to an extended Old Testament chronicle. This accusation of "unreadablenes," attached to Guyotat’s strange and provocative work ever since (at least) the lexical and orthographic experiments of Prostitution (1975), is nonetheless qualified by the conciliatory observation that he is the "last" member of the French literary "avant-garde" of 1960s and 1970s to have kept the faith. According to such a view, a book like Progénitures can be celebrated as a memento of a bygone era. And who knows, such critics implicitly posit, perhaps an exegete will one day elucidate a phrase like "du, que, l’ chiambranl’, d’ dedans son poang qu’ a jiaté l’ rat ta fill’ lui mordr’ au bois..."
However, for most commentators, the chore of dipping into Guyotat’s books, let alone studying what the man is attempting to accomplish, or examining his ideas about "prostitutional" human relationships, is another matter. Their general viewpoint is usually rounded out as follows: the authors associated with the New Novel ended up betraying their original principles—notably their suspicions about "character"—by penning "memoirs" (e.g., Alain Robbe-Grillet and his Ghosts in the Mirror; Nathalie Sarraute and her Childhood; Claude Simon and his Georgics). Likewise, the next generation of experimenters — linked (as Guyotat was) with the review Tel Quel—cast off their rigor, sought out influential publishing-company responsibilities, and began producing best-sellers (Philippe Sollers’s career and evolution from Paradise to Women being the salient example). As this trend toward more "personal," "direct" writing was getting underway, by the early 1980s, Guyotat remained by contrast—so the argument runs—pur et dur, his only concession to facility being Vivre (1984), a collection of interviews and sundry texts filling in the personal and literary background of Prostitution and his better-known novels, Tombeau pour cinq cent mille soldats (1967) and Eden, Eden, Eden (1970). Yet as far as his strictly literary writing was concerned, Guyotat—as he went on to compose Progénitures and to work on the (still unpublished) Histoires de Samora Machel—pursued, indeed radicalized, the path charted by his earlier books.
This critical consensus concerning Guyotat and the other writers mentioned above is singularly myopic. First of all, if one perceives Robbe-Grillet, Sarraute, Simon and other "New Novelists" as individuals, not as members of a "movement" (which, for the latter two authors, never existed in the first place), their respective writings exhibit an inner logic, or coherence, already evident in their first efforts, that inexorably leads to their "memoir-like" writing. (And one needs to specify what exactly, for each writer, is meant by "autobiography.") For instance, Sarraute’s deepening of her pioneering notion of "tropisms," dating from the early-1930s, logically draws her ever closer to dialogue, and these two interconnected aspects of her oeuvre are rarely dissociated from her personal experiences, as recalled from the recent or distant past (whence Childhood but also Martereau). As to Simon, his participation in the Spanish Civil War and especially the Second World War informs nearly all his books, from Le Tricheur and La Corde raide to Le Jardin des plantes. The novelist’s obstination to perceive—in retrospect—what happened to him and others in his midst creates no essential differences between what he fictionalizes in one book and "personalizes" in another. More generally, much postwar French literature investigates the ontological, metaphysical, or—less interestingly—existential and social problematics of the self, a theme engaging the work of many more prose-writers (and poets) than those associated with the New Novel. This over-arching concern embraces the various, only seemingly contradictory, approaches adopted by an author while he revolves around this central question.
Similarly, it is more enlightening to consider Guyotat’s oeuvre, not as exemplary of an "avant garde," but rather as proceeding implacably, from his earliest fiction—Sur un cheval (1961) and Ashby (1964)—to Progénitures. Set in a Scottish castle, Ashby may at first seem conventional (if Sade-like), yet it amply reveals the most telltale characteristic of Guyotat’s mature style: the alignment of one action after another, with almost no intervening description. Committing no novice’s error in this respect, Guyotat increasingly—after Ashby—exaggerates this stylistic tendency, to an extent fostering both a kind of music and an epistemology. First, a music, because the novelist struggles to control rhythm by concentrating on active verbs and by severely restricting adjectives and adverbs. Second, an epistemology, because he obsessively focuses on a world so frenetically full of action—particularly, sexual action—that there is, rigorously, no "novelistic time" for recording additional or more complex sense impressions. Eden, Eden, Eden, for instance, recounts one sexual scene—or "flash"—after another, every descriptive phrase designating either a form of sexual intercourse or a gesture immediately preceding such an act.
This descriptive asceticism—a logical consequence of the epic intentions of Guyotat’s writings—is already apparent in the title of which refers both to a "grave" for 500,000 soldiers and to a French poetic and musical genre similar to the eulogy. The narrator of this novel, which spins off allegorically from the Second World War and the Algerian War, simply does not experience time—its potentially elastic duration—in ways permitting him to elaborate descriptions. There is no rest, respite, reprieve. At the end of each action, a new action begins; nothing else can be perceived; nor can enveloping, generalizing concepts be accommodated. It is instructive to keep in mind that Yves Bonnefoy (b. 1923), a French poet at antipodes from Guyotat in outlook and sensibility, has likewise plunged deeply into this problem of "de-conceptualizing." In French literature, this concern goes back at least as far as Mallarmé, whose pursuit of conceptual purity leads to an affirmation of language as our sole reality (whence the major stature attributed to him by poststructuralist philosophers). Guyotat, taking off from the a priori ideal of a strict, pure, materialism, arrives at the same results—and this is no paradox.
Moreover, although a characteristic, breathless "tone" emanates from his novels (because of his action-oriented, materialistic, epic worldview), there is no room for extensive narrative or authorial "subjectivity," at least in the common sense of the term. This is why Guyotat, too, seeks a form of "de-selfing," a propensity visible in many postwar French writers and poets. Might an analogy be drawn between the incessant rapidity expressed by his prose and the concept of "Brownian movement"? Yet Guyotat regularly insists on the "logic," not the "randomness," of his narrations. In any case, by Ashby, the novelist is already moving toward the austere, frenetic physical materialism of Tombeau pour cinq cent mille soldats and Eden, Eden, Eden—a materialism conveyed not by narrative declarations or explanations (these subsist only in his oft fascinating and moving interviews), but rather by his meticulously preconceived, preregulated style. Like the artist Jean Dubuffet, who likewise toiled with "matter" and "texture," Guyotat drags, prods, and sometimes gently eases language as close as possible to the brutest facts of existing. In his case, this first demands a close-focusing on the necessary locus of the self, the body—especially its secretions and excretions; second, a maniacal preoccupation with the minutest details of sound and rhythm. To the corporal materialism of Eden, Eden, Eden and Tombeau is thus added, in Prostitution and Progénitures, a "linguistic materialism" fanatically sensitive to the slightest phonetic or graphic phenomena. The result? A prolonged, repetitive, numbing, inebriating, dizzying and, it must be said, thoroughly exhausting linguistic dance—yet whose frenzy and especial ambition is unique in French literature.
Ashby recounts the sexual adventures of two cousins, Angus and Drusilla. Child-lovers, they are eventually separated, only to meet again as young adults. The novel thus prefigures the notorious, increasingly crude, use of sexuality typical of Guyotat’s later fiction—especially beginning with Eden, Eden, Eden, banned only one month after its appearance. (This story is recounted in Littérature interdite, a volume of interviews, reviews, and information concerning the petition—on Guyotat’s behalf—signed by French writers and intellectuals. Despite the petition, the book remained banned until December 30, 1981.) Yet also present in Ashby are statements mitigating, as it were, the provocative "obscenity" characterizing this book and, by extension, Guyotat’s subsequent fiction. Angus remarks, notably, that he is "not violent, but rather elegiac—without constraints." How then should this and the other books be read, if they are "elegies," albeit "without constraints"? Once the sexual violence is cast into this epicedial light, one can almost discern a hidden authorial appeal for some sort of redemption. What might its nature be?
Surely this is the most troubling aspects of these writings: the possibility that what, interpretatively, seems exceedingly "closed," is nonetheless slightly "open," even somehow strangely spiritual. On the one hand, the novelist overwhelmingly implies that physical cruelty and mechanical, emotionless, unpleasurable sex constitute all there is. On the other hand, these two fundamental features of our biological existence, as depicted by Guyotat, arguably perhaps conceal a positive, underlying, ultimately redeeming "aspiration." Yet one can deduce this hypothetical aspiration only by a reductio ad absurdum: everything is so unmitigatedly evil, violent, sexual, factual (etc.), that a contradiction must be lurking, implying a (partial) refutation of the initial premise. Does such reasoning constitute a self-illusion that the reader himself introduces into the text? Is not Guyotat’s vision completely nontranscendental?
In his interviews, he nevertheless insists on the lasting influence of his Catholic-seminary education; he originally destined himself for the priesthood. Christian allusions occur in the work, not least of all in the very title of Eden, Eden, Eden—which incites the reader to reflect on the spiritual nature of this wildly infernal, systematically copulatory, thrice-decried "paradise," not to mention on whatever emotions (if any) might link a putative "God" to His libidinous protagonists. In this respect, Guyotat’s novel not only builds on the Book of Genesis, but also furnishes a commentary, the sordid details "correcting" the ambience of divine benevolence which, retrospectively, envelops Old Testament stories once Christly grace and mercy are taken into account. By extension, Tombeau, Prostitution and Progénitures (also a Genesis-related title, evidently) seemingly also depict an allegorical Hell or a "Hellish" Eden that is at once prehistoric (even almost pre-Homo sapiens), contemporary (as witness omnipresent "blue-jeans"), and "foreseeable" (as if the characters constituted a society of survivors of, say, a nuclear holocaust). "This is how beasts and people live," writes Guyotat bluntly in Tombeau. Are we those people?
These sociotheological considerations aside, Guyotat—in "Langage du corps," surely one of the most truthful, self-elucidating texts ever written by an author—explains at length how his bodily functions and acts relate to his writing. His elucidations particularly deal with masturbation. This tense interdependence between the human condition in its most rudimentary manifestations—our search for pleasure or at least physical (self) contact because we are doomed to die—and writing, a solitary endeavor aspiring to transcend annihilation, thematically vibrates at the heart of all of Guyotat’s books. His style simply imposes itself too forcibly and consistently to be otherwise. Or, once again, does Guyotat’s writing—in contrast to that of nearly all other writers—aspire to nothing more than the evocation of matter and its multifarious "movements"?
At any rate, this interdependence between the body and writing, at once conflictual and mutually nourishing, raises the question of what "personal reality" might be brought forth in Tombeau pour cinq cent mille soldats, Eden, Eden, Eden, Prostitution and Progénitures. Do the "plots" of such books stem from murky "psychological depths"? Are they collages of the most salacious subconscious imaginings? Does Guyotat in this respect quite courageously use his own mind and body as a medium, thereby picking up where Sade, Dostoyevsky and Freud left off? Is he getting things "out of his system," as countless references to secretions and excretions such as "sperm," "shit," "piss," "sweat," or "spit" literally suggest? In "Les Yeux de Dieu," an important text written in 1981, Guyotat remarks that
this contradiction . . . has always traversed me—the body, Writing. [It] originates in my . . . mutually-antagonistic visions of humanness. On the one hand, I see, I desire a humanity that is relatively happy . . . presentable, a species that is well-defined, neat, limpid, community-oriented (but presentable to whom, for whom, for what Eye). On the other hand, what emerges from me, when I write, and constructs itself infinitely thereafter, is a human organization of an unspecified species—grimy-black, as filthy-black as possible, thus already bright, indeed gilded in its bright blackness, racked above all by the cruelty of man against man . . . by war, hunger, torture, massacre, prostitution.
Such avowals not only reveal the complex ambiguity behind his work, but also point to the source of its "epic" nature, wherein "lofty deeds" are replaced by the most lowly acts. Compared to a historical chronicle or a diary, an epic has a supreme literary aim; a psychoanalytical outpouring is never reworked with the obsessive, rigorous artistry applied, by Guyotat, to his "material" (whatever its source may be); nor is Time incarnated similarly in these disparate genres. For these reasons, there is something not entirely satisfactory about perceiving Guyotat’s work exclusively as a "mirror held up to reality" (as Stendhal famously phrased it), little matter how bestial our world is, little matter how firmly and relentlessly the author keeps our faces pressed down into our own mud (to use an euphemism). If Guyotat’s writing pushes to unbearable limits Terence’s remark, "I am a man: nothing human is alien to me," he simultaneously constructs a fictional world that cannot be mapped, one-to-one, on to reality as we normally perceive it. His "timeless" epic world, perhaps symbolic of, yet at any rate temporally independent of our specific past, present, and future, allegorizes the notions of "bought sex," "inhumanness," "inhumaneness," and "coming to humanness." The key characters—many of them "prostitutes"—sometimes even resemble Christ-like figures. A fundamental moral ambivalence thereby haunts Guyotat’s theoretically "amoral" fiction. As in the case of Jean Genet, what indeed is the referential intention of this no-holds-barred aesthetic of cruelty, brute sex, blunt violence? What especially distinguishes Guyotat’s writing from literary realism (as it is habitually defined) is, of course, his excruciatingly precise labors with language. As early as 1972, in a "Note" written about his play, Bond en avant, Guyotat justifies his suppression of "relatives and possessives . . . as well as all anthropocentric naming or designating." These preestablished, systematically-applied rules lead to the increasingly nervous sentences of Tombeau, then to the high-strung short phrases of Eden, Eden, Eden, which are each, one after the other, separated by semicolons, creating one (unending) sentence running on for 270 pages.
After Eden, Eden, Eden, Guyotat’s maniacal prose comes even closer to resembling a "prose poetry" of the most extravagant kind. "Style" becomes too weak a word for this meticulously crafted langue à relief, as he puts it, the word "relief" being understood here in its sculptural and geological senses: a "language made up of reliefs." In Explications (2000), an absorbing book length interview with Marianne Alphant, Guyotat reveals—and a close look confirms—that the versets ("verses," in the Biblical sense) of Progénitures are "syllabically calculated." More importantly, he declares that the "necessities of meter often engage the meaning of, even the direction taken by, the fiction." In this respect, although he maintains his earlier focus on the specific ways in which prostitution, slavery, and marketplace relationships are expressed in the (male) body, Guyotat increasingly concentrates on the very structures of the French language. This linguistic overhaul, involving both sledgehammering and microsurgical interventions, is undertaken in the name of "restoring [to French] its profound eloquence without inventing another [distinct] language." Guyotat becomes a poet in the strictest (Greek) sense of the term.
Is it possible to imagine how his method might be applied to English? He quasi-systematically elides, for example, the mute "e" at the end of words. The word for "father," père, thus becomes pèr’, and so on. These elisions—except in certain cases that he also enumerates—induce a great number of apostrophes for the eye and, for the ear, a vigorously consonantal patois, at once bewildering and familiar, that simultaneously bares etymological roots or mimics the vowel-less transcriptions of Semitic languages (notably Arabic, with all its political connotations for the French). In the Gallimard edition of Progénitures, a CD-recording of Guyotat reading the first few pages is included, giving one a vivid idea of how such verses should be recited.
Guyotat also "re-accentuates" words (either by reinforcing stress or annulling it). He contends that "a letter is also an image, a ‘relief element’ of language. A new accent can thus reinforce this image, and thus the meaning of the word." This new accentual emphasis sometimes stems from a mere cedilla. His neologism suçée, based on the verb sucer, "to suck" and perhaps echoing suçon, "love-bite," illustrates this effort. Prepositions are also often suppressed, as well as coordinating conjunctions; definite or indefinite articles sometimes vanish so that nouns can stand forth naked, more forcibly, making Guyotat’s French seem at times a sort of literal translation from the Chinese. In this relentless endeavor to "physicalize" language, he also uses—once again, rather like Chinese—the infinitive, unconjugated, form of verbs. As he toys with sexual connotations, masculine words are sometimes feminized, and vice versa. This is not to forget his many neologisms, a few of which are defined in the "glossary" appended to Progénitures. Some have sarcastic political connotations, such as a Pétain, meaning a French "coin," while several express Guyotat’s efforts to get, once again, as close as possible to "facts." Mouchiassat, for instance, is based on a contraction of mouches, "flies," chier, "to shit," and chasser, "drive off." The word refers to hoards of "shit-flies" that one constantly needs to shoo away.
Fortunately, Wanted: Female (1996), a rare bibliophilic album consisting of seven aquatints by the late Sam Francis and a long-poem by Guyotat, gives one a compelling impression of what the French novelist can sound like in English. This poem-album, which exists in only forty-five deluxe copies, brings together all of Guyotat’s sexual and theological preoccupations. Here is a section from the opening passage, in Michael Taylor’s translation:
but how soon, Father God, my belly grows t’ward the wall where You tense Your toes better to thrust in me!
but which of us, You or me between my kneelin’ knees, You shakin’ me from behind,
me tremblin’ the first time,
the great thunder drummin’ its far reply, me the first you lov’d so hugely
for life ‘mong all the blesséd children, You or me, the cradle brought out with Our babe, who’ll pull the progeny into the sun?
who’ll lick the menstrual blood, You, me? who’ll eat the placenta, who’ll sell it? whose teeth’ll cut the cord, whose nails’ll scrape the ‘Arth to bury it deeper than deepest fang?
It is doubtful that many writers have gone as far "to force, to dislocate . . . language into its meaning" (as T. S. Eliot formulates it), all while—pace Eliot—not being "allusive," "indirect." Guyotat’s writings cannot please. They are intentionally, indeed overinsistently, scabrous; and they are conscientiously repetitious in their linear, timeless design. Yet it is nevertheless well worth one’s effort to examine the new, terrible beauty born of this author’s thoroughly disturbing "eloquence," a language alarmingly akin to some primordial, vivacious, at once guttural and sibilant French taking us back to awesome "origins" we had never suspected.» - John Taylor

Excerpts from Eden Eden Eden:

"Helmeted soldiers, legs spread, muscles drawn back, trampling over new-born babes swaddled in scarlet, violet shawls: babies falling from arms of women huddled on floors of G.M.C. tracks; driver’s free hand pushing back goat thrown forward into cab; / Ferkous pass, RIMA platoon crossing over track; soldiers jumping out of trucks; RIMA squad lying down on gravel, heads pressed against flint-pitted, thorn- studded tires, stripping off shirts in shadow of mudguards; women rocking babies against breasts; rocking movement stirring up scents sharpened with bonfire-sweat impregnating rags, hair, flesh: oil, cloves, henna, butter, indigo, black antimony — in Ferkous valley, below breakwater tombstones, drinks-stand, school, gaddous, fig trees, mechtas, stone walls oozing, spattered with brains, orchards blooming, palm trees, swollen in fire, exploding: flowers, pollen, buds, grasses, paper, rags spotted with milk, with shit, with blood, fruit peels, feathers, lifted, shaken, tossed from flame to flame in wind tearing fire from the earth ... "


“ …. boy sleeping on side ; tarantula crawling from sticky pubic hair, climbing up onto whore’s swollen belly, distended abdomen dividing blood over chest ; body of whore shuddering, hands following steps of tarantula around right nipple : “…suck lower man…”; penis, tucked back into hollow of groin, hardening : tarantula brushing against tip of tongue poking between lips ; jissom slopping out of Wazzag’s arse, pushed back, driven out along anal passage by date picker’s member ; Wazzag stifling fit of laughter ; Khamssieh waking : tarantula, alarmed by twitching of muscles, crawling into nostril ; Khamssieh sniffing scent, stifling sneeze, pulling legs together, suppressing shivers of body smeared with cold sweat moistening dried blood, beads of sweat glistening in fresh blood over loins ; nostril swollen with jissom crushing spider ; Wazzag exploding into laughter ; tarantula stinging nostril : venom, flowing with blood, veiling eyes of whore, softening eyelid ; Khamssieh’s hand, weak, crushing tarantula in nostril : venom hardening forehead ; fingernails scraping cold blood around nipples ; pulling dead tarantula, pinching sticky legs, out of nostril, pushing crushed spider between buttocks ; exhausted elbows dropping onto heaps of floor-cloths : penis contracting into shrivelled scrotum ; odour of sodomy wafting through room ; rubbing of jeans, farts : regular in dawn silence …”


«Hey Richard, Yeah, you’re right about the work of De Sade evincing a certain stuttering or aphasia, and about his attempt to stretch the limitations of the body as far as words will allow. The problem with De Sade, though, is that, despite the transgressive and repetitive content, his work still remains under the governance of classical representation. Someone I’ve been thinking about recently in this regard is French writer Pierre Guyotat – the so-called “other Sade.” Guyotat was a chronic stutterer, and one may read his novel’s deterritorialized word-flows as a liberation – on the page – from his debilitating stammer. His novel Eden Eden Eden, for instance, is a 192 page novel made up of one continuous sentence.
There are no characters (they’re splintered into partial objects in constant movement: an anus + an armpit + a penis + …. etc.), no plot, no development, no structure, just an incessant phrasal becoming that overflows syntactical and grammatical organisation as it enacts endless scenes of homoerotic lust. As Steve McCaffery has noted, “Guyotat enters and occupies the phrase as a material unit of dynamic force,” one that “cripples pictorial mimesis under the weight of … metonymic, syntagmatic incessance and overturning.” Here, the borders of human body that one still finds in De Sade gives way to a connective series of sliding body parts and fluids in writhing assemblage. In a sense, Guyotat fulfils the promise of De Sadian stuttering.» - BÉGAYER LA LANGUE

«Mainline Digitalis and flutter along the cardiovascular axis of Pierre Guyotat’s Eden, Eden, Eden a sentence lasting 6762 lines and 163 pages undisturbed by the closure of a single full stop. Heart stimulants are recommended because the rhythmic pulse of words droning through Eden’s lettered vein-structure perfectly synthesises, balances and regulates the monotony of the reader’s metabolic rate as they pass through the text’s homeostasised violence. During this exposure to elaborate rape, child murder, bestiality, paraphilia and death, a dangerous harmony is struck between text and reader: any MORE boring and the reader would fall into coma or die. Like Foucault’s disposition to sociologise Guyotat’s Eden… (celebrating its prodigal return after its eleven year censorship like he couldn’t get a copy?), the logic of rational commentary is equally likely to assume the didactic responsibility in placing transgression within moral limits, despite the intention being quite the opposite. According to Pierre Klossowski ‘a transgression must engender another transgression… its image is each time represented as though it had never been carried out’. To redeem the eruptive discharge of Eden… by attaching use-value to its excesses is to demonstrate the obfuscative and discrete process typified by the prostitutional contract: perversion commodified, a process of exchange where each diabolical act stands (ironically) to serve the moral hypersensitisation of Society. Evil is ‘put to work’, to serve ‘The Good’ in the terminal display morality squeezes from the deified bodies of Eden’s slaughtered subjects (witness the redemptive pleasure in light of the Bulgerisation of childhood). In our moral code, the spectre of atrocity, of gratuitous and profitless sacrifice, is always recuperated back into an economy of responsibility; in the same way that pornography industrialises the process of erogenous looking in order to locate and secure the field of eroticisation, which is thereby disarmed and regulated in repetition. Each obscenity must be tethered to yield utility (plane crashes, motiveless bombings, car crashes and stabbings are all useful), and it is exactly within the privileged margins of (in this case) radical literature that such an economy is placated; that is, if commentary goes looking for ‘cause’ or even ‘meaning’. The problem for Eden… is the extent to which it can slip the moral noose that it sets out to use gratuitously and thereby disavow; the degree to which it can annihilate language’s axiomatic ‘idealistic proposal’ and facilitate the desire to construct a random ejaculative-machine where the ‘text is a motor’, without then enslaving the erratic drive capacity to a moral gearing-down ­ without converting the likes of ‘soldier pulling ejaculating penis out of whore-master’s arse’ into an ‘abreactive’ code, where it begins to signify something like ‘Thou must not pull ejaculating penises out of whore-masters’ arses...’. The structural disfigurement of the text’s one-dimensional volume catches us in an awkward attempt to situate at least a modicum of desire (whether it is the desire simply to consume a narrative plot or to spectate atrocity with the minimum cost to our conscience) a frozen moment caught in the glare of self-conscious moral propriety and the text surgically dis-invests the body, snipping off moral abjection as if it were merely the effects of a hypertrophied gland. Guyotat opens up the voyeur without guaranteeing to sew their embarrassment back together. In this sense the visceral anatomy of the skinless text is flayed of the comfort of personal pronouns, devoid of the relief of descriptive nuance. Sexual mutilation, spilled liquids and glistening organs become dreary, boring and undifferentiated; stripped of the hierarchies of appropriate emotion. Asked how the act of writing destroys, Guyotat commented: ‘by breaking down idealisms. I bring everything to the material level. Active verbs; present participles and the past perfects of these active verbs; these kinds of adjectives or the redoubled prefixes of verbs rather than adverbs; commas and dashes instead of full stops. The abolition of all psychological, humanistic, and metaphysical terms’. Like Kafka’s Penal Colony, the perfection of the enterprise arises at the point of its auto-destruction, where Guyotat takes on the role of Kafka’s fanatical juridical officer who straps himself into his own punitive machine to have ‘Be just!’ repeatedly inscribed into his flesh by a harrow of needles until his death. Similarly inscribed into a fundamentalist Eden… is the demand that language be forced by means of various structural deviances to submit to its own asphyxiation; where the impossibility of the text becomes an approximation of the unrepresentable or contradictory nature of its subject or ‘the subject’ in general. In Penal Colony, this is the point of consummate purity when the machine’s executional scribe would cut into flesh ‘Thou shalt not kill!’; inscribing the absolute symbiosis of ‘sin’ and ‘commandment’ working in inextricable communion. We are informed that writing almost cost Guyotat his life, neglecting to eat, lapsing into coma and being rushed to hospital. For all of Guyotat’s furiously emissive verbiage, the nihilistic elevation seems almost in danger of taking on the vista of missionary-bound hard work rather than jouissance (although this is not to suggest that ‘moral masochism’ does not give rise to, or is not originated from, a profound sense of pleasure. Liberal protectionist rackets are no less pleasurable: grazing his knees as he is flung to the nylon-carpeted Amnesty International floor, Guyotat the sacrificial lamb is called to recite crimes-against-humanity while his attentive audience weep and sigh. But from Guyotat’s base perspective he notices hands working hard beneath the conference table...). Masturbating in Eden..., the Messianic author appears in spent onanist repose after achieving the second-thousandth-cumming. But when his climax is deified by the commentary of disciples, Eden… becomes a Mills and Boon novel for RELATIVELY SANE psychotics. And in this sense the ‘secondary text’ already erodes Eden’s furious resistance to language; which leaves us to presume that reading it should have much the same effect that reading a romantic novel would have in severely testing the ‘unpleasure’ appetites of the sadist.» - Jake Chapman


«Pierre Guyotat has been called the last "poete maudit" in France, that country's last "accursed poet." He first came to prominence in France in 1967 with his novel Tomb for 500,000 Soldiers, a minimalist recant of lurid sexual and violent atrocities set in the French Algerian War. His next book Eden, Eden, Eden, made up of endless, uninterrupted descriptions of sexual brutalities, some involving children, was censored by the French government for 11 years. A later book, Prostitution, is a homosexual collage of Arabic, French, German, and Black "deviant language," or, to use one of the author's terms, a "linguistic minority." All the elements have been welded by elliptical spellings and phonetic distortions into a flow of glutinous consistency. They contain triple and even quadruple puns on often obscene words. Guyuotat sees his books not as sexual but as political and writerly. His texts are a flaunting of sex as power in the voices of the powerless. And rather than a prudent levitation of the indicated minorities to a respectability they are assumed to deserve, as would happen in a Protestant-inspired text, the literate writer is mercilessly sacrificed to their appetites. However, complete license in Guyotat works to deaden sexual excitation. In this sense, his texts are moral, an attempt to drive home the point of the dulled inhumanity inherent in monotonous sexual practice.» - Bruce Benderson

«Éden, Éden, Éden consists of one single sentence broken with backslashes, semicolons, colons, and commas. At first glance, the text presents a disorienting, agrammatical word horde. Of his style, Guyotat says simply, “I destroy rhetoric.” The project is familiar in the avant-garde tradition. For Friedrich Nietzsche, faith in grammar is faith in God. From Comte de Lautréamont and Stéphane Mallarmé to Guyotat, the avant-garde tradition set about tearing the cathedral of that faith to its foundations.
In Éden, Guyotat eliminates all connective tissue, all conjunctions, and all adverbs: all ac- tions are direct, unmodified, and fierce. In Éden, he flattens and extends the French language by writing from behind a wall of dictionaries, using specific words, geological terms, ethnographic terms, anatomical terms, the names of regionally specific plants, and regionally specific animals. Where Gustave Flaubert wrote from within an archive of texts and images, and thereby inaugurated a distinctly modern disjunction between text and world, Guyotat attempts to return words to the world, through specificity, and to return the world to words, through specific investment. His language here is technical and precise, rigid but also sensual; it is so exact that it can be incomprehensible.
Éden, Éden, Éden also radicalizes narration by largely eliminating traditional distinctions between characters, between character and setting, and between scenes. Only a few characters have names, and their continued presence in the “plot” hardly contributes to its development or interest. We know we are in North Africa, primarily through references to flora and fauna (birds mostly) and to geography (Ferkous valley), but the novel does not rely on topical political or other cues to locate its meaning. Spatial and temporal cues are so few and far between, and so reticent, that distinctions of space and time largely collapse. The action takes place here and now. (the entirety)» - Stuart Kendall

Soon:

Label