She was never a very systematic thinker…

As soon as G starts speaking what sounds like a set piece, a voice over, a well-known set of words already thought through, the audience turns their faces towards him, dutifully. G sounds important, official, factual; was it intentional that the narrative of the biography rendered by CW sounded more extemporaneized? Why does the bibliography require a certain detachment, and the biography a sense of connection–laughing to acknowledge listening. When the matter is intellectual somehow, there is no need to be involved, to laugh or show our participation as an audience. When we are using our brains do we shut down? This is problematic, listening in–the tenor has changed so much, the tenor of the audience feels “comfy,” unlike the uncomfortable silence during the story of SW’s life and death. Maybe SW would be angry about this: people react to lives, to bios, not to books, biblios…She would definitely have us standing up here, and digging potatoes instead of sitting back murmuring politely about some books she wrote a long time ago that weren’t actually that good and that no one reads unless they are looking for a quote to sound smart and tortured and weilguely French anyway.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s