Comments on: Indexing Bleg http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/ falling indelibly into the past Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:26:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Scott http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/#comment-516 Scott Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:43:39 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=254#comment-516 <p>Funny.  I was thinking of Foucault’s reference to that Borges right after I posted it.  You could maybe organize it according to something like this: </p> <p> Death of the novel, arbitrary grouping <br /> Death of the novel, beginning with the letter B <br /> Death of the novel, zombie novels </p> <p> ;) </p> Funny.  I was thinking of Foucault’s reference to that Borges right after I posted it.  You could maybe organize it according to something like this:

Death of the novel, arbitrary grouping

Death of the novel, beginning with the letter B

Death of the novel, zombie novels

;)

]]> By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/#comment-515 KF Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:43:25 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=254#comment-515 <p>Yeah, that’s kinda how I feel, Scott, but my press wants any item with more than six (they say; I’m making it more like ten) separate references to be broken down into subcategories.  So subdivisions it is.  (You should see the subdivisions under “television.” There are 38.  Though I was thinking less Calvino and more Borges:  “the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.") </p> <p> Collin, Shauna, and Francois—thanks for the suggestions!  What I’ve ended up with, at least temporarily, is “death of the novel, imaginary status of.” I’m not satisfied with it, but nothing else is really ringing right yet.  (Significance/insignificance is really close, though.) I’m going to let it sit for a few days and see what I think. </p> Yeah, that’s kinda how I feel, Scott, but my press wants any item with more than six (they say; I’m making it more like ten) separate references to be broken down into subcategories.  So subdivisions it is.  (You should see the subdivisions under “television.” There are 38.  Though I was thinking less Calvino and more Borges:  “the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.”)

Collin, Shauna, and Francois—thanks for the suggestions!  What I’ve ended up with, at least temporarily, is “death of the novel, imaginary status of.” I’m not satisfied with it, but nothing else is really ringing right yet.  (Significance/insignificance is really close, though.) I’m going to let it sit for a few days and see what I think.

]]> By: Scott http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/#comment-514 Scott Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:48:44 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=254#comment-514 <p>Why not just have a big “death of the novel” category and no subdivisions?  Otherwise this’ll wind up like the bookstore in _If on a winter’s night a traveler_. </p> Why not just have a big “death of the novel” category and no subdivisions?  Otherwise this’ll wind up like the bookstore in _If on a winter’s night a traveler_.

]]> By: Francois Lachance http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/#comment-513 Francois Lachance Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:47:34 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=254#comment-513 <p>Time to cross-reference? </p> <p> death of the novel, pronouncements _see also_ Apocalypse, feelings of </p> <p> Seriously whenever in a muddle consider cross-referencing. </p> Time to cross-reference?

death of the novel, pronouncements _see also_ Apocalypse, feelings of

Seriously whenever in a muddle consider cross-referencing.

]]> By: Shauna http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/#comment-512 Shauna Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:01:05 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=254#comment-512 <p>What about using “significance” and “insignificance” to contrast?  For the purposes of the pronouncements, you could have “death of the novel, pronouncements, significance of” and for Barth’s comment and the like, “death of the novel, insignifance of.” I know that “significance” isn’t a spot-on substitution for function, but I thought I’d chime in anyway. </p> What about using “significance” and “insignificance” to contrast?  For the purposes of the pronouncements, you could have “death of the novel, pronouncements, significance of” and for Barth’s comment and the like, “death of the novel, insignifance of.” I know that “significance” isn’t a spot-on substitution for function, but I thought I’d chime in anyway.

]]> By: Collin http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/indexing-bleg/#comment-511 Collin Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:43:27 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=254#comment-511 <p>Death of the novel, consensual hallucination of <br /> Death of the novel, imagined community of <br /> Death of the novel, performative articulations of <br /> Death of the novel, irrelevance of reality-based refutations of </p> <p> umm..... </p> Death of the novel, consensual hallucination of

Death of the novel, imagined community of

Death of the novel, performative articulations of

Death of the novel, irrelevance of reality-based refutations of

umm…..

]]>