June 13, 2000

Intrigue = Tautology = Conspiracy

“ABC” wrote:
> “XYZ” wrote:
>
> > “ABC” wrote:
> >
> > > “XYZ” wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was thinking of the Olympic symbol, those five interlocking rings, and
> > > > a thought came to me. What if these rings were continents? Well, I know
> > > > that they are. But the committee decided to count Australia a part of
> > > > Europe or Asia, I guess. And the Antarcticans don’t play games: it is
> > > > either too cold or there are none. The outlines of an international plot
> > > > began to form in my overexerted mind. Not only had the committee
> > > > conspired to exclude or swallow up an entire continent or two, but the
> > > > rings are bound together! —we know that the world is in a “state” of
> > > > international anarchy, no binding agreements are possible among
> > > > nation-states. Are we really to beleive that it is solely the Olympic
> > > > committee which binds these disparate entities together? Sports as the
> > > > glue that holds the family of mankind together? But perhaps there is
> > > > something behind all this. Perhaps the group of administrators, CEOs and
> > > > NGO chairs are actually Illuminati, tending the strings of worldwide
> > > > domination carefully as the hedges of the Olympic parks and stadia. How
> > > > else have they managed to produce an international joy event for the
> > > > past hundred years or so, regularly, every four? Some devious intrigue
> > > > lurks...
> > >
> > > I hope you don’t mind that I deleted your quote. I have it, too. Devious
> > > intrigue? You don’t know the half. How could you? Yes, the Olympics is a
> > > conspiracy. Of course it is. It is a worldwide cooperative organization of
> > > spectacular entertainment for working stiffs the globe over. It has no
> > > noble purpose, and it couldn’t have one if it wanted to. But why is this so
> > > devious? You are going off on a stupid tanget. You should know better than
> > > this. I can’t believe you actually wrote the words “devious intrigue.” But
> > > intrigue and conspiracy do have a close relationship, even in fiction,
> > > where, of course, the former was fully developed some time ago. I think it
> > > reached its peak in the interbellum. After WWII, everybody pretty much
> > > knew, and the poetic spark which intrigues and court conspiracies had been
> > > able to muster was played out as a threadbare rug on a cold October
> > > morning.
> > >
> > >—
> > > The noble becomes spurious and itself vulgar when it extols itself, for to
> > > this day there has not been anything noble. Contradiction gnaws at the
> > > noble ever since Hölderlin’s verse that nothing sacred is any longer fit
> > > for use, the same contradiction that an adolescent might have sensed who
> > > read a socialist journal with political sympathy and at the same time was
> > > put off by the language and mentality and the ideological undercurrent of a
> > > culture for all. What that paper in fact promoted, of course, was not the
> > > potential of a freed people but rather people as the complement of class
> > > society, the statically conceived universal of voters who must be reckoned
> > > with. —Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory 240-241 (1969).
> >
> > The thing about the novel is interesting, because, according to Lukàcs, at
> > least, are known for their inability to perfectly solve their formal problem,
> > you know, the fact that the plot must thicken. The plot cannot be laid out and
> > then developed, but it must only develop. Whether it is a story or some other
> > sort of avant garde format or theme, whatever it is must proceed one word at a
> > time, and at the height of the possibilities of the theme from official
> > political intrigue/conspiracy, the story was still the dominant mode of
> > expression. Stories must be dramatic. They have to fit the plot-oriented
> > rising-climax-falling schema. So when you have a novel full of intrigue, there
> > must be a climax to satisfy the dramatic requirements, and then in the falling
> > action—known for bearing too many happy endings and unmessy resolutions—the
> > novel usually cannot help but resolve these things, and this makes all that
> > went before merely tautological. Merely a means to an end which is usually
> > typical, and at this point, one wonders why one read the book anyway. I am not
> > saying all plotted novels do this, but too many do. But this dynamic
> > expresses—taken as a whole —that the conspiracy is empty. The intrigue is null.
> > The climax is simply not one. Intrigue = conspiracy = tautology. And it
> > probably wouldn’t be so bad if the world wasn’t so bad. Because in a world
> > like this, witht he Olympic comitee running the show from a mahogany-paneled
> > clubroom or boardroom in Geneva, who needs or has time for tautologies? But
> > then tautologies are also exemplars of the circular reasoning of such
> > committees...
>
> I deleted your quote too. I hope YOU don’t mind. And would you please try to
> spell check your e-mails? You are a copy-editor aren't you? For one of those
> “socialist journals”? What do they pay you for?
>
> Anyway, now you see what I mean about the circles. So, you’re coming around to my
> point of view after all? It’s like when the plotters behind the Constitution put
> the pyramid with the eye at the top, to just lay it all out for everyone to see,
> that the bossman would be watching. Of course the pyramid is the socioeconomy,
> the class system, etc. And they even had the nerve to put the pyramid on the
> carrier of the pyramid, the dollar bill. Unfuckingbelievable. Talk about circular
> logic.
>
> Signing off,
> XYZ
>
>—
> The noble becomes spurious and itself vulgar when it extols itself, for to this
> day there has not been anything noble. Contradiction gnaws at the noble ever
> since Hölderlin’s verse that nothing sacred is any longer fit for use, the same
> contradiction that an adolescent might have sensed who read a socialist journal
> with political sympathy and at the same time was put off by the language and
> mentality and the ideological undercurrent of a culture for all. What that paper
> in fact promoted, of course, was not the potential of a freed people but rather
> people as the complement of class society, the statically conceived universal of
> voters who must be reckoned with. —Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory 240-241
> (1969).

See you later.

ABC

--
The noble becomes spurious and itself vulgar when it extols itself, for to this day
there has not been anything noble. Contradiction gnaws at the noble ever since
Hölderlin’s verse that nothing sacred is any longer fit for use, the same
contradiction that an adolescent might have sensed who read a socialist journal with
political sympathy and at the same time was put off by the language and mentality
and the ideological undercurrent of a culture for all. What that paper in fact
promoted, of course, was not the potential of a freed people but rather people as
the complement of class society, the statically conceived universal of voters who
must be reckoned with. —Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory 240-241 (1969).

intrigue tautology conspiracy.theory novels literature lit.crit lukacs