Download - Yépez - On Character 2004
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 1/9
Biting he
Error
Writers
Explore
arrative
Editedby
Mary Burger
RobertGliick
Cami l le
Ro y
Gai lScott
Coach
House Books
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 2/9
copinight
@
zoo4,the
authors
first
edition
The editors of Biting the Error owe a debt of gratitude to the poetry
Center
at
San Francisco
State
University
for
housing
our
web
ournal,
Narrativi\t,
from
which
much
of this
anthology
is
derived;
to
Alana
wilcox
at
coach
House
Books
or
her vision,
hard
work
and patience;
to Michelle
Rollman
for
lending
us
the drawing
on
page
3o3;
andto
Chris
Johanson
or
iending
us a
ovely
mage
for
our cover.
LIBRARY
AND
ARCHIVIS
CANADA
CATAIOGUING
IN
PUBIICATION
Biting
the
error
: writers
explore
narrative
/
edited
by
Mary
Burger
...
[et
al.].
rsBN
r-55245-r42-g
r.
Narrative
(Rhetoric)
I.
Burger,
Mary,
ry63-
Contents
Introduction
Approximate:
ast o Present
r/
Kathy Acker
I
The Killers 14
Gail Scott
I
The
Virgin
Denotes 19
Robert Gliick
I
Long Note
on
New Narrative
25
Lydia
Davis
I
Form
as
Response o Doubt
)5
Aaron Shurin
I
Narrativity
38
ReneeGladman
I
The
Person n the World
46
Dislocation
Pamela Lu
lThe
Life of
the
Unknown
50
Rob
Halpern
I
Committing the Fault
jS
X. I. Selene
I
In Defenceof Forgetfulness
63
NathalieStephens EchoesEnough ofE&oes of Enough of Me 67
My
Other
Self
Chris
Kraus
I
Hunger
- Technology Emotion
74
Anne Stone
I
Objective
Hazard
78
Douglas
A.
Marlin
lThe
Day
Outlying 85
Doug Rice
|
'Delirious,
Always Becoming' 88
Kevin Killian
I
Poison gz
Methods
MagdalenaZurawski
I
Why Poetry Failed Me and What Pr ose
s
TrF^g to Do for My Writing and Me ro4
feffDerksen
|
Text'
and
the
Site
ofWriting ro8
Corey
Frost
I
On Performance,
Narrative,
Mnemotechnique,
Glue
and
Solvent n3
Nicole Markotii
I
Widows and Orphans
rr9
Christian
Bdk
I
A
Few Thoughts
on Beautiful Thinking rz5
SteveMcCaffery
|
Notes on Narrativity
rz8
The Novel
Carla
Harryman
I
How
I
Wrote
Gordener
of
Sfars,a Novel r32
Lynne
Tillman
lTelling
Tales
$9
Nicole Brossard
I
Soft Links r48
vm4z5.a58
oo4 8o9'.923 c2oo4-9o5555-o
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 3/9
Eileen
Myles
I
Long and Social
r4g
Leslie
Scalapino
Narrating r1z
Resistance
heriberto
y6pezl
on
character
r58
Lawrence Ytzhak Braithwaite
I
Last Exit to Victoria (Five Mins. of
MurderAlonewith Wiggerand'Bloodland') 69
Camille
Roy
I
Experimentalism r74
Mary
Burger
I
All
New
YorkerStories r8o
Taylor Brady
I
Narrative
Occupation
and
Uneven
Enclosure r84
A Story
s
a Storage
Bruce
Boone
I
Holilwood Celluloid Nuke
Madness r94
Derek McCormack
I
The Monster Comic zor
Laura
Moriarty
I
Incidents
ofTime Travel
zo5
TheSentence
LisaRobertson
I
Lucite (a didactic) zr4
Betsy
Andrews
I
The
Real Story of
'O'
z16
Kathy
Lou Schultz
I
Proceed
Queerly:
The
Sentence
as
Compositional
Unit z2o
Shiver
Dodie
Bellamy
I
Low Culrure zz6
D.
L. Aivarez
I
Nostalgic
48
Robin
Tremblay-McGaw
I
Narrative
Transfiguration 24r
The Tell-Tale
Hearl Dennis
Cooper
nterviewed
by Robert Gliick 245
fhe Buzz
of Al ternateMeanings
Laird
Hunt
I
The Avenue
z58
Michael du
Piessis
I
Narrative as Determinarion
ofthe Future
Anterior
z6 z
kari edlvards
I
a narrative
ofresistance
266
Aja Couchois Duncan
I
What StoryWill LoveYou Like Do)
269
Daphne
Marlatt
I
what is the story here) 274
Paul VanDeCarr
I
Hey, Narrativity 277
The
Contributors z8c)
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 4/9
on
character
heriberto dpez
experimentalism
means
'identity
in
crisis.' events
that
made
'me,
more -
an awareness
was
no longer
my
self, one-self.luce
rigaray,
on
the one
hand,
wrote that
reality
s always
wo.lbidentity
then]. and
on
the otherhand, ao zu reminds us that where there's wo soon here's
three
-
like
couples,
which
in reality
are,
at least,
threesomes.
he
destruction
he couple
s -
was
alreadyhere.
and now:
history:
'in
general
he mexican
body
s
suffering
"changes."
meaning:
a second
drama
of hybridization.
a
secondconquest.
a new
corpus.'
the daynafta wasput into practice(fanuary r,1994) was he day post-
modern
mexican
history
began.
not
only becauseglobalization
had
officially
started,
but because
an
indian
guerrilla
-
Iong in
training
-
appeared.
he post-national
and
'profound
mexico'
(bonfil
batalla)
clashed.
o hegelian
syrrthesishere,
no fuckin
g aufueben
ifanlthing
is
taught
by
mexican
history,
beyond any kierkegaardian
eport,
t
is
that
when
the
one and
he
other
collide, not
even
either/or is
a choice:
no
synthesis,
no coexistence,
either
ofthe two are going
to
survive
n
their
original
state.
[saint]
max
stirner said
t best:
is all
and what
ali
destroys.
ll.
first the indian
guerrillas
were
denounced
as
central
american
marx-
ists
('they
couldn't
be
mexicans'),
and'transgresores
elaley,
law
rans-
gressors)
as
the
infamous pro-state
nightly
news
anchorman
jacobo
zabludowslcy
alled hem. the
main
visual
characteristic
fthe
zapatis-
tas was
heir
black p
asamontqf,as.
'they
must
be hiding
something.,)
they
used heir
masks
o not
be recognized
by he
government,
but
also
because
masks
have
a strong
power
in
mexican popular
culture:
the
power
of transformation,
social
change
and
new
personal
identity.
masks
have
always played
this role
in
our culture,
as in many
other
places
n
the world.
there is
a long
tradition
of using
masks in
pre-
colombian
cultures,
rom ritual to warmasks anddiseuises. hat's also
r58
why
we have adapted
so
well
to halloween.
culture
and
body,
how
we
affect
he
other
and
how
we are
affected
by
them'
in
another
arena,
masks
are
related
n
mexico
to superhero
igures.
wrestlers
use masks,
and
at one
point
the
movies
used
real
wrestlers
acting
as superheroes,
in
bizarre
plots
where
they
would
fight
vampires,
gangsters
or
extraterrestrials
sometimes
at
he same
ime)
wrestlers
ike el santo,
blue
demon
or
mil
miscaras
became
household
names,
ust
ike superman
or
spiderman
n the
united
states'
he
mask
has continued
to function
to both
hide
identity
and
build
a
new
iden'
ti f
through
a
acial
disguise,
s shown
by
the social
activist
uperbar-
rio in
mexico
city,
who
has used
a mask
to
attract
attention
or
popu-
1arcauses
ince
he
ate eighties.
as he apparition
ofthe
zapatistas
as made
many
ofus
aware,
mexi-
can
identities
have
been
undergoing
a dramatic
process
of
life and
death.
he zapatistas
were using
experimental
strategies
o
represent
that
phenomena.
he
zapatista
mask
has
many
functions:
for example'
to emphasize
he collectivity
of
the
movement
-
from
its
leader
o the
last soldier. t paradoxicallymakesus awareofwho is behind themask
while
at
he
same
ime
forces
us to
not
see
he
ndians
according
o
our
long-standing
stereot)?es
passivity,
oss
of
identity,
etc'
- with
the
implication
that
they
are
not
going
to
remove
their
masks
untj'l
we
learn to
see
heir true
faces.
the zapatistas
nnounced
he
renewal
of
mexican
character.
writing
narrative
n our
zapatista
ountry
means
o accept
hat
our
traditional
face
and
identity
have
been
modified.
no
more
fixed
personalities
or
long-standing
structures.
who
are
we and
how
do
we represent
ourselves,
ow do
we narrate
our
being
and
non-being,
our
selves
nd
otherness;
how
do
we build
the text
s now
a
question
of
how
are
we
lot"*,o
survive.
whose
character?
lways
some
I
body
else.
character
s
always
us'-
in
a way
t's
never
ust'us.'
character
can
be
dentified
(partialiy)
with
the
writer.
each
character
has
Some
characteristics
secret
or announced)
that
the
writer
has
-
i.e,,
characteristics
lhe
supposes
are
hers
or his'
but are
not.
characters
re
part
ofthe
writer's
life,
but are
never
him
or
her,
nor
any
person
in
particular;
they
cannot
be
separated'
nor
are
they
antasy.
haracters
re
he
author's
psychical
amily,
society's
rail
J
o
l.
q
f
o
o.
o
N
159
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 5/9
(.)
c
G
.h
O
d.
of doppelgingers
in its course
through
time. imagination
cannot
happen. antasy
s mpossible.
eaiity
pollutes
everything.
magination
cannot
escape ompletely
rom
the
here and now
of material/histori-
cal/bodily
circumstance.
fiction'wanted
to
escape
rom
history
-
the
possibility
of
a
realm
made
exclusiveiy
of
fantasy
a critical llusion
it
has
alwayspursued,
only o
eave
evidence ffailed
fugitives.
who's
he
characterl
no
one, but
many.
anyone's
double. ncluding,
of course,
the other side, he so-calied eaders,somebodyelse oo (many).char-
acters
operate n
the field
of indeterminacy,
of multiplicity.
(i hate
names.
names
are
in
favour
of
being-just-one.)
writing a
character
(packages)
e
do not respond
o the
question
who
am i ?
but to this the
interrogation
who
else nt i?
a question
hat
cannot
be
responded
o. a
character,
a
failed
attempt to
know
ourselves.
'it
helps my
mother was
a prostitute.
she kept
nside of
her too
many
i didn'tknowwho
myfather reallywas.
never
sure enough,
and neither
her, him or i wanted o find out. dentity means= too rLeny ame nside
I
name
s not
necessary.'
i write
fiction
while
i hear
music.
i've always
been
under the impres-
sion
that a
novel's
characters
hould be volatile
entities. would
iike
for
characters
o be
entities whom
i pass
by, reading,
and
don't recog-
nize. a
movement
n the
page,
strange vent,
nebulous
vent,
what was
it?
maybe
a character.
not
bodies
but waves.
find in
radiohead
what
deleuze found
in
bacon: he vision of
bodieswho
are
he subject
of
forces
hat
determine
their
form,
whose
eatures
are
deformed
by
he
effect hose orces
have
in
their
flesh
weseewtobe
clouds
rqwn
away
by hewind,
stipped, goes
a
caifanes
song,
a rock group
from
the nineties whose
name was
ater
changed
o
jaguares
after
he
band eader
ost his voice
according
o
a riend
his voice
was ost
because
e
discovered oo
many
secrets. his
didn't
delight
he gods,
so
hey u rned his
voice
nto a
ridiculous
event.
when
i
write
a character t
must
feel o
me as f
composed
of
bubble
gum.
a
character
s not
a stable
hing.
a
plasma.
characters
should
always
melt.
r6 o
the
nstability
look
for in
characters
an even
be
a genealogicai
race
they've
eft.
kristeva
reminds us
that
in twelfth-century
ove songs
probablymistranslated
by
pound
-
the
loved
one
was not a
clearchar-
acter,
was
aimost never described,
and
'her'
could
refer
both
to the
woman and
the
song
tself. (homer
too never
described
helen but
she
incited a
war anyvvay,
he passions
she
was
used for') but
then
(back
o
kristeva)
music
was
ost
in
poetry, and
some
ime
later
prose
ook
the
placeofverse and he troubadour becameanovelist - masculinechar-
acters
who
not
only
were
unwilling
to
celebrate
with
ioy
the
distance
between themselves
and
their
lovers
(i'e., reference)
but
also
were
under
the
speli of
the spirit-of-conquest-of-the-other
nstead
of seduc-
tion-by-it.
n this
way cervantes'
and swift's
satires
on
woman, on
love,
became
possibie.
he
novel
was
born,
and
n
it,
characters,
isible ones,
'individuals,'
not
the
ghosts of
the
past, hose
volatiie entities
where
object
and
subiect
were undistinguishable
in
a way adorno
never
imagined.
the character
became
clear,
ts
limits and
borders
deter-
mined, and
their
names,
personalities,
everything
n them
was made
recognizable,
n
order
for them
to become
properry
of someone
-
another character, hemselves, he author, the reader, he book, capi-
talism
itself.
jealousy
makes
the
other
recognizable,
'predictable,'
imaginable.
ealousy
draws
a'truth'
soon
o be
discovered,
a
property
we can
have
hanks to
a mental
map,
a system of
control
on
the
body
ofthe
other.
i
write fiction
while
i hear music
so
don't
forget
this
is what'char-
acters'
became,
ut not
how
they
structuraily
mustbe'
in the
past,char-
actersat
east
n one
form of
discourse
were
plasmatic,
even
nvisible,
ghostiy,
not solid;
in
fact, characters
had
no other
architecture
han
that of
mystical
music.
not a
place.but
how
light and
darkness
happen
n that
placeor maybe
:
r"t".
placeelse.
an end
o
the novel?
o
require
an end
he novel
would
need
o be a
ixed
entity,
something
whose
life
depended
on
itself,
but
we
suspect
he
novel
s part of
a decadence
f which
it
is not
yet
he
owest
point.
that's
5-
6
:.
o
(}.
6
N
r6 r
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 6/9
o
c
N
.q
o
why
ka{ka
is
always
a
symbol
of the history
ofthe novel,
a
history
that
can never
end, because
t's
a process
hat
can
only be left
unfinished
in
its
'novel'
stage
/
a
posthumous
attempt
to
understand
what the
complete
history
of the
novel
might
have been.
he
novel
has already
changed,
here's
now
no
way
to
terminate t
or to write
it again.
time
to look
at what
we've
done as writers
serving
optimistic
politics.
making
the
reader
a
co-producer,
we
declared
we were
empowering
him
or her.
the truth
was
hat
everphing
became
work,
even
eisure,
play
or
silence.
n
our era
even
words
work,
(barrett
watten).
worka-
holism.
writing
as the
metaphysical
shop window
was
proof
that
language
was
also
abour,
everithing
was
working
- well.
the
reader
as
co-producer
means
him/her
as
slave.
we
(writers
and
readers)
made
the
'reader'
believe
slhe
had to
be
active
oo, because
f
slhe
was not
slhe was
passive.'
hat
myth.
even
working
when
he dreams
or reads.
that's
why
i like
books hat don't work.
the
storJteller
creates,
produces.'that's
what
slhe s
supposed
o do.
slhe
follows
maker
(godlproducer).
his is very
obvious.
but slhe
can
follow
another
path:
disappearance.
nstead
of making
something
appear
rom
nothingness
(sic),
slhe can
make
everything
disappear
into
nothingness.
(one s
as
mpossible
as
he other.
so, why
notl)
the
storyteiler
could play
the
role
ofanti-god,
a not-producer.
sabotage.
consumer
of everything.
et the
universe grow
and
expand,, roduce;Iet
the
storyteller
decrease
he world.
writing
pursuing
the
achievement
of
nothing,
to
stop working
as soon
as t
begins.
fvoice
eads
o
religion.
there,
where
voice
appears,
god
s possible,
a
god
is
unavoidable.
he
author
reads,and
co-produces
ommunity
-
he or
she s near
being
a priest,
even
when
she or
he abhors
his role,
as we
do,
as
we do
because
we
no longer
believe
n gods,
nor in
ourselves.
comedy
is
opposite
to religion.
exactly
when
reunion
is
going
to
happen,
aughter
breaks.l
t6 z
6j
we cannot
change.
we
are
already
ever''thing'
changing
would
mean
turning
into
something
different'
(and
would
mean
producing')
'changing'
is simply
a
very
complex
way
to
die'
a
pseudo'category
created
n
order
o not
accept
hat
'transformin
g'
I'changing'/'produc'
ing'
are
those
skills
which
aim
to
attack
or
wound
us'
'changing'
-."r,,
killing
some
of
us
inside
or
outside'
even
my
training
in
psychotherapy
eaches
me this:
we
must
murder
some
of
what/who
we
are.
health
s
adequate
murder.
and
my
mexican
culture reinforces
this
also:
he
most
important
thing
is
to
know
we must
die'
storyteiling
for
me
is
writing
about
how
we commit
suicide
or
participate
in
homi-
cide
both
in
life
and
in history.
not
how
a story
unfolds
or how
a
char-
acler
devel'op^s,
ut
how
death
happens
all
the
time'
for
me
the
page
s
war.
'while
writing
this
piece
dismantled
the
yellow
pages
and
hrew
them
all over the floor. it was raining heavily'
i
was
trying
to
keep
water
comingbelowthedoortoruinthebookspi ledontheothersideofthe
room,
Lut
kant's
smallf
losof'a
elahistoia
was soon
uined''
how
can
i build
my
mexicanness
here.
certain
references.
could
allude
o
being
a mestizo,
and
how
that
makes
tne
natwrally
multtple'
'autobiography.'we should readthis term the other way around' and
,"y
ro-"thing
like
this:
writing
is
always
auto-bio-graphical'
never
writing
on
^i.btt'.
graphos
text)
constructing
bios
life)
that
appears
as auti
(on
itself).
autobiography:
anguage
writing
on
itself
and
thus
becoming
'alive.'
'poor
gramsci.
hose
weren't
good
years
o
exist'
being
n
prison
made
hi-
ot.".r.d
with
details,
ust
like
wittgenstein's
closet
did
[for
him].
thinkers
whose
work
feels
ike
an
old
man
browsing
a bazaar,
inding
t
o
:.
o-
o
f
o.
o
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 7/9
U
c
o
.9
everything
amusing
as if
this were his
first time there and
not his
entire life's pattern
of attempts
o smell the vendor's
hair.
don't even
think
of mentioning
the
other
guy.
just
don't like him. gramsci
was
just
the
other
day
elling
us about his latest
inding
I
one more of his
'crucial'
remarks.
nothing
but
scraps.
e told us about
how
the italian
word
for mysticismwas
being used with
the french rnystique's
meaning
'predominantly
critical
and
pejorative.'
I
eniisting
consequences
I
he
wanted the two of us to say something that would have propelled his
little
speecheven
urther,
but both
of us said nothing,
dependenton
one another a s we
are
I
we
kept both
mouths
closed while we were
there.
we
fed each
other
I
etdng
our twenty ingers
caress
ach
other's
hair while
I
he
I
continued
explaining how those
wo words
united. he
wanted
us to et
him know
our opinion
of it or how
his words made
us
realize
somethingl
I
saw something in
our
mind
|
... understanding
what
culture had
come
o ...
I
but we
didn't respond
n anyway.we
kept
silent,making
no
sign ofhuman
contactbetween
us as
hough me and
her didn't
even know
each
other and it was
only accidentailv
we had
::-"
,od"t
to be at this young
old
man ce11.'
a character
s not getring
away rom
us, nor
going
(more) nside. none
of us
can be
written.
in
order for'us'to
be written
(down)
(:subjected)
(controlled),
n
order for any
of
'us'
to
become ext
/
even
ust
one
/,
(we) need
the presence
of the others,
their
coexistence, ue
to the
ghostly
fact
that there's
no single one.
no
one
(none)
can be written.
:t*"tr
some of
us left behind.
'kiil
every ndian.
et them
die while
escaping n the
ungle.
et's
behave
like
those hunters,
tribes or helicopters.'
fiction
equals.
personality.
life.'
who
is
the
real
subject,
eonardo
or mona lisal
flaubert
or madame
bovaryl
borgesor the
other borges
none of them.
16 a
just
two
out
of
a
multiplicity,
the
two of
them
chosen
by
reception
or
ihe author(ity)
precisely
because
any
of
them
could
play
thc
polaritl
game
well,
could
fit
into
the
fixed
or
easi\
movable
personality
fatterns.
how
is the
author
or
character
determined)
by
the
historical
L"g"-oty
of bodies
established
in
its
time
and
culture'
writing
h"ppe.tr,
books,
etc',
and
who
the
character
r
the
author
s
gets
deter-
*in"a
Uy
ftat
kind
ofbodies
are
accepted'
which
are
discarded'
class'
gender,unconscious,culture,all ofthese artifacts
are
used
o
establish
I recognizable
entity,
a
group
of
them
(authorbetween
hem)
"'
'after
the
crucifixion
iesus
wasn't
the
same
[character]
any
more'
but
we
couldn't
afford
to
know
that.
that's
why
somebody
needed
o
interpo-
late saint
thomas's
proof.
even
after
passion,
death
and
resurrection
occurred,
esus
kept
himself
the
same,
son
of
god
himself''
...unfinished
...
gospels
hat
contradicted
and
blurred
jesus'
image
too
much
"'
broulht
confusion
on
who and
how
he
was
.calling
that
corpus
of
text
apocrypha.
man
asks:
masks
-
so
many
of
them
-
whyl
-
m(other).
chupacabras
appeared
in
mexican
cult''rre
through
national
enq)irer-type
public"tiotts,
tv
series
and
mere
oral
transmission
(the
'streets').
hrrf"."br",
means
goat-sucker'
his
creature
could
even
be
linked
with ufos - shares with them the feature of never being
completely
seen.'
f
we
use
plot-theory,
chupacabras'was a
distrac-
tion.
those
holes
n
dead
animals
started
o appear
on
the
news
n the
late nineties,
when
former
mexican
president
carlos
salinas
was
sell-
ing
the
banks,
making
deals
with drug
cartels
and signing
nafta
with
c"i"d"
and
the
,.r.
.htp"."bras
was
used
n
mexico
as
michael
jack-
son's
pedophilic
scandals
were
used
n
nice
america'
but
the
distrac-
tion
was
ar too
obvious
and
goat-sucker
ecame
synonymous
with
tlie
look
of
salinas,
permanently
mocked/remembered
for
his
big
rat-1ike
ears,
an
nfamous
corruption
figure
defined
asa
ittle
monster
sucking
:J-
o
:.
o-
o
f
o
<
o.
o
N
r(r5
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 8/9
o
c
6
,9
O
E
the
blood of
the
'people,'
and
even having
killed his
nanny when he
was young.
black humour
masks
and toys
sold n mexican
cities skil-
fully
exploited
he resemblance
of
chupacabras
nd
salinas,
how they
were
related,
co-produced.
chupacabras
o me is
a meta-character
n how
characterworks.
a dead/unclear
body
that hides
and
reveals ho
nnli+i."1
unclean
in
his seminal
essay n the
storyteller,
walter
benjamin
makesa collat-
eral and
brief attack against
the short
story.
benjamin
despises
t
because
hrough the
short story we
abbreviate
and destroy
he possi
bility
of
multiple strata
fast-food
storyrelling.
benjamin writes
that
idea
and
many more,
many
- in
an
essay. short
essay,
y the
way.
the
essay ssures.
he essay
lso
shortens.
ike
aphorisms
and
short
stories,
he essay
ynthesizes.
ives
manageable
ackage
o
a previous
more
complex
and abundant
-
transpersonal
material - or spiritual
linguistic
net
of meanings.
maybe we
are an
age these
ast
centuries
ofwhich
we
are
stiil a part
- that
is only now
realizing we
have mpov-
erished
anguage
altogether.
in
some
apocrypha
and
other
gnostic,
judaic
and
muslim
sources,
jesus
had
a twin.
he
could
be
very
well
the one who impersonated
him
as
he resurrected
son
of god.
this is
an especially
empting
hypothe-
sis
because is
name was
om.
[saint]
homas
s
called
didimus'
(twin)
in certain versiclesof the new testament.a character dentical o esus
(maybe'jesus'himself)
(his double)
putting
his finger
in the wounds
on his hand
/
made
by
the
nails
ofthe
romans
/
in
order
o confirm
the
reaiity
of
his
[own]
dentity
and
life. in
order
o
produce
a unique
tale.
here
oo
esus,
a damaged
body,a
doubtful
one,metaphysically
volves
into
a hole
in the flesh.
...
if this
were
correct, poetics
and
fiction/theory
would
represent
forms
of decline.
these genres
of speculation
would
have
appeared
66
once
the
secrets,
traditions,
innovative
powers,
craft
and
ideas
behinditowards
narrative
had
come
to
a stop
or
-
fearing
complete
loss
or
esiring
control
- had
decided
o become
written
dogmas'
aws
'
established
prescriptions
replacing
the
previous
and
more
personal
oral
or
tr"nrp.rror,"1
transmission'
and
i'm
not
talking
here
of
an
esoteric
male
one-to-one
school
of
in-your-ear
transmission
but
simply
an environment
in
which
the
narrative-producer
(or
any
-rt".)
would gatherthe tools and visions for her/his creation from
the
collective
ulture,
slhe
would
hunt
during
her/his
travels'
indings
in
her/his
own
mind,
techniques
slhe
would
hunt
or
recelved
rom
that
concrete
historical
language/world'
the
essay
mode'
the
written
reflection-upon,
would
be,
f
tiris
s correct'
much
more
elitist
han
the
apparently
siientway
ofkeeping
the
narrative
ransformation
depend-
..ri
,rpon'ttt"
more
fluent
p'oi""tt
of
dialogue
among
its
malcers'
i isteners
r
ghosts.
let's
face
t:
by
writing
we become
nstant
elders'
authorities'
ntelh-
gent
peoplevlho
"pp,opriate
ideas
and
structures
ronr
the
culture
we
live
in
- and
increasi"gly
from
other
cultures'
decontextualizing
meanings
-
and
thanks
to
this
taking
awaywe build our <ownu'otk>''
people
Jho
not
only
steal
but
sign'
and
collstruct
a character
who
te1ls'
ao.ritr,
proposes
or
ignores
the
waywe
should
narrate'
from
story
o
history.
auschwitz'
china'
vietnam'
chiapas'
raq
-
every
name
or
place
s now
a
reference
o
a
murder
-
ry45'
ry68'
r9g
1'
2oor
-
every
""r,
"
plot
- nixon's
i 'm
not
a crook''
bush's
read
my
lips
". '
clinton,s
,didn't
inhale,'
even
milli
vaniili's
lip-synching
-
why
i'"'rite
fiction in a time of total fabrication
and
iesl
how
to
narrate
so
nothing
more
happensl
how
to
storytell
eventsso
not
even
one
more
-"kes
place?
here's
only
one
thing
worse
han
the
twentieth
century:
hauing
survived
it'
this
is
for
me
the
un-final
dilemma:
why
and
how
to
write
narrative
n a
time
when
man
begins
to
be
ndescribablel
N
OT E
r
chupacabras
was
dimly
photographed'
t
was
never
captured
alive'
the
best
shots
were
of
it as
a
badiy
decomposed
corpse'
hat's
what
i liked
about
it
J
D
L
o-
o
m.
n
o
r
(:-
7/24/2019 Yépez - On Character 2004
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yepez-on-character-2004 9/9
R
i
s
a
a
E
"
P
h
g
+
6
E
P
F
P
@
X D
;
+
.
d
o
*
"
H
H
r
=
,
-
A
=
x
J
E
P
{
x
<
A
t
s
d
E
+
S
R
+
n
t
i
s
p
E
H
5
*
x
d
s
S
X
f
r
H
E
o
x
H
t
9
6
F
H
:
P
@
(
o
@