Hamlet. Who are you man?! #conspiracy theory unveiled

Add this math and then tell me whose stories we’re telling!!

1. In episode 1 of the podcast Justin Clemens talks about a personal link between reading trash Sci-Fantasy and Hamlet. He then details how Michael Moorcock used royalties from The Knight of the Swords to fund New Wave SF magazine New Worlds, which went on to publish Pynchon, …and Burroughs.

2. Burroughs said literature was an alien virus from outer space...

3. P K Dick scholar, AND self-described former Shakespeare man, Christopher Palmer, said that Hamlet was a play morphing into the novel form …via its excessive use of surveillance! #conspiracy

4. Kundera says the novel enters literature as Quixote rides out into the un-God desert of the universe and fiction.

5. Creator of 2001, Arthur C. Clarke, says narrative and the Mandelbrot set are linked. #chaos

6. Ursula K. Le Guin, SF writer and critic, disseminates narrative theories.

7. P K Dick invented the Voight-Kampff test.

8. Timelords can’t love!

9. Hamlet has no empathy! Clemens: “He’s basically a psycho killer.”!!

= 10??

For the full and revealing discussion of WHO OR WHAT SENT US THE NOVEL FORM?! tune in to episode 1 of the podcast:







Literary Punk podcast # 1: resources on the human subject at the coalface with language

Here are some of my hero resources for this punk area of literary theory and life!

Slavoj Žižek, Lacan, London: Granta Books, 2006.  Žižek’s how-to-read-Lacan’s-“linguistic reading of the entire psychoanalytic edifice” is brilliant!  Žižek has that unmistakable Freud thing: he makes psychoanalytic theory read like a novella. (Freud won the 1930 Goethe Prize for literature.  In my opinion ‘Dora’ is one of the best 19th century novellas you’ll ever read. They teach it at Princeton in a course called Reading Freud’s Great Case Histories as Short Stories.)

Another short yet thrilling resource is  ‘A Question of Subjectivity – an Interview’, Julia Kristeva interviewed by Susan Sellers. Initially published in Women’s Review, #12,  it was republished in Modern Literary Theory – A Reader, London: Edward Arnold, 1989, pp.128-34.  I still paw this interview filled with trepidation at the way these two traverse the beautiful, shocking process of the unconscious in a creative relationship with language.

(Check university library basement periodical collections for hard copies of Women’s Review.  Modern Literary Theory – A Reader will be on shelf. I like to read the Lacan on an e-Reader in bed.)