List Of Things Am Trying To Say By Typing

1. that the existence of science fiction does not mean that less spectacular narrative forms engage somehow with science-fact or real-technology

a. that because there are not robots on the page does not mean there is not still the ongoing fabulation of the relationship between subjectivity and the peculiar thing called technology

  • that the novel does not provide complete and unbridled access to the “other” which is somehow rationalized into “proper” ethical action.

– that the most important reading acknowledges that it happens in the face of threats to life

i) that writing and/or writings of reading cannot just be read to coherently or totally imagineorexperienceoraccess the other and contribute to lessening your anxiety about the world (basically to calm yourself)

A. that the latter view though is the blanket perspective of a lot of teachers of reading (including me when I was one before)
TT: that narratives about forms of technology always highlight the problems, the trouble, and this is trouble about relations of power and communication, not about technological objects themselves


NB that I can see the appeal of this manifesto thing it’s fun


/that it is mainly a case of where you choose to locate magic


+that yes, okay, Neuromancer was really cool wasn’t it


4. that the cyborg is not a cartoon of a posthuman utopia but an image of survival that can be read


44. that the notion that “technology diminishes us” ignores how violent writing  “diminishes” people in matters of survival

444. that the works of certain writers “diminish us” more than technology ever has done or will do and that this is all gettingabitchildishsorry

^that an attempt to understand the novel as an ultimate or coherent ethical document is a form of violence, and that any attempts at this kind of understanding should continually show their understanding of this in the interests not of clever priggishness but of demonstrating care


=that telling stories about technology is a part of a part of all claims about life, claims which are all predicated on what it is important to care about


!!that stories are not benign, neither are they entirely replicable


>>that you only see it (whatever) when it’s interrupted-cut-called at-breached-made broke(d), but that *interruption is neither a wake-up-call nor a unique and sudden focus pull into the light but a constant and difficult logic by
which lives happen. you are cutting and interrupting


6.that it is not purposefully made difficult but is difficult to give an account of and that giving an account is necessarily to not completely explain

(o)that to get-it is a problem


(oo)that the default aim of most pursuits often seems to be to get-it

(ooo) that to get-it generally means in two ways, one to do with communication and one to do with physical violence

8. that mediation is form

  1. that in the very DNA of the novel is a desire to privilege mediation, a layering which is either more or less transparent or opaque depending upon what you are reading and (more significantly) how you are reading it.


**that just because something appears on a screen that that layer does not somehow supersede the relative opacity of the text**


D.) that if you’re worried about interfaces than you’re worried about texts (that none of this is my own work, you understand)


Fig. 1 that there are way more important things to worry about than all of that, but that this worry shows itself us as an easy recourse rather than a convincing way of demonstrating care



12. that it is possible to be in a position of critical responsibility and simultaneously to give a shit

22. that writing is reading is writing is reading is (that [so and so] was onto something and that [so and so] was wrong)


\\that when someone declares “you are not a gadget” they understand both you and gadgetry from a total position


Sub.3 that Inspector Gadget was inept but part of a network


B) that really can’t *just say any of this, don’t want to, but will, breach, continuuuing, and and