. . . . . . . Supervalent Thought


The Book of Love is long and boring, no one can lift the damn thing . . .

Delaminated from week 1 lecture notes, Love Theory (Winter 2012)…

I am a love theorist. I sometimes feel dissociated from all my loves. I sometimes ask them to hold more of an image of me than I can hold. By “sometimes” I mean all the times. The image is the regressed form, not the narrative noise that comes later to try to apply adhesive to the fantasy and its representation in objects, so that I know I am an event that lives in the world. The love and the images available for it are in a Thunderdome death-love match, yet we act as though affect could be held within a steady-state space like meat on a hook, or the image of meat on a hook, since actual meat turns green. Most storage lockers are cold enough to slow down that decay, as we know from narrative and domesticity. Aggressions and tenderness pop around in me without much of a thing on which to project blame steadily or balance an idealization. So it’s just me and  phantasmagoric noise that only sometimes feels like a cover song for a structuring shape or an improv around genre. In love I’m left holding the chaos bag and there is no solution that would make these things into sweet puzzle pieces. See Phillips’ reading of attachment as the drive to return to the taste of another person: the “sweetness” love stands for binds itself to an infinity of objects and plots and strategies for investing the scene with a worthiness matching our intensity of a need for its nourishment.  This is why, perhaps too, Laplanche uses the word “metabolize.”

This is a philosophical “I”. I don’t feel like using “we,” because I fall into the banality pit when I do. (See Derrida on film on love. He should have trusted his first instinct to say nothing, since what he says is nothing, but he was being a good boy, and trying to maintain his availability for the interviewer’s idealization, the death in life of the call and response: he was trying to be loveable.  Maybe the phrases one offers as gifts are the best love because they metarecognize the demand for love in any call: but, in itself, the professor’s discourse is not an opening to the other’s inconvenience, and it is not love if it is not opened to that.)

Detachment on a good day, dissociation during the stressful ones, overwhelmed and awkward on the days that begin flooded, and when it works, a lot of imitative affect mixing optimism and protective coating so that, reliably, while the internal objects are splashing around the external ones are getting the best of it. The heart bursts, Nancy says, and love isn’t dialectical, some stupid unimaginative feedback loop. I find that part almost delightful.

Apostrophe is not only the condition of love but an ideal of self-encounter. Can the addressee make more of it than you can, is she you who waits for the sentence of your existence to finish and, inevitably, to miss its mark?  For the addressee, you are willing to make provisional clarities. For the addressee, you are willing to perform an openness that’s an optimistic brokenness. If you’re lucky, you’re a topos in your own world, although without the apostrophic phantom you cannot exist in the world.  I am writing on a short story now in which the protagonist moves from telling his story as “I do x” to saying “you do x” because he is looking for some refuge in the general, a pattern of self-detachment that would feel less lonely than he feels, if language could pull it off, but language can’t pull it off entirely, which doesn’t mean that one should give up trying this or that.  Something might happen and a structure might shift its symbolizations. That is the hope of love, the Eternal Sunshine to which you just have to say “ok” to walking awkwardly and falling down on the ice.  The truth is closer to Amores Perros, in which love wounds so badly that all you can do is walk away.  But if you carry the image with you it will itch you to put it next to other things in an almost return that renews, without repeating, love.

It isn’t an ethical problem, whether one or a population is held in the world as an idealizable image in the minds of others: it’s what’s needed for anyone, to have a world that can hold an image of them more complete than the image they can hold of themselves. We watched a clip cluster from Sex in the City, which was one after another scene of a woman demanding recognition from objects or persons whose job it was to become-objects, and no wonder why having a real doll is a dream, because you can make it say “I love you”,” “I desire you,” “I’m sorry,” “Does that feel good,” and “Why did that bastard say that to you?” in an eternal loop of distant listening, light touch reflection, magnification, and shrinkage, an archive of impacts whose success or failure depends more than anything on the timing of the effort to assimilate to the lie that the statement of love is not merely a proposition. I moved from I to you. Distortion is not falsehood. Blame it on the failure of language to hold perfect phrases for the states that have multiple aims but do not stop communicating regardless.

I have been reading Ariana Reines’ The Cow.  Three students gave me this book within a space of six months, and then I’ve given it to people who I thought could bear it and not a single person has been able to, which I find interesting (I mean, my failed judgment of my intimates is interesting to me). When I gift a book or a film it is personal after all, more than buying clothes for someone: an imagination of someone’s pleasure in relation to a demand for their attention.  Is it the kind of book my students give me because they sense that—actually,  I don’t know. It is as though they perceive frustration beneath my apologetic pedagogic poetics (Oh come on, try, this is hard, I can brainstorm a hundred examples and maybe maybe then you can and maybe you can hear something and surprise yourself later, which is how Bollas describes “the unthought known” in relation to the aesthetic, which doesn’t represent what you know but provides a setting to encounter its impact.)

I am a love theorist, how did that happen? I was doing ideology critique and fell down the rabbit hole, the donut hole, the pipette. I have a book coming out with some older thought about all this, but the examples are all wrong.  Always, the examples are all wrong, which is why love theory tends to be so conservative—ProustProustProustBovaryBovaryBovaryAbelardEloiseCourtly.  It’s not that the classics can’t be wrong, it’s that they won’t be disgusting, and love theorists tend to have an aversion to the disgusting.

I sometimes feel dissociated from all my loves. “I’ve got to get out of here. I choose a piece of shawl and my dirtiest suntans.”


20 Comments so far
Leave a comment

As I read this, I’m amazed at how much I’ve incidentally absorbed of all this, despite having tumbled out of a quarter’s worth of classes in a daze. Love the phrase “an opening to the other’s inconvenience,” and your parenthetical description of your “apologetic pedagogic poetics”. I wonder now what book I might have given you, had I thought to give one.

(In lieu of that, here’s a bit of your work in “unthought known” form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2630)

Comment by Colin

loretta lynn sings about moving on after being wronged, patsy cline and hank williams can’t let go; attachment or disattachment is in their voice – not quite in language but its delivery system.

Comment by Rick

“It’s the cliches that cause the trouble. A precise emotion seeks a precise expression. If what I feel is not precise then should I call it love? It is so terrifying, love, that all I can do is shove it under a dump bin of pink cuddly toys and send myself a greetings card saying ‘Congratulations on your Engagement’. But I am not engaged I am deeply distracted. I am desperately looking the other way so that love won’t see me. I want the diluted version, the sloppy language, the insignificant gestures.” (Jeanette Winterson, __Written on the Body__).

Comment by Ali Altaf Mian

[...] “The book of love is sad and boring, no one can lift the damn thing. . .” [...]

Pingback by Sunday Reading « zunguzungu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nmW0wQnMWA (But then again, as you say, we could go at this forever…)

Comment by PW

“Blame it on the failure of language to hold perfect phrases for the states that have multiple aims but do not stop communicating regardless.” So great, really helpful.

Comment by Mandy Berry

Second that!

Comment by Tom Perrin

“Blame it on the failure of language to hold perfect phrases for the states that have multiple aims but do not stop communicating regardless.”

I wonder if this is a reason why language that has to do with indeterminate or nonconceptual stuff has to renew itself so often (as in humanities depts). Language is (maybe) a medium that deals primarily in determinate concepts. Over time concepts accrue and calcify around terms that were supposed to refer to something indeterminate and so the terms end up having to be thrown out and replaced with new ones — e.g. Communism, aesthetics, existentialism, poststructuralism. Maybe the language of indeterminacy is always in the business of attempting to outrun meaning, which always catches up with it.

Comment by Tom Perrin

It seems like language is the inconvenient other/lover to/for whom it is impossible to be open. It’s either too determined and determining (aargh, reductive, shrinking, paralyzying! I meant so much more, and more slipperily, in some kind of vibration of impossible time and space, all the things that need to be said at the same time to make meaning effective fucked by their own temporal requirements), or then also not enough those things (I fail to be precise, these words aren’t making the mark or commitment I intend or need them to make, for me, for you). Language can’t do anything–by which I mean fail since the degree to which it is effective is a measure of how inadequate it isn’t–without being heard or read and that’s fucking inconvenient. Love in this piece wants to be relational, social, but it also wants to live at the place of a relationship between language and language (maybe most meaningfully as an internal state, protected from external audience but not from audience, a pre-state full of promise promise). Love is the desire for love as sociability. Seems like the repeating sticking point here is desire itself, always formed in advance of, of anything, constitutively. Asking someone or something to hold an image of yourself (a better, bigger, etc image) suggests an expectation that a person might have some way of knowing that image when he or she saw it or it was expressed. The expectations kind of kill the possibility for the effects you’re describing, which could only really be this chaotic if they could actually exists somehow separate from your ability to recognize them.

Comment by Mandy Berry

“The expectations kind of kill the possibility for the effects you’re describing, which could only really be this chaotic if they could actually exists somehow separate from your ability to recognize them”

So true, but at the same time we do keep trying to find expression for the non-expressible as if we could do more than merely gesture in its general direction, and as if our ability to recognize things might not be wholly determined by categories like language.

Comment by Tom Perrin

yes please, more disgusting things and dirty suntans in love!

Comment by eliot

It’s all so spatial.

Comment by Mandy Berry

“The only cure for loneliness is aloneness.” I’m curious if you are familiar with any of the work of CG Jung, Marie-Louise von Franz, Edward Edinger or James Hillman. Those are 4 who come to mind that have theorized extensively on love.

Comment by Jonah Dempcy

A couple others who have contributed to love theory: Richard Tarnas’ archetypal cosmology (co-created with Stanislav Grof) is an interesting exploration of love by way of Jungian archetypes, and RA Johnson has some rather pop-culture self-help books which nevertheless elucidate the subject immensely.

Comment by Jonah Dempcy

I think the line is: “the book of love is LONG and boring; no-one can lift the damn thing…” In reference to love, long is the opposite of sad.

Comment by mzvive

[…] June 3, 2012: “Delaminated from week 1 lecture notes, Love Theory (Winter 2012)…I am a love theorist. I sometimes feel dissociated from all my loves.” […]

Pingback by On Reading Academic Blogs

[…] June 3, 2012: “Delaminated from week 1 lecture notes, Love Theory (Winter 2012)…I am a love theorist. I sometimes feel dissociated from all my loves.” […]

Pingback by On Reading Academic Blogs | Kristina Huang

[…] a mini reflection on Berlant’s ‘The book of love is sad and boring and no one can lift the damn thing”: http://supervalentthought.com/2012/06/03/the-book-of-love-is-sad-and-boring-no-one-can-lift-the-damn… […]

Pingback by Don’t you see I’m burning? | politics of the hap

[…] Always, the examples are all wrong, which is why love theory tends to be so conservative.” – The Book of Love is long and boring, no one can lift the damn thing . . . Lauren Berlant […]

Pingback by and instructions 4 dancing… | Curious

[…] sometimes (like LB) I feel disassociated from all my loves. It can feel safer than navigating that leap into […]

Pingback by Postscript. | Svadhyaya




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 528 other followers

%d bloggers like this: