Light in August, William Faulkner, pp.35

…………The newcomer turned without a word. The others watched him go down to the sawdust pile and vanish and reappear with a shovel and go to work. The foreman and the superintendent were talking at the door. They parted and the foreman returned. “His name is Christmas,” he said,
…………“His name is what?” one said.
…………“Christmas.”
…………“Is he a foreigner?”
…………“Did you ever hear of a white man named Christmas?” the foreman said.
…………“I never heard of nobody a-tall named it,” the other said.
…………And that was the first time Byron remembered that he had ever thought how a man’s name, which is supposed to be just the sound for who he is, can be somehow an augur of what he will do, if other men can only read the meaning in time.

The mention of a medallion hanging from a watch chain with the inscription respice finem in Tolstoy’s Death of Ivan Ilyich reminded me of a watch with the same inscription in Wallace’s Good Old Neon. (Quotes Below). Perhaps the authors simply hit upon the same trope, but there are also thematic parallels to the stories (the falsity of living and of oneself, the revelation of death) which may indicate that Wallace, in making this reference, was consciously alluding to Tolstoy’s work.

*

“This falsity around and within him did more than anything else to poison his last days.”~Death of Ivan Ilyich

watch chain quotes. _{“Another of my stepmother’s treasured antiques was a silver pocket-watch of her maternal grandfather’s with the Latin RESPICE FINEM inscribed on the inside of the case.” (Good Old Neon.)}

_{“Ilych ordered himself clothes at Scharmer’s, the fashionable tailor, hung a medallion inscribed respice finem on his watch-chain” (Death of Ivan Ilyich)}

Probably not related but this part of a letter from Kafka to Milena (June 12, 1920) brought to mind his story The Burrow, which was written three years later. “What a terrible story,” he writes (speaking of something Max Brod had written him about)–

Once I caught a mole and carried him into the hops garden. When I tossed him on the ground he plunged into the earth like a madman, disappearing as if he had dived into water. That is how one would have to hide from this story.

And, a couple months later, pp. 138 of the Boehm translation, he writes these lines (speaking of his dashed hopes of seeing her):

I wouldn’t have to mention this at all, it’s just that I was so happy to find this narrow tunnel leading out of the dark apartment to you. I had thrown myself into it with all my soul, into this passageway which could […] lead to you but which instead runs smack into the impenetrable stone of Please-don’t-come. So now I have to turn back, again with all my soul, slowly return though the passage I had dug so quickly, and fill it in. That hurts a little, you see, but it can’t be all that bad, since I’m able to write about it in such a tedious manner. In the end one always finds new tunnels to burrow, old mole that one is.

From psalm 137:

5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,

let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth;
if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Because I’ve never understood Faulkner’s naming of If I Forget Three Jerusalem, I wonder if this Brothers Karamazov quote might have had to do with it. (Its themes of conception/ abortion contrasted with grief for a child’s death in Dostoyevsky). Garnett:

“I don’t want a good boy! I don’t want another boy!” he muttered in a wild whisper, clenching his teeth. “If I forget thee, Jerusalem, may my tongue….” He broke off with a sob and sank on his knees before the wooden bench. Pressing his fists against his head, he began sobbing with absurd whimpering cries, doing his utmost that his cries should not be heard in the room.

*
(Other literary references to Psalm 137.)

banausic netball weltanschauung
numerosity
americium
“I buy but few things,
and those till not lo
ng after I begin to w
ant them, so that whe
n I do get them I am
prepared to make a pe
rfect use of them and
extract their whole s
weet.”~Thoreau (Journ
als)

Thomas Pynchon, Against The Day (722):

As it turned out, however, this was too much to expect of Derrick Theign, who, ordinarily a bit more taciturn, now flew without warning into high-tessitura dismay, the moment Cyprian arrived at the pensione in Santa Croce loudly ejecting what would soon amount to gallons of mucus and saliva […].

Tessitura: the general pitch level or average range of a vocal or instrumental part in a musical composition: an uncomfortably high tessitura. (Pensione.)

Melville, The Bell Tower:

The casting of such a mass was deemed no small triumph for the caster; one, too, in which the state might not scorn to share. The homicide was overlooked. By the charitable that deed was but imputed to sudden transports of esthetic passion, not to any flagitious quality. A kick from an Arabian charger; not sign of vice, but blood.

Flagitious/ villainous.

The four mentions of the tamarisk in The Iliad (none in the Odyssey): [6.37-50]; [10.465-468]; [21.17-26];[21.342-355].

–Each time the tamarisk is mentioned it is involved in a scene of supplication: a combatant is captured and seen pleading for his life.

–In each of the four mentions it is a Trojan who is the supplicant, and an Achaian being supplicated, never the other way.

–In three of the four mentions it is a single Trojan supplicating two Achaians.

–In at least three of the four mentions there seems an underlying ambiguity as to how the scene will turn out: will the supplicant be treated mercifully?

–In three of the four mentions mercy is denied to the supplicant, resulting in his execution.

*
How the fourth mention of the tamarisk fits in with the others requires some additional explanation. But the principal differences are:

— they are not Trojans and Achaians per se, but their representatives from among the immortals (Hera and Hephaistos for the Achaians, Xanthos for the Trojans).

— the supplicant’s plea is granted (Hera tells Hephaistos to leave Xanthos alone, and he does.)

Additionally, it’s notable that the tamarisk (along with other plants) is said to be burnt in this mention. (Does that symbolize an end of merciless treatment toward supplicants as well.)… The Greek word translated as ‘tamarisk’ is murikay (μυρίκη) (a further note on this subject here).

A graphic to help have an idea of the movie. By low, high and middle art, I mean: rock/ television; classical/ painting; Jazz/ drama. (Though not apparent from the graphic it’s notable how people associated with one art form will confront people associated with other genres; for instance, Fredryck, the painter, watches television and meets a rock star. Holly, a fan of rock music, goes to the opera, etc.) Also, people on the right side evince a sort of resistance toward Hannah’s self-reliance and control, while on the left they are admiring and appreciate the order she gives.

doryphore
Diaspora
judder cannellini
Jugendstil…. Calgacus chaparral
junkettaceous ……………….. corny
Jambudvipa ………….. chryselephantine

A passage here in which Kierkegaard is speaking about how to read properly a devotional text, but I think there might be a broader secular application as well (an idea of how to read anything seriously-intended properly).

In the usual course of things, says Kierkegaard, a priest or devotional writer is viewed as a kind of actor and a congregation is like an audience sitting in judgment over whether the actor’s performance has been good or not.

But the way it should be, Eternity is the audience; the listener (reader) is the actor reciting to Eternity; and the author (priest) is a prompter (prompter) telling the listener which words to recite.

It may not make sense to substitute “novelist” for “speaker” in what’s below, but perhaps “reader” for “listener” does work, whatever is being read …. From Purity of Heart is To Will One Thing (Steere Translation, pp.180)

Alas, in regard to things spiritual, the foolishness of many is this, that they in the secular sense look upon the speaker as an actor, and the listeners as theater goers who are to pass judgment upon the artist. But the speaker is not the actor — not in the remotest sense. No, the speaker is the prompter. There are no mere theatergoers present, for each listener will be looking into his own heart. The stage is eternity, and the listener, if he is the true listener (and if not, he is at fault) stands before god during the talk. The prompter whispers to the actor what he is to say, but the actor’s repetition of it is the main concern — is the solemn charm of the art. The speaker whispers the word to the listeners. But the main conern is earnestness: that the listeners by themselves, with themselves, and to themselves, in the silence before God, may speak with the help of this address.

………
………

1 * 2 * 3 *4 * 5 *6 *7

“Chicken” in Karamazov, soul idea

* | * | * | * | |* | * | * | * | | *

– – — — — — — — — — — —

*| *| *| |*| *| *| *
* | * | *

Craton garth loquat adonai

contrafactum decrescent prelusive “calpe“

itai-itai gorilla dust hibernaculum

Pawky Joint Sthène Megalonyx Aloadae

Anguilla rostrata Stan Getz Italus

chiliastic copepod disparition insult (et.)

diatomaceous earth Ungaretti euerie aphesis

Chicxulub crater La Garita Caldera Toba