Comments for Flash Fiction - Undulations in the Dark

Comment on Memes and Language by For those who argue over the existence of language, God, or atheism « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:07:38 +0000

[...] Memes and Language (diegosietesoles.wordpress.com) [...]

Comment on Memes and Language by the paradox of “literal interpretations” (and how to stop being perfect) « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:05:41 +0000

[...] Memes and Language (diegosietesoles.wordpress.com) Share this:FacebookLinkedInTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

Comment on Why “The Social Network” is truly the reflection of today’s society by Cheryl Chew

Cheryl Chew — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:25:46 +0000

I love this.

Comment on Memes and Language by sizzling lemon

sizzling lemon — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:56:07 +0000

I have been learning a bit of the “meme evolution” at school, and this post was a great read!

Comment on Why “The Social Network” is truly the reflection of today’s society by Tweets that mention Why “The Social Network” is truly the reflection of today’s society « Flash Fiction – Undulations in the Dark -- Topsy.com

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:03:39 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Luis Antonio, Diego Rincon. Diego Rincon said: Why "The Social Network" is truly the reflection of today's society: http://wp.me/pKfw1-69 [...]

Comment on Parenthesis – James Joyce and Van Gogh by diegosietesoles

diegosietesoles — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:53:49 +0000

Thanks a lot for the comment. It complements the post

Comment on Parenthesis – James Joyce and Van Gogh by Ed Hemlock

Ed Hemlock — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:52:33 +0000

I found the comparision between “Beside the rivering waters of, hither and thithering waters of, night” and van Gogh’s Starry Night plausible and illuminating. But I, too, think there is something much more important that Joyce and van Gogh have in common than an affinity of sensibility and an exceptional degree of artistic skill. Namely, their deep desire to restore respect and esteem to ordinary people and to everyday life. Working class, but also, in the case of Joyce, in particular, bourgeois. This may be the same point Jay Miller is making, or closely related perhaps. I note that both men wanted commerical success. Joyce even established Dublin’s first movie theater. The books that have most informed my views are Martin Gayford’s The Yellow House and Declan Kiberd’s Ulysses and Us. Their perceptions agree with, articulate, extend, and refine my own basic perceptions of the two artists’ work. I think it is also of interest to note the affinity here with the later Wittgenstein, as revealed in the memoirs of him left by Maurice Drury and G. H. von Wright especially.

Comment on Parenthesis – James Joyce and Van Gogh by diegosietesoles

diegosietesoles — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:09:42 +0000

It’s very interesting what you say about Nabokov, but I don’t admire Nabokov exclusively. There are many others too: in Spanish Cortazar and Borges are at the top of my list and Joyce, Poe, Shakespeare, Pratchett, Tolkien and so on. It’s certain that I do like Nabokov’s writings, but that doesn’t imply that I have to agree with his opinions. But that’s all that I’ll say about this… I don’t like to write opinions much; I think it’s childish to think that your own opinion – in the end just a particular organization of the world – has more “truth” than others. That’s why I think it’s more interesting to write fiction. In there you are always right because you’re the God of the world you create… Anyway, thank you for reading my stuff and for the very good and well educated comment. Even though we might not agree on everything it’s good that people with a brain visit my site.

Comment on Parenthesis – James Joyce and Van Gogh by Jay Miller

Jay Miller — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:14:23 +0000

A bittersweet victory?
Considering that editors seem like asses because of their incessant changing of your own writing, let me advise you not to see me as such in saying this: if you had just written that with which you responded I would have understood your vague idea. Now that the occasion of you seeing a stranger as a shark is upon us, allow me to add a tier to my thesis against your love affair for Nabokov (what with you and your obsessive reference to his one quote). This quote and your usage (seen at the top of this page, in this post, and in at least one post on the front page) CONVERTED you into Nabokov: a generalist snob, writing prophetic scripture to apply to two very broad fields of painting and literature, despite you narrowing it down to the genres of Joyce (realism and modernism) and Van Gogh (impressionism, pointillism).

Why is this such an offense to the reader?
In seeking an item worthy to affirm my views on the ties between Joyce and Van Gogh (either by seeing that my idea has been thought and produced already or by seeing the opposite of it) I instead find this and I might as well come out and say it again, that your idea was not even half-baked and it was a false hope considering the obvious goal of this blog: to show your artistic side. The only salvageable hint of value in this entire webpage is that you at least know the names of some artists and you may even know a bit about their lives, but look at what Bolaño, Cervantes, or Nabokov is known for: they tell us to avoid being paparazzi of any literary figure.

Isn’t it ironic?
The iconoclastic Nabokov, who has shot down numerous authors in his open-mouth-insert-foot-style criticisms (such as his attack against Mann), is favoured by many other whitewash bloggers because he makes your lives easier by allowing you to fall in love with just him and none of the others. However, it was big names he shot down so that the Americans wouldn’t go into literary degrees to research one author exclusively and it seems as though you’re focusing exclusively on the excluder of exclusivity.

The commenter, isn’t he a heckler come too late for Nabokov himself?
Quite the contrary. I applaud the grave of the Russian for his romantic kamikaze displayed in Pale Fire and for the taboos broken in Lolita.

Could I just move on?
Well, considering that I am doing some heavy work involving the two aforementioned artists of two separate fields, I would rather not.

What are you doing here, then?
I suppose I’d more or less like to invite myself to muse with you about those two and this was the test to see if you were alive.

Do I admire you?
Don’t flatter yourself: yes.

Comment on Parenthesis – James Joyce and Van Gogh by diegosietesoles

diegosietesoles — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:32:37 +0000

Firstly, thank you for reading my blog (even if it was only this one time). Secondly, if there’s anything I don’t like is what you call “drool of proving yourself an intellectual” which I’m not and will never be, even though I studied Maths and Philosophy (which has no significance whatsoever in terms of “being better” or whatever, and don’t think I said this because I want to impress). If you read a little more of my blog (especially the Ed and Mark shorts or other pieces) you’ll see that I hate that. I really do. Now, you’re right, I’m not an expert on Joyce or Van Gogh and I don’t really know their historic similarities. However, I think history only serves us to look upon artists’ works as collection of references, without paying attention to -what I believe to be the real deal- their norms about writing/painting/etc… For me Joyce, Nabokov, Van Gogh (and others, such as Cortázar, Poe, Shakespeare, Tolkien…) share that perspective towards a work of fiction (even if it was taken from reality, Van Gogh’s paintings are fiction). And I believe this one quote from Finnegan’s Wake “Beside the rivering waters of, hither and thithering waters of, night” and both Starry Nights reflect this. The sentence is like a caption to Van Gogh’s painting, no only because they both talk about the night but because they represent an artistic movement that goes beyond technique or the vulgar purpose of “descriptions of the lower middle class.” Their works were more about an exaltation of language itself; everything is language, even you, everything one does is language, and Joyce, Nabokov and Van Gogh saw that. Their purpose was not to describe reality but to enhance it, transform it. That’s the reason I published this post, because I think its important to make other people notice that works of fiction only surpass the terrifying doom of trying to capture reality when they seize to do this and try instead to use reality -its elements- to create something else.

What I truly think about these artists? Well, there’s a quote from Joyce (its on the back of Dubliner’s Modern Library Ed.), it says: “I am trying… to give people some kind of intellectual pleasure or spiritual enjoyment by CONVERTING the bread of everyday life into something that has a permanent artistic life of its own… Do you see that man who has just skipped out of the way of the tram? Consider, if he had been run over, how significant every act of his would at once become.” That for me is the highest purpose in art, and I think Van Gogh and Joyce stuck to it. I often compare them with magicians. Magicians take nature and transform it into something else by simply thinking about it, or by summoning an inner power; artists take “the bread of everyday life” and do the same.