[SIC] by Davis Schneiderman. Jaded Ibis Press. 150 pp. $16.00.
Davis Schneiderman is a prolific author of conceptual works of fiction, as well as criticism on William Burroughs and surrealism. [SIC] is volume two of his DEAD/BOOKS trilogy, and to help locate his newest fiction work a few words must be said about volume one, Blank (2011), also published by Jaded Ibis Press.
I started reading Blank in August of last year in Ottawa’s airport, which turned out to be propitious, alternately thumbing its pages and staring at the wares of the duty-free store. Turning in another direction I could see runways and observe how the sun and sky were very bright. All this while I waited to board my flight to British Columbia, regretting that Air Canada, our excuse for a national airline, had decided the plane should stop in Toronto. Direct flights are preferable. Blank is a direct flight. It takes place in the air, has a small cast of characters (two of whom fall in love, then out), and its activity occurs in a limited span of time.
Usually on planes you have a seatmate who is forgotten soon after you’ve touched down. But in this novel people insist on knowing each other, and they grow affectionate, and then there occurs a disagreement that sunders everything. I had reached that part by the time my row was called to board. Yet the book had pages to go, and I could hardly wait to see what happened. Normally I don’t take page-turners on a trip. Heck, I barely even read books with quotation marks around the speech anymore. But that’s a digression, and, as implied, Blank is anything but.
Most books that take place on airplanes focus on characters, frightened ones, supercilious ones stretching their limbs in business class and explaining to the man next to him (it’s always a man) how their sales trip went, children, the sleepers who snore undeterred by the yaw and pitch of the journey, and those nervous about being right next to the emergency exits. In the chapter “They argue,” a terrible and sudden hole in the lead couple’s tender and growing spiritual bond is shown, as if a part of the plane’s body had been ripped away, and they are exposed to the pitiless cold. Depressurizing occurs, visibly to them, and, if we have allowed ourselves to be engaged, to us as well. The next chapters, “More obstacles” and “They fall apart,” further illustrate the decline. Yet, in this case, what we normally get is not present. We don’t hear the characters open their saddened hearts, or close them up, or anything. It’s not the usual set of noises heard on planes that drowns out their words. What Schneiderman has done, and how it continues in [SIC], is more evocative.
But first let me continue talking about Blank. We associate noise with pandemonium, waterfalls, industrial sites, revolutions, and airplane travel—from the beeps of machinery to the incessant roaring of engines. We have made a special category of white noise. It’s that category Schneiderman has given a twist, for, other than the titles to the 20 chapters given in the table of contents, and the author’s name and the title of the book at the top of all the pages, in Blank there are no words. Instead there are ragged images of the sky (or many skies), one or maybe two per chapter, and each chapter is 10 pages long. Everything I’ve imagined that could happen in a chapter called “They encounter an animal” might not be very original, but it springs from and into the space supplied to my mind. Another person reading the same chapter would fill it with different material. Nevertheless, Schneiderman’s name and his title top the pages and own the book, the setting, figures, and timeframe (this book adheres to the Aristotelian unities), as well as the impetus for us to re-think the contents.
Blank, the first volume of DEAD/BOOKS, is a bound collection of paper not much at variance from a blank journal empty of thought but full of potential. One can write anything in it, as I wrote a rough draft of the first few paragraphs of this review on that plane trip, but I can see how other readers might view Blank as a con, or a work of cleverness that might at best be witty but, more likely, not possessing value. It could be seen as an unpromising academic exercise.
I didn’t make it up that I regarded it as a page-turner, for intellectual audacity can be as stimulating as any plot featuring dames, money, and guns. Blank, in my view (though this may be a wish in excess of what Schneiderman’s aiming to achieve), takes minimalism as far as it can go in the hopes that writers will give up on it for fucking ever. Yet even with everything removed, save for tiny exceptions, the ghostly trace of the author remains, something addressed by the antepenultimate and penultimate chapters: “You die” and “I die.” Yet we don’t have the death (or dearth) of the narrator or the author since there’s one more chapter and the headers, the word “novel” on the cover, and so on. Plus, I refute the aim of the book, to whittle down what needs to be shown and said (and am encouraged or teased into doing that), by scribbling on those white sheets what can loosely be called my own thoughts.
In 2011 Andrew Gallix, in the Guardian, wrote a piece on unread difficult books, and he mentioned “an anthology of blank books [edited by Michael Gibbs] entitled All Or Nothing.” We can consider Blank as continuing that line. Kenneth Goldsmith’s prefatory essay “Why Conceptual Writing? Why Now?” in Against Expression: An Anthology of Conceptual Writing (2011) contains these useful lines: “What has happened in the past fifteen years has forced writers to conceive of language in ways unthinkable just a short time ago. With an unprecedented onslaught of the sheer quantity of language . . . , the writer faces the challenge of exactly how best to respond.” In volume one of his trilogy, Schneiderman edged near to muteness, but in [SIC] he has positioned himself, the work, and us in a new spot. His latest book is filled with words. None of them are his.
Oulipian Daniel Levin Becker, in his introduction written in 99 notes (riffing on the late Raymond Queneau’s Exercises in Style, where one anecdote is written in 99 ways), states at the outset: “It is not without mixed feelings that I realize I have agreed to write the only original words, so to speak, in this book.” Note 12 comments on the exactitude of note 1: “But then of course what is an original word?”
[SIC] proper starts with the table of contents, broken into three sections: Part 1: From (Pre-1923); Part 2: The Borges Transformations (1939-present); Part 3: @ (Post-1923). These pages tell us that everything to come is written by someone other than Schneiderman. To choose a few examples, after a definition of the word “from,” part 1 opens with Caedmon’s Hymn (7th and 8th century), and moves forward in time through Utopia, the journals of Captain Cook, a poem by Keats, The Confidence-Man, and ends with Ulysses. All of these are pre-copyright, while the other parts contain works that rest in the public domain, and Schneiderman has signed his name to each and every item. “Why are so many writers now exploring strategies of copying and appropriation?” Goldsmith asks in the same essay quoted above. “It’s simple: the computer encourages us to mimic its workings. If cutting and pasting were integral to the writing process, we would be mad to imagine that writers wouldn’t explore and exploit those functions in ways that their creators didn’t intend.” Further: “When I dump a clipboard’s worth of language from somewhere else into my work and massage its formatting and font to look exactly like it’s always been there, then, suddenly, it feels like it’s mine.”
In part 2 Schneiderman does just that by taking “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote,” by Borges, and running its original Spanish through several language translation programs, veering from Italian to Estonian, to Japanese, and ending in English. The result is what he did more than what he created, and the product is mostly gibberish that is unlike any text we know, let alone the original (for original, read: the one we may be familiar with), but it does bear certain marks found in what Borges wrote. Part 3 is filled with documents from after 1923, the year of advances (or retardations, depending on the point of view) in copyright law, such as chain letters, songs, and recipes that can lead into speeches, a computer virus, and a series of tweets.
Schneiderman says to Levin Becker in the introduction: “‘You don’t really need to “read” it, as it is a work of conceptual literature.’” That’s mischievous, a joke on the enterprise, on a reader’s abilities, and on the way the book can be approached. (Or perhaps what’s also meant is that we can just follow the spectral figure in the black-and-white photographs by Andi Olsen, a white humanoid that has a lot of time to itself, in Paris and other places, and leave the text alone.) Yes, it’s more an idea about what to do in literary fiction than something by Jonathan Franzen, but it is an exciting leap, and, from my perspective, it is also an anthology of prose and pros (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Melville. and computer programmers among them), a radical re-visioning of the familiar Norton reader.
The purpose of [SIC] is manifold: to unsettle expectations, to show what we can do to and in the novel, to make us revisit the concept of originality and copying, to transform before our eyes other people’s words and conceits into new shapes and designs that, as Goldsmith said, make them “mine.” Schneiderman appears to be without illusions as to the uniqueness of this or any work, and the third volume, INK, will carry the project forward into new terrain. As for [SIC], you may think: Why buy this book when I have the originals already? Not in these versions you don’t. Try though Davis Schneiderman does to remove himself, something singular about his mind resides in this work of fiction despite and amongst the borrowing, and we can’t help but notice it.
Canadian writer Jeff Bursey has written reviews and articles for journals in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. His first book, Verbatim: A Novel, was published in October 2010 by Enfield & Wizenty.
Read More on this Subject:
More from The Quarterly Conversation:
- The Lydia Davis Interview I also tend to personify things outside myself. My son pokes fun at me for that, though he also finds it contagious. I’ve done this since I was quite young—I remember walking in the woods by myself and feeling that the trees were conscious beings. I probably still feel that...
- Like Sugar Dissolving: On The End of the Story by Lydia Davis If the direction of Davis’s writing tends toward, as she once observed in an interview, “philosophical investigation,” perhaps it is fitting that almost all of it falls into the category of the short story—a form which, in her hands, affirms its affinities with the pensée, the fragment, the meditation. For...
- The Lydia Davis Assignment When I was first asked to write something about Lydia Davis—anything at all, be as creative as you want—my instinct was to say no. The request didn’t come at a good time (though it did come from a good source), and I didn’t know anything at all about Lydia Davis,...
- Notes from the Netherlands: On Lydia Davis’ translations of A.L. Snijders Imagine a literary genre much like a diary but composed for immediate consumption. A genre part commonplace book, part Blue Octavo Notebooks, part Twitter stream. Imagine something like a blog but written by public intellectuals and printed in major newspapers, or read out on national radio or television. Imagine a...
- On the Inimitable Lydia Davis Among other things, Lydia Davis is a keen observer of her own mind. Terse sentences delineate some of the most intimate and urgent experiences of inner life, while characters seem to stand for isolated aspects of the self in duress as it tries to put into words the unintelligible stuff...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Read more articles by Jeff Bursey