fiction files redux discussion

Wittgenstein's Mistress

I have no idea what this book is about. I liked the title and have heard great things about it. Nevertheless, I plan to damn them thar torpedos and lead a group read of this book come hell or highwater sometime after I get back from vacation June 5th.

Here is a summary from Amazon:

From Publishers Weekly -

In this unsettling, shimmering novel, the reader is immediately drawn into the world of a woman who has gone mad because she is the last surviving creature on earth. Sitting at a typewriter in a beach house day after uncharted dayshe keeps no calendar or clocksshe pours out her thoughts on music, art and ancient Greek legends, and remembrances of her travels across the globe in abandoned cars, looking for other living beings. But after a while, some discrepancies creep into her rambling, compelling monologue: an accident that she first says took place in New York now occurs in Leningrad; memories become distorted by imaginings. Were they ever really memories in the first place? By the end of this seamless stream of consciousness, there is no distinction between fantasy and reality, past and present. Markson (The Ballad of Dingus Magee) keeps the reader off balance and finally unsure of even the foundation of his character's madnessperhaps she is alone only because she believes she is.

Now that sounds creative. But is it any good?

Some more reviews from Amazon:

5 Stars: Unspeakably magnificent, October 18, 2001
4 Stars: Highly recommended and not only to art historians!, December 1, 1998
5 Stars: Heavens to Betsy, March 15, 2001

Cool. Let's read the "Heaven's to Betsy" review, shall we?

My, my, what a book. Such a difficult journey, for me: the endless art, historical and literary references were daunting. And the one-sentence-paragraph style and internal dialogue subject matter so jarring, especially after having just finished reading Infinite Jest (Wittgenstein's Mistress was a DFW recommendation). But I read on, aided by episodes of hilarity (such as the scene in which various painters and cats convene in the narrator's brain, or the speculation about whether Penelope really would have waited around for Odysseus' return) and moments of harrowing poignancy (the gravestone promised by a husband on a son's grave existing in the mind but not in reality). Well, it's hard to describe. But the last twenty or so pages were so intimate and frightening in their sadness as to make you want to reach into the book and hold her head to somehow stop the lonliness. Don't give up on this book.

Hey, that's interesting. I didn't know the DFW connection. And just so happens I'm taking bothInfinite Jest and Wittgenstein's Mistress with me on vaca. Coolness.
mm

Damn, now I wanna buy a copy. Will look foward to your thoughts on that book, Wittgenstein's Mistress.

This is the most amazing thread title ever.


I saw that DFW recommended this book. I haven't been able to find Witt's Mis at any of the bookstores here in the phoenix. In fact i could find none of Markson's books.

Thanks Michael for getting me pumped up for this book. I might have to resort to Amazon or Abe.

http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/catalog/...

$10 directly from the publisher. :)

Thanks for the link Patty. I did end up getting a copy along with some other goodies (Wodehouse, PKD etc.) from of all places, the library!

Who knew?!

. . . i think i made a post back in the old group about markson's most recent novel, 'the last novel', which i heard good things about . . .

Jonathan wrote: " . . . i think i made a post back in the old group about markson's most recent novel, 'the last novel', which i heard good things about . . ."

Jono: Did Will Miller every write one of his priceless philosophers sketches on Wittgenstein?

mm

First off: right click on this page and select “View Source”.

I’ve been flipping this week through my dog-eared copies of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus and his later, more admired, Philosophical Investigations trying to prepare for our group read of Wittgenstein's Mistress. It is interesting, of course, to go back and re-discover my undergraduate marginalia rotting in there; chicken scratches, hasty exclamation points drifting off to nowhere now, a bookmark made from the bookstore receipt. Can you believe college texts once cost $2.95? And who is this young man making these comments, he seems so familiar, and why on earth did he highlight this phrase?

[image error]

I am thinking that the novel will probably not deal too directly with Witt.’s line of thought per se, but probably cites him in the title primarily for his distinctive style of writing; short (numbered) sentences and paragraphs, aphorisms, brief analogies - or “language-games” as he calls them – and elegant statements. The Tractatus is a neat rubric, where major statements are numbered n.0, and more detailed statements underneath sub-headed n.x, n.xy, etc. For example,

4.121 Propositions cannot represent logical form: it is mirrored in them. What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent. What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language. Propositions show the logical form of reality. They display it.

4.1211 Thus one proposition 'f(a)' shows that the object a occurs in its sense, two propositions 'f(a)' and 'g(a)' show that the same object is mentioned in both of them. If two propositions contradict one another, then their structure shows it; the same is true if one of them follows from the other. And so on.

4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.

4.1213 Now, too, we understand our feeling that once we have a sign-language in which everything is all right, we already have a correct logical point of view.

PI, on the other, is much more scattered. He says in the forward (I have the 2nd edition), “I have written down all these thoughts as remarks, short paragraphs, of which there is sometimes a fairly long chain about the same subject, while I sometimes makes a sudden change, jumping from one topic to another…”

Indeed. It is this bursting, scattershot approach to his writing which has earned him a reputation as being something of the Jackson Pollack of philosophers.

The earlier Tractatus (1920) is (literally) addressed to Bertrand Russell, and the fascinating program Russell/Whitehead proposed to root the entire corpus of mathematics in Symbolic Logic (Frege) and Set Theory (Cantor). Much of the Tractatus is addressing the known issues with that program [BTW, David Foster Wallace wrote a great biography of Cantor, [book:Georg Cantor|3091375], which should be on anyone who is interested in mathematicians going mad short list of must-reads) but Witt. is also trying to expand this Logistic Thesis to include the less formal language of thought and experience.

In this, I think Witt. even admits, the Tractatus is something of a flop.

The Tractatus was, however, very influential and got Witt. a seat at the table in the 20th century’s mad dash to computer languages. Please again right click on this page and select “View Source”. This underlying (universal) scripting is in fact Witt.’s view of the world and of the underlying structure of natural language; so that even though the Tractatus might have its flaws, it gets some credit for predicting and explaining what we can see here as we wander the internets, and just how much of everyday thought and experience can indeed be scoped within a “merely” formal language.

I’ve gone on too long for now, but I want to come back at a later date and talk about PI a little more. I think it a much more interesting work.

Cheers,
mm

So, guess which book i disliked? This one. There were a lot of interesting bits of information that were obscured by a ceaselessly talking crazy bitch. She was the consummate unreliable narrator which had me doubting the interesting tidbits of trivia she rattled off. There was quite a bit of discussion about classical myth and tragedy which I enjoyed but not enough to make this not a waste of my time.

Ultimately this book seemed to be an exercise in form over storytelling which I don't particularly care for. We should have read the Tractatus....

I'm on page 31 of Wittgenstein's Mistress. Similar to McCarthy's "The Road". Sad and lonely. Disconnected and rambling. Nothing terrifying yet. Like canniblals. That might liven it up a bit. Anyone else moving along on this? Or are we giving it up as a bust?

Margaret wrote: "I'm on page 31 of Wittgenstein's Mistress. Similar to McCarthy's "The Road". Sad and lonely. Disconnected and rambling. Nothing terrifying yet. Like canniblals. That might liven it up a bit. Anyone..."


Mare: I don't plan to start reading this novel until sometime toward the beginning of June. Meanwhile, I am suckered into re-reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations in their entirety and wonder if I will ever be the same. I was just going in for a couple quotes, and before I knew it I was bewitched into playing his language games again, e.g. (from PI);

If I am inclined to suppose that a mouse has come into being by spontaneous generation out of grey rags and dust, I shall do well to examine those rags very closely to see how a mouse may have hidden in them, how it may have got there and so on. But if I am convinced that a mouse cannot come into being from these things, then this investigation will perhaps be superfluous.

But first we must learn to understand what it is that opposes such an examination of details in philosophy.

If you, or anyone else, want to get started on a discussion of Wittgenstein's Mistress right away, please don't wait for me. I can always play the caboose and try to keep the discussion on track from behind.

mm

I'm looking forward to reading this, and have it sitting on the stack waiting. But I'm also waiting until the beginning of June, as planned. I'll catch up later, if need be.

oh, I thought we were discussing it in June. Sorry. No rush.

Stupid book. I don't even want to discuss this one.

Margaret wrote: "Stupid book. I don't even want to discuss this one."

Join the club!

Well come on guys. That's not really fair... :-)

It didn't grab me - the title seemed the best part - but maybe I'm not thinking correctly about it.

Maybe I'm not experimental enough.

Maybe I'm not philosophical enough.

On Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know, I always go there first):

Though Markson's original manuscript was rejected fifty-four times, the book, when finally published in 1988 by Dalkey Archive Press, met with critical acclaim. In particular, the New York Times Book Review praised it for "address[ing:] formidable philosophic questions with tremendous wit." A decade later, David Foster Wallace described it as "pretty much the high point of experimental fiction in this country" in an article for Salon entitled "Five direly underappreciated U.S. novels >1960."

Shel wrote: "Well come on guys. That's not really fair... :-)

It didn't grab me - the title seemed the best part - but maybe I'm not thinking correctly about it.

Maybe I'm not experimental enough.

Maybe I'm ..."

Everyone knows I am a pretty big fan of DFW but I really don't care how he felt about this novel. To me it seemed boring and repetitive. I can see myself not being smart enough to appreciate this book. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter to me because i felt the book was a piece of shit. I am hoping that the rest of the group has a great conversation that I can learn something from.

My. Given the level of animadversion both Dan and Margaret evidence, I don't know if I even want to open this book!

Maybe the title is the best part! We'll see.


In any case, it got me to reread Wittgenstein, and I'll count that as a plus.

Dan: from what you suffered reading this, does the story (which starts "In the beginning. sometimes I left messages in the street" ) have any thing to do with Wittgenstein's concept of a Private Language? A concept which, like Menard's "...technical article on the possibility of enriching the game of chess by means of eliminating one of the rooks' pawns..." Wittgenstein proposes, recommends, disputes, and ends by rejecting. ;)

mm

Dan wrote: "Shel wrote: "Well come on guys. That's not really fair... :-)

It didn't grab me - the title seemed the best part - but maybe I'm not thinking correctly about it.

Maybe I'm not experimental enough..."

Zoiks. Since we've generally had similar reading tastes, sounds like you helped me dodge a bullet. Since I thought Wittgenstein was gay, the whole concept intrigued me... But maybe this will get me back to reading good ole Ludwig "Don't say it, point to it." Himself.

Michael wrote: "My. Given the level of animadversion both Dan and Margaret evidence, I don't know if I even want to open this book!

Maybe the title is the best part! We'll see.


In any case, it got me to ..."

Ok, so I was thinking about this today and didn't really remember too much about Wittgenstein in this book, I mean he was talked about and maybe I have a mental block on the book as a whole. There could be a lot of connections through Wittgenstein's philosophy to the book. I have only read his Tractatus and that was years ago (and I didn't really 'get it' then).

Though I sense you meant it in jest Michael I have a feeling that it does have something to do with W's Private Language. I am interested in what your reading and knowledge of W will bring to it.

Also, the book is a fast read if you absolutely hate it, though I am sure you will miss many of the philosophic underpinnings (if there are any).

Dan wrote: "Also, the book is a fast read if you absolutely hate it, though I am sure you will miss many of the philosophic underpinnings (if there are any)...."

Dan – I am searching for connections to Wittgenstein even before attempting our text, and I might be way off base. Time will tell. And I must say you folks have me worried that this upcoming read is going to be quite the chore.

I was serious bout grounding my reading in Witt’s concept of Private Language, but joking about Witt’s propensity (particularly in PI) to propose and then discard ideas willy-nilly; reminds me of Plato in that, putting forth a thesis just to have the characters in his dialogues tear said thesis to shreds.

I suspect in both cases the original thesis played well in the author’s mind.

The Stanford Encyclopedia website is a good place to find quick overviews of philosophical topics, and I would recommend this write-up of Wittgenstein for those who are interested. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wit... I’d point you to the following paragraph:

Three celebrated notions, which are closely related, ensue in the Wittgensteinian conversation: private language, form of life, and the notion of grammar. Directly following the rule-following sections in PI, and therefore easily thought to be the upshot of the discussion, are those sections called by interpreters "the private-language argument". Whether it be a veritable argument or not (and Wittgenstein never labeled it as such), these sections point out that for an utterance to be meaningful it must be possible in principle to subject it to public standards and criteria of correctness. For this reason, a private- language, in which "individual words … are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to his immediate private sensations … " (PI 243), is not a genuine, meaningful, rule-governed language. The signs in language can only function when there is a possibility of judging the correctness of their use, "so the use of word stands in need of a justification which everybody understands" (PI 261).

Pretty dry stuff compared to our inimitable Ludwig W.

I have quoted earlier some sections of Philosophical Investigations on language as a reflection (a “showing”) of form, which I’d like to repeat here:

“PI #200 It is, of course, imaginable that two people belong to a tribe unacquainted with games should sit at a chess-board and go through the moves of a game of chess; and even with all the appropriate mental accompaniments. And if we were to see it we should say they were playing chess. But now imagine a game of chess translated according to certain rules into a series of actions which we do not ordinarily associate with a game – say into yells and stamping of feet. And now suppose those two people to yell and stamp instead of playing the form of chess that we are used to; and this in such a way that their procedure is translatable by suitable rules into a game of chess. Should we still be inclined to say they were playing a game? What right would one have to say so?”

Notice how the shallow imitation of a chess game in the first case (including “all the appropriate mental accompaniments”) might look and act like a real language-game to an observer, but in fact is not. This would correspond to an argument against a private language. The second case, though, which might look to a casual observer as random yelling and stomping, does indeed represent a meaningful language-game. Is this not an argument for Private Language?

Here is another section from Philosophical Investigations on what “rules” are shown by language:

“PI #83 Doesn’t the analogy between language and games throw light here? We can easily imagine people amusing themselves in a field by playing with a ball so as to start various existing games, but playing many without finish them and in between throwing the ball aimlessly into the air, chasing one another with the ball and bombarding one another for a joke and so on. And now someone says: The whole time they are playing a ball-game and following definite rules at every throw.
And is there not also the case where we play and – make up the rules as we go along? And there is even one where we alter them – as we go along.”

In a worldview where thought-word-reality coalesces, it is appropriate to walk away from Philosophical Investigations with more questions than answers. That is clearly the intent of the book.

There is a sense, though, that Philosophical Investigations is a cynical work, destructive of much of the philosophical discussion which precedes it. I had written before that in his earlier TLP, Witt severely limits the scope of what could be shown by language; and PI goes even further – hence the reaching for allegories and metaphors in many of the “language-games”.

But I think you would be missing the core of what Witt is saying if you miss his playfulness and humor and, what seems to be a common trait of much 20th century philosophy, what he sees as the therapeutic nature of philosophical discourse.

So I ask, in what sense is the text of Wittgenstein’s Mistress a playful, therapeutic, personal language?

mm

Well. I've only read enough philosophy to be dangerous at cocktail parties, and I don't know how you've done it but now you have me interested, Michael.

I am not sure about playful. Playful dies pretty quickly for me - when she talks about Greek heroes, etc.... which I read as her telling me that her story is a timeless, repeated one? What I have read of the book so far is for sure therapeutic and personal language.

OK I'm going to try really hard *not* to spoil it for anyone but even in the first few pages any reader can tell the woman has been traumatized by something.

At first I was all struck by the holy-shitness of being the only human left, kind of like when I watched I Am Legend (and I really must read the original story). Omigod! She's burning paintings! That bitch!

But I started questioning her reality pretty early on, and started conceiving of her as this sort of... hermit-like person wreaking havoc everywhere she goes, because after that trauma no other people exist for her.

So personal language. I get that this is what he's playing with. How well does that language translate for an objective reader, how much can we get pulled into the reality of the narrator? Is that what we're seeing? Or am I being too literal?

Shel wrote: "Well. I've only read enough philosophy to be dangerous at cocktail parties, and I don't know how you've done it but now you have me interested, Michael.

I am not sure about playful. Playful dies p..."

Shel: I think you mentioned previously that your husband is pretty fun with the philosophy. Can you ask him his take on Witt., and maybe get his take on this novel?

As for your comments; I haven't started the book yet so I have no idea, except for the blurbs on the cover, how the novel could relate to (here it comes) Wittgensteinian concepts.

Cheers,
mm

haha, doh!

Afraid we'll be going it alone with my feeble mind on this one, Michael. But I think we're all collectively up to the task.

Hey, didn't JE have something on Witt. in Lulu?

Shel wrote: "Hey, didn't JE have something on Witt. in Lulu?"

I checked, and he didn't. I'll ask JE again here for a Fiction Files exclusive, and have Will Miller do one on Wittgenstein for us.
mm

Margaret wrote: "I'm on page 31 of Wittgenstein's Mistress. Similar to McCarthy's "The Road". Sad and lonely. Disconnected and rambling. Nothing terrifying yet. Like canniblals. That might liven it up a bit. Anyone else moving along on this? Or are we giving it up as a bust?"

How very interesting. I started reading this a couple of days ago. I'm on about page 31. So far, the adjective that keeps coming back to mind is Terrifying (with a capital T).

So far what I like best is the way that things slowly dawn on me. Reading along for several pages and then it dawning on me that it was a woman, reading a few more pages and realizing, oh my god the situation she is in.

I'm only a few pages in, but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could hate it as strongly as some of you have hated it. For myself I find that I'm generally much more articulate about books I don't like than about books that I do like. Maybe you could spell it out a little for us?

At any rate, I am finding it gripping and suspensful, oddly, given that there is not much action.

Dan wrote: "There were a lot of interesting bits of information that were obscured by a ceaselessly talking crazy bitch. She was the consummate unreliable narrator which had me doubting the interesting tidbits of trivia she rattled off."

i'm surprised that the factoids were what interested you. it seems to me that the main important and unifying characteristic of the factoids is their total irrelevance, in light of the situation.

Shame I didn't see this...Wittgenstein is one of my idols...and thanks to a clever sister who went to King's, Cambridge, I got to see the room where he attacked Karl Popper with the poker!

Shel wrote: ""

I really liked that book. I read it about 7 years ago. Now I want to reread it.

I am jealous that you got to see the actual room! Was the poker still there Martyn?

Patty wrote: "i'm surprised that the factoids were what interested you. it seems to me that the main important and unifying characteristic of the factoids is their total irrelevance, in light of the situation. "

Yeah I figured out that the situation was more important than the facts but I couldn't bring myself to care about her plight. Maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind to read the book but I felt like why should I care about the situation this crazy lady is in.

Dan wrote: "but I felt like why should I care about the situation this crazy lady is in"

i think she must have felt the same way, at least at some point.

Dan wrote: "Shel wrote: ""

I really liked that book. I read it about 7 years ago. Now I want to reread ..."

I always thought "Popper's Poker" would have been a more fun title. But c'est la vie, he wasn't the one wielding it.

As to the crazy lady and her situation, god I don't want to spoil it for anyone... but I really did buy the idea that there are no people any more. In a post traumatic stress disorder kind of way.

Shel wrote: "god I don't want to spoil it for anyone... but I really did buy the idea that there are no people any more.

I'm only about half way through. I can't imagine doubting this. It seems to be the main premise of the book. Now you've got me worried.

Shel wrote: "In a post traumatic stress disorder kind of way"

I don't know what you mean by this. Please explain?

Just that the loss she experiences traumatizes her in a particular way, that she walks in a fog of unreality, of an unpeopled world.

I have heard (though I'm no doctor, Jim) that some people who experience PTSD just flat out turn the outside world off completely, that they have serious problems with short/long term memory... like I said, I don't know for sure. It just seems like the world ends when she experiences her loss. Which, considering the loss itself... maybe I'm using the wrong label.

Actually, I probably am. I'm not good with labels.

Michael's term "therapeutic language" or "private language" really made me think that what she is telling us can't be real, but it is her way of looking out at things...

But I'm not done with the book yet. So I don't know for sure.

Hi tribe. First time I've been near a 'puter in a week or so, so I thought I'd drop in. I've had both this book and DFW's Infinite Jest going this vacation, and I have to say I've found IJ more readable, more compelling. I'm about half way into this book so don't spoil it for me!

I can see how some have had a hard time liking this book. Waiting for something to "happen" seems a misplaced goal. The lack of breaks, heck the lack of paragraphs, makes reading it as a novel difficult. I am finding it goes down a lot better with me if I digest it in small chunks. But then I pick up Infinite Jest and I'm gone for a couple reading hours. So slow moving so far.

i have to admit that this novel really got into my head. by which i mean that i find myself thinking syntactically the way she thinks. i know that this is/was a deterrent for some readers. and for others of us it's a joy.

hugh, i honestly think that you would enjoy it very much.

but also, aside from thinking in her voice, i am also now pondering a lot.

i think the blurb on the jacket is misleading. it is not astonishing that we become convinced that she is the last person. it's implausible, and there are a few logical details that argue against it, but it's the central fact of the novel. how can we doubt it?

although i have to say that there would have to be bugs for this scenario to work. stuff can't decompose and flowers can't get pollinated without them.

also, does anyone happen to know how much electricity is stored up on the planet? and what does it take to get it from power plants to us? is it already in the power lines? if you were the last person on the planet, i just think it's doubtful that you'd ever run out.

and when was astroturf invented, by the way?

also thinking, which is sort of comforting, that if this were to happen today, the last person on earth could just send out twitters. she wouldn't have to go trapsing all over the place.

and also, i wonder, if you were the last person on earth, and you happened upon a train, would you try to drive it?

and lots of other questions that i now can't stop thinking about.

also, if it were me, i would have tried to settle down somewhere near a hotspring. that way i could take baths without having to boil water.

Astroturf was invented in 1965.

I don't know about electricity. That's a really good question. I wonder if it works like the Internet... a data transfer has to be initiated on one end to be received by the other.

I just started Infinite Jest, but maybe I'll set it aside and finish this one. It did get into my head, too, in the loss of a loved one kind of way - those stories always do, I can't help but project.

Also in the "how would *you* survive" kind of way... how long would it take to go mad... do people really need people or not... are we a political animal that cannot survive without others of our species around us, or the constructs of civilization?

There is a poem about survival that I copied into my personal anthology years ago. I will have to find it and post it in this discussion. This book immediately brought that poem to mind.

Shel wrote: "Astroturf was invented in 1965.
Thanks!

Shel wrote: Also in the "how would *you* survive" kind of way... how long would it take to go mad... do people really need people or not... are we a political animal that cannot survive without others of our species around us, or the constructs of civilization?"

Or the more more Wittgensteinian question, what do the words "mad" or "crazy" or "PTSD" even mean if there are no social norms, because there are no other people?

Right - what is crazy when there's no one to call you crazy?

or even to compare yourself to.

although i really liked that most of the imponderables were aesthetic imponderables, and not semantic imponderables.

Here is an interesting review of another of Markson's books.

Vanishing Point
David Markson
Shoemaker Hoard
ISBN 1593760108 $15.00 191 pp.

There's something exciting about delving into a book without necessarily knowing what it is about. Sometimes a book description can absolutely ruin the element of surprise or even hype up a book that eventually disappoints in between the covers. My experiment with the unknown occurred when I started reading "Vanishing Point" by David Markson (Wittgenstein's Mistress). Although I had read a brief but positive review (that I couldn't remember) of the book prior to receiving it, I had no idea what I was getting into it. And that's a good thing.

To be brief, "Vanishing Point" is a book of succinct little-known facts and quotes about famous artistic types from Voltaire, van Gogh, Shakespeare, and many more. ("Zora Neale Hurston's jesting claim that she once avoided a pedestrian traffic ticket by the telling police officer that since she always saw white people cross on green, she naturally therefore assumed the red was for her.") The facts are incredibly interesting, making the book hard to put down. But the author doesn't stop there. He writes the book in a unique form of syntax, slightly resembling poetry. ("Heidelberg, Fritz Wunderlich died in.")

As if that wasn't enough, the main character tries unsuccessfully to keep his own thoughts and opinions out of the book. Slowly but surely we learn that the writer, known only as Author, is a man with questions of his own, including questions about aging and why he has become so tired lately. This element of the book is reminiscent of the main character in the film "Adaptation." It is equally amusing.

I have to admit that from the beginning I wondered where this book of merely quotes and facts was going with no chapter headings and its strange syntax. (I even sneaked a peek at the description on the back cover after reading a few pages.) I soon began to realize that "Vanishing Point" is a brave and original endeavor in experimental fiction. It's a thinking person's book that readers will want to read over and over again, all the way to its shocking ending. Lovers of fiction, poetry, art, and history should all find something in this book to enjoy.

Emanuel Carpenter
Reviewer

Wittgenstein’s Mistress by David Markson

Good point, Shel, about crazy.

On page 78 of WM(Dalkey paperback), Kate, the narrator, writes “The world is everything that is the case,” and then admits that she has no idea of what that means. The statement is a slight alteration from the opening sentence of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: “The world is all that is the case.” Wittgenstein shifted the focus of philosophy (in many minds of his generation) from the classic search for the big truths to linguistic analysis. One thing that he wanted to clarify was how to judge if a statement was true. A statement can be meaningless or have meaning, but even if it has meaning that doesn’t mean that it’s true. In commenting on Wittgenstein’s work, the philosopher Brian Magee notes, “Not everything that’s possible is the case,” so that the world is not the case of all possibilities, but only those possibilities that are true. I think that much of the narrative of WS explores how that proposition plays out in the severest of circumstances. Kate makes meaningful statements about many things, but not all of which are true. They aren’t the case. Later she corrects the statements or tries to correct her statements, gamely (ultimately hopelessly) trying to restore the world to its case (to its truth). So, for example, on page 43 she writes, “Why did I imply it was Phidias who built the Parthenon when it was somebody named Ictinus?” On page 72, she notes, “Anxiety being the fundamental mode of existence....” She at first attributes this to Kierkegaard and then corrects it to Heidegger.” Freud, in fact, wrote something similar to this.

Or is it just that she’s a crazy old woman, whose ravings aren’t worth following? Shortly after reading WM, I ran across a review of the book, "Words in the Air: The complete Correspondence Between Elizabeth Bishop and Robert Lowell," by Colm Toibin. This is what I read, “Out of the damage done to her in childhood, Bishop produced a body of work filled with meticulous observing. In her poems she often corrected herself or qualified herself, almost as a duty or ceremony. In her first book The Map she wrote the word ‘shadows’ and then immediately wondered ‘or are they shallows.’. In The Weed, she dreamed that “I lay upon a grave, or bed,’ then had to qualify that by writing ‘(at least some cold and close-built bower);’ In The Fist, when she wrote the words ‘his lower lip,’ she had to wonder, ‘if you could call it a lip.’” The point is that all of these corrections and revisions were part of her poems (and Tolbin gives numerous other examples). And what is the thinking behind this poet’s technique? Toibin says,“... in one way a trick of making the reader trust and believe a voice...The trick established limits, exalted littleness, made the bringing of things down unto themselves into a sort of conspiracy with the reader. But it was also a way of noticing the world with something close to terror.” Bishop herself wrote of her work, “Since we do float upon an unknown sea I think we should examine the other floating things that come our way carefully; who knows what might depend on it.” Isn’t this what Kate is doing? Is she not floating on an unknown sea and is it not terrifying? Did Elizabeth Bishop inspire Markson’s Kate?

One other thing that Wittgenstein argued was that words/language meant nothing abstracted from culture, from the interaction of people. In a world without other people, Kate’s efforts to retain meaningful language (of a The World is all that is the case), will fail. All the history, all the art, become a jumble and then nothing.

Markson sets up, maintains, this thought experiment beautifully. Despite all the history, culture and art that Kate references, she remains grounded in bodily functions, frozen wash and kindling.

When we die, the world goes with us. Here’s a glimpse.

Excellent post, Alex. Although I just can't begin to describe how upsetting it is to me to see her referred to by name. Which is another thing I'll have to think about.

One thing, though. I do not agree that she is making an effort to retain meaningful language. I get the relevance of Wittgenstein's proposition that words/language mean nothing when abstracted from culture. And I agree with him. But in the case of this novel, language has not been abstracted from culture. It can't be. If there is language there is culture. And if she were trying to retain meaningful language, why would she have given up reading? Isn't the best/easiest way to retain language by reading? No, I don't think she is trying to maintain anything. I think she is still trying to rid herself of the baggage, express what is inside to get it out. Interesting too, that she chooses to type her thoughts rather than to speak them aloud. No one to read/hear them in either case. What was behind that choice?

Oh, wow. Elizabeth Bishop. What a great connection.

I love that Lowell/Bishop book. And her. One of my favorites of all time. The letters are amazing. Their relationship was interesting.

Great post - a lot to think about.

Great to see the discussion warming up. I knew nothing about Elizabeth Bishop, and the reference in Alex’s post is fantastic (as well his entire post).

I have not finished the book, so please no spoilers please. Though it does seem we are in for somewhat a surprise regarding the narrator’s isolation. I am hearing two opinions on this supposed isolation: I) in a world without others (Alex), “efforts to retain meaningful language will fail”, II) even in a world without others (Patty) “If there is language there is culture.”

I’d come down immediately, and rather passionately, on Side II. Even in ideal isolation, a.k.a. “the forest of felled trees”, the process of making one’s voice heard has import. Maybe without societal meaning, yes, but aesthetically meaningful nonetheless. Just my two cents. Trying to lend some support here to all those writers out laboring in obscurity or under the impression their best friend will burn their work upon their deaths in any case.

Witt. proposed and rejected a concept of Private Language, but my sense is that even if he finds discussing such a concept impossible, he would not object to "passing over in silence" such a concept.

mm

The following story is referenced at least twice in Wittgenstein’s Mistress:

Pope Boniface VIII wanted to commission some paintings for St. Peter’s and so he sent a courtier around to find the best painter in Italy. The courtier asked all the artists to give him a sample of their work to send to the Pope. He came to Giotto’s workshop, explained his mission, and asked him for a drawing which would give the Pope some idea of his competence and style. “Sure,” said Giotto; and he laid down a sheet of paper, reached for a brush dipped in red paint, closed his arm to his side to make a sort of compass of it, and in one even sweep scribed a perfect circle. “There you are,” he told the courtier, handing it to him with a smile.

“That’s your drawing?” asked the courtier, who didn’t know whether Giotto was pulling his leg. “Is that all you’re going to send His Holiness?”

“That’s more than enough,” said Giotto. “Send it with your other drawings and see whether it’s understood or not.”

The Pope’s messenger took the drawing and went away trying to hold his temper. Did that little painter think he was a fool?

When he got back to Rome he showed the Pope the big O and told him how Giotto had scribed it—freehand, without a compass. The pope and his advisors DID understand the achievement of that O and gave Giotto the commission.


Reminds me of Witt’s discussion of language as a “guide” in Philosophical Investigations. He explores there the nature of “rule” in language, or more generally the existence of “consistency”. One thing I really love about Witt is the interactive, participatory style of his writing. He is always asking the reader to play little thought-games to see how his concepts “feel” intellectually – much like Descartes in that.

#175 Make some arbitrary doodle on a bit of paper, – And now make a copy next to it, let yourself be guided by it. – I should like to say: “Sure enough, I was guided here.” But as for what was characteristic in what happened – if I say what happened, I no longer find it characteristic.


After many more examples, and a wider discussion of mathematical induction and intuition, Witt discards the notion of a private language:

#335 Now if it were asked: “Do you have the thought before finding the expression?” what would one have to reply? And what, to the question: “What did the thought consist in, as it existed before its expression?”

#340 One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its use and learn from that. But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing this. It is not a stupid prejudice. [Witt’s emphasis:]

#241 Speech with and without thought is to be compared with the playing of a piece of music with and without thought.


mm

just wanted to let you guys know that i seem permanently stopped at page 125 on this book. the rhythm of the prose was crazy-making for me so i've set it aside for now. as i mentioned to patty, in some ways it reminded me a lot of the log of the ss mrs. unguentine, which a few of us read last year. interesting discussion though even reading it propels me closer to the freakiness of this book. :)