Rhizome Effect

 

NonSense: I am just going to dive into a lot of what I think is nonsense about Introduction: Rhizome without any intent to ramble or miss the mark of the assignment.  This read was torture to me.  I think the author is some sort of obsessive compulsive psycho maniac.  Why explain something like this with so many irrelevant details? I feel like he is trying to explain something that can’t be explained and he further complicates the reading with complex details and combining theories of Chomsky and Neitche and Freud, Mao, Kleist, Lenz, and Buchner. It’s madness.  It contorts my mind that brings me to a level of insanity that I had to read in 30 min segments. What the hell is he tying to multiplicity?  Language? Books?  The multiplicity of fibers and how they are connected to other fibers that are connected to every fiber?! Multiplicities are non-dimensional, but exist on a flat plane but contains many planes that are connected?! I feel like what he says is that literature can be broken down but then each piece takes on a new meaning. You will never destroy it. Rhizomes are the fragments that are the roots of one thing that contain new roots once separated, but are still connected to the original host…that’s a host of many other multiplicities. I just don’t understand why anyone would obsess over this as much as reading has.  “Increase your territory by deterritorialization..” (p.11)  is probably the one statement that could sum up this chaos.  Is it really so complicated to understand that if you break something down and eliminate other pieces, and nurture one of them that you can unlock new realms within the piece. If I had to be creative about breaking this reading down, I’d say the reading in itself is a Rhizome. I really annoying one.

 

Sense:  I just like the one part where he says “..the units of measure are what is essential: quantify writing.” He goes on to say how a book is an assemblage of other books and books are books are books of many other books. I think to quantify writing should also be paired with a clear and concise explanation, not expansion in to meaningless redundant information.

 

SONTAG:
Sense:  “ But isn’t what a writer says that matters, it’s what a writer is.”  I make sense of this and connect with it more personally. The quote is almost a confession on behalf of other writers.  Writers want to be known for what they write more that to be known for what they are. Maybe. I don’t know. I personally feel that who we are matters way more than what we say.

 

Nonsense: “The writer’s first job is not to have opinions but to tell the truth … and refuse to be an accomplice of lies and misinformation. Literature is the house of nuance and contrariness against the voices of simplification. “  I understand this, but I don’t necessarily agree with it entirely.  I think language and literature is a fallacy. To try and explain any idea with the vast library of words and definitions will always come up short from the deep intimate connections we have with our personal ideas. No matter how much we can articulate through literature, people will fail to connect universally through it.