re. Re: aw. Re: Lit Crit 2007

[Monte Davis]

Kai pointed us to:

http://www.gravity7.com/blog/2007/01/gilles-deleuze-on-film-in-against-day.h
tml

It's not clear to me whether citation of a squib that begins "We know that
there's a connecting line between Thomas Pynchon and Gilles Deleuze" is a
recommendation or a poke in the ribs.

Not to be rude, but... what *kind* of "connecting line" is it, beyond the
appearance of Deleuze's name?

Might it matter that a fake book is, by definition, a collection of quick &
dirty representations -- the minimal information needed for recognizable
melodies, without any fine or idiosyncratic detail?

Is Chan -- or were messrs. Deleuze, Bachelard, Robbe-Grillet, Zanussi --
actually doing more than tossing into the air a bunch of tropes (most
centuries old) about reflection and refraction, highlighting arbitrary
verbal parallels among them, and announcing: "Hey presto! Movies are deeper
stuff than you thought!"...?