Mt Zion - Andrew Brant

Emily Post-Structuralism

Emily Post-structuralism.
I won't answer people's questions, so much as reveal the myriad ways in which they are unanswerable.

Birth of an Author.


 Gold pants? 

what to wear with goldfish pants .


Your question is incredibly evocative; I assume you are an avid fan of Roland Barthes, exploring ways in which language can escape the confines of conventionality and reach towards the construction of meaning within an essentially meaningless world. You begin your query with the phrase, “Gold pants?,” transforming a simple image into a question. Perhaps the gold pants represent the demands/(dis)comfort of fashion in a consumer society, or maybe they act as a metaphor for language, which seems valuable but is ultimately both useless and empty of any reality. Regardless, by eschewing verbs, you transform the image into an open signifier, ending with a question mark. Lacking other words to give it context, the question mark (“?”) creates a fully open language, where the reader must actively question the efficacy of language, while simultaneously creating meaning outside of the signifier/signified dichotomy.

In the second chapter of your “novel,” you suddenly reject capital letters. We can only assume that this is a fragment of a larger piece—it is a remnant of a totality that we can never access. It reveals that all communication is partial; it is a desperate attempt to connect to a larger story that we will never read. Indeed, the reader can contextualize this within a nearly infinite series of “complete” “sentences”: “I don’t know what to wear with goldfish pants,” “What to wear with goldfish pants is a pressing political issue,” “She knew what to wear with goldfish pants: a crop top!” and so on. Indeed, your minimalist style effectively accomplishes Borges’ lifelong project of writing the infinite story; you have found the minotaur at the center of the labyrinth, and he is wearing goldfish pants.

Finally, you close by abandoning the reader with an isolated period. Does it mark the end of the previous “statement”? Is it drawing attention to the unfilled space that represents the gaps inherent in language itself? Does it decenter the very idea of closure, placing finality outside of the grammatical construction of the work itself?

I have already contacted Verso Press about curating an experimental series of your work. Please respond with your phone number and mailing address so we can discuss the sequel to this magnum opus.

(Courtesy of Yahoo! Answers)

Luke Niebler