Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

Have You Sealed Your Fragmentary Body?

Posted on Nov 8th, 2008 by Sol : Crow Rising Sol
SOL LUCKMAN

(Adapted from Conscious Healing: Book One on the Regenetics Method)

Those with highly evolved consciousness such as spiritual teachers have always insisted that the human body is genetically (re)programmable by words in the form of songs, poems, prayers, affirmations, or mantras. The words must be harmonically attuned to the organism and the intention behind them impeccable. This is why although DNA activation has become trendy, results can vary enormously.

Citing a variety of scientific studies that prove sound can alter human brainwaves as well as heartbeat and respiration, Jonathan Goldman in Healing Sounds: The Power of Harmonics highlights the developments in the field of sound therapy credited to such medical pioneers as Dr. John Diamond, Dr. Peter Manners and Barbara Hero, all of whom have designed mechanical instruments for healing through sound. Clearly, however, Goldman believes the human voice is the ultimate healing instrument. Some shamanic healers insist that the transformative power of human voice cannot be digitally reproduced and retain its full character–that the digital recording is like a clone, “lacking spirit”–which, if true, calls into question the effectiveness of DNA activation CDs.

Allow me to direct your attention to the notion, found in so many religions and mythologies, of a “fall from grace” that created a universal rift, a disruptive force that engendered duality and the experience of separation. In Christianity this is often termed “original sin.” In one Hindu myth, human consciousness began as a tiny ripple that chose to leave the ocean of cosmic consciousness. As it awoke to itself, our consciousness forgot it was part of the infinite cosmic ocean and found itself washed ashore and imprisoned in a state of isolation.

Gifted psychic David Wilcock calls this perceived separation from Source the “Original Wound” and remarks that it is “the basis behind all suffering, and also … the final key to enlightenment.” At the level of the human bioenergy fields, the Original Wound imprints and sustains itself as an energetic disruption sometimes called the Fragmentary Body.

Science has its own versions of the fundamental split or fragmentation at the heart of human existence. The particle-wave duality, in which atomic components–including those that make up our cells–are simultaneously particles and waves, is a primary example. Not surprisingly, DNA has also been shown to possess a version of the particle-wave binarism. “In accordance with this duality,” writes Dr. Leonard Horowitz, “DNA codes all living organisms in two ways, both with the assistance of DNA matter involving RNA and enzymes for protein synthesis, and by DNA sign wave functions, including coding at its own laser radiation level that functions bioholographically.”

From the outset the holographic model has focused on the duality inherent in human experience. Dr. Karl Pribram first theorized a neural hologram in the brain's cerebral cortex operating in tandem with a subatomic or universal hologram–a micro-macrocosmic interface summed up by Horowitz in DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral where he states that “a hologram within a hologram produces life as a function of creative consciousness.” In Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Dr. David Bohm also describes the brain as a hologram designed to interpret a larger hologram–the cosmos. “In this dualistic holographic model,” explains Horowitz, “inseparable interconnectedness of holographs, including that of the Creator with the created, underlies human existence.” Human existence, in turn, to quote Iona Miller and Richard Alan Miller, is rooted in genes serving as “holographic memories of the existential blueprint.”

Through extensive kinesiological (muscle) testing as detailed in my book Conscious Healing, my partner Leigh and I discovered and mapped a total of nine electromagnetic fields in humans. I offer that the initial blueprint for our creation, however, was one in which instead of nine, we had only eight fields corresponding to eight chakras. This is a pivotal concept for anyone interested in genuine, permanent healing. There are many reasons why I insist that our true bioenergy blueprint is based on the number 8. The one I offer now is of a visual nature. What do you get when you turn the number 8 on its side? An infinity sign. This is our divine birthright expressed in a symbol.

From Book One on the Regenetics Method, Conscious Healing: Sealing the Fragmentary Body. The left image shows a typical human bioenergy blueprint with nine electromagnetic fields/chakras and a Fragmentary Body in the second field/chakra from the bottom. The right image shows a “potentiated” bioenergy blueprint with an “infinity circuit” of eight fields/chakras. Note how sealing the Fragmentary Body replaces fragmentation and duality with harmony and sacred geometry, allowing for the free flow of bioenergy throughout the body. Copyright (c) 2008 by Sol Luckman and Kara Brown. All Rights Reserved. Click here to preview Conscious Healing.

Perhaps you are familiar with the theosophical teachings of Alice Bailey and Helena Blavatsky or the radionics writings of Dr. David Tansley. All three present a model of the human bioenergy template with only seven fields. Vedic teachings are also based on seven energy centers. But kinesiologically, at this stage of human development there are clearly nine fields, not counting a tenth Leigh and I call the Source or Master Field that corresponds in astrophysical terms to Galactic Center and to Nezah or Eternity in the kabalistic Tree of Life.

Bailey, Blavatsky and Tansley were right, however, when it comes to the second electromagnetic field: the Fragmentary Body. When it is mentioned in the esoteric literature, the Fragmentary Body is considered highly problematic. This is because the second electromagnetic field (and corresponding “sex” chakra) is a “Frankenstein's monster” of energies that simply do not add up, that in many cases do not even appear to belong in the body. For example, the energy for all types of parasites attaches to the second electromagnetic field.

In every other bioenergy field that governs a population of microorganisms, many of these are beneficial and undoubtedly belong in the body. For instance, it is common to find the seventh field energetically governing the activity of intestinal flora, which play a crucial role in creating a healthy biological terrain. But in the second field we find only parasites, which–far from contributing to health–siphon off the host's life energy. Interestingly, Toltec masters such as Don Miguel Ruiz, author of The Four Agreements, often refer to the Fragmentary Body as the Parasite.

Each electromagnetic field also governs specific organ systems. The two organ systems found in the second field are the reproductive system and the mouth: our (pro)creative systems. The intimate relationship between these seemingly distinct systems appears in the way we conceptualize and describe creativity. Authors “give birth” to a novel, “conceive” an idea, just as a poetic organ called the uterus “utters” a fetus into the world.

Developing a method of DNA activation called Regenetics led Leigh and myself overwhelmingly to a cosmology with a creation scenario where something disruptive occurred. This is not a judgment, simply an observation. In the beginning was literally the Word, and something divisive resulted. Somebody spoke and birthed a dualistic universe of opposites, one with a Great Rift running through the middle mirrored overhead in the Milky Way. In the microcosm of our energy body, in keeping with the ancient hermetic dictum “As above, so below,” this Great Rift or Original Wound manifests as the Fragmentary Body.

With parallels to Eckhart Tolle's concept of the “pain body” that keeps people from accessing the infinite “Power of Now,” the Fragmentary Body operates like a deep scratch in a record or, to use a Vedic term, a samskara that maintains one's consciousness in a limited (unenlightened) matrix of thought and belief banished from knowledge or gnosis of unity with the Ground of Being. The Fragmentary Body is a dualistic principle that promotes disconnection from Source and, ultimately, death.

We can envision the Fragmentary Body as an energetic vacuum that to a large degree separates spirit and matter by keeping higher-dimensional torsion energy (universal creative consciousness) from filling up our electrogenetic matrix until we become “enlightened” in the flesh. The word enlighten literally means to light up, to illuminate. The Fragmentary Body is an anti-enlightenment consciousness vacuum, a systemic bioenergy drain that, until “sealed,” limits our ability to embody the light of higher consciousness. But when properly sealed through DNA activation, this field that once represented an energetic liability becomes the locus for the human being's healing into a consciousness and physiology capable of expressing divine radiance.

Copyright (c) 2008 by Sol Luckman. All Rights Reserved.

[Sol Luckman is author of the bestselling Conscious Healing: Book One on the Regenetics Method and the critically acclaimed Beginner's Luke Series of novels, editor of DNA Monthly, and cofounder of the Phoenix Center for Regenetics. His articles on the Regenetics Method have appeared in numerous print and online venues, including Well Being Journal, Renaissance, Sedona Journal of Emergence, Kindred Spirit and Atlantis Rising, and also have been featured in the alternative medicine anthologies Message of Spirit: A Manual for Your Mind and Heal Yourself with Breath, Light, Sound and Water. Nexus New Times called Conscious Healing, which was recently translated into its third language, a “paradigm-reworking book” that introduces a “revolutionary healing science that's expanding the boundaries of being.” Join the Conscious Healing Book Club. For more information on the Regenetics Method, visit http://www.phoenixregenetics.org.]

Access_public Access: Public 2 Comments Print views (261)  

Acknowledging Acknowledgments

Posted on Nov 14th, 2008 by Sol : Crow Rising Sol

The Adventure of an imaginary lifetime begins. Request your FREE copy today!



First, I would like to thank my dear mother for her intense labor of love in delivering yours truly safe and sound into the world. I apologize for the pain I caused you, mother, on my rather late arrival. As you know better than anyone, I'm a slow learner–always running behind.

I would also like to thank my father for sparing his precious seed to co-create me. Let me take this opportunity to remind you, father, you still owe me for the not inconsiderable pleasure I afforded you on the glorious occasion of my conception. I'm prepared to accept cash, credit card, personal check, travelers cheque, money order, gold bullion, real estate or a sizable inheritance.

I would also like to thank the Academy. You guys don't know me, but I think you're really great. Keep up the good work!

Next, I would like to extend a special expression of gratitude to all my family, friends, lovers, teachers, employers and coworkers who one way or another, overtly or covertly, through thick and thin, encouraged me to keep writing this imaginary life. There aren't many of you, which makes my appreciation all the greater.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize all my family, friends, lovers, teachers, employers and coworkers who one way or another, overtly or covertly, through thick and thin, attempted to derail my creative aspirations and mire me in the quotidian mediocrity to which you–you know who you are–have become hopelessly inured. There are a lot of you, more than I could count, which makes this, the Moment of penning my Acknowledgments, all the more satisfying.

Click here to receive the FREE ebook edition.

Finally, I must say a word about the places where substantial parts of this work (play?) were composed. I mean specifically the Cafés of the World where I've whiled away so much of my time (and yours!) in the vain but amusing pursuit of capturing an ineffable existence: mine.

If I learned anything writing Beginner’s Luke, it was that contrary to myth, heaven is filled with cool little cafes with Leonard Cohen over hidden speakers, groovy abstract expressionist art on the walls and superior Java from obscure South American countries. I was born to sit out on the terrasses of such glorious establishments of leisure on such splendid afternoons, chain-sipping specialty caffeinated beverages while daydreaming impossible episodes in impossible places–

Excuse me, my cappuccino just arrived. I can't tell you how thankful I am. I'd like to acknowledge this cappuccino. I sweeten it liberally with three sparkling sugar cubes, stir the tan frothing brew with the tiny silver spoon, hoist the cup with trembling anticipation to my lips, and, smelling Italy, visions of panforte and biscotti dancing in my head, take a sip.

Ecstasy! The simple act of sitting here sipping this cappuccino is its own testament to my commitment to living the writer's life. Which is to say: doing nothing but doing it exceedingly well. I'm so thankful for this ability that has taken me an entire imaginary lifetime to perfect.

I'm also thankful for the fine pair of legs strutting by just now on the sidewalk. You have to feel good knowing there are thighs like that in the world. A toast to the miniskirt’s inventor!

I raise my eyes and lock gazes with the proud owner of these exquisite limbs–and it's almost like making love in this instant. The passion, though invisible, is nearly palpable beneath her stoic façade and my whole body tingles with glimpses of erotic encounters that could theoretically, but will probably never, occur.

There–it just happened again, with another set of eyes: the riveting glance, oxymoronic perhaps but with a rush like spontaneous combustion, then the looking away and the tragic vanishing forever. How I adore you, whoever you are!

By way of closing these Acknowledgments, I shall paraphrase one of my personal heroes, the great flaneur Baudelaire:

O you I could have loved!
O you who knew it!
O we who blew it!

Copyright (c) 2008 by Sol Luckman. All Rights Reserved.

If you'd like to spread the word about this mind-bending journey through the mind of the ultimate iconoclast (Apex Reviews), please take a moment to “Back the Book!” for publication with HarperCollins of London!

http://www.beginnersluke.com//back1.PNG
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (171)  

A Brief Survey of Transgression in the Theory of the Novel

Posted on Nov 19th, 2008 by Sol : Crow Rising Sol

The Adventure of an imaginary lifetime begins. Request your FREE copy today!

Transgression is a term for which, it would seem, every theorist of the novel has a different definition. For Georg Lukács, transgression obtains specifically in those modern novels possessed of a nihilistic outlook which, by hook or crook, deny history. Formalists such as Viktor Shklovsky like to talk about stylistic transgression in the novel, which, according to them, evolves independently of history through a constant, transgressive rewriting of former texts. In Roland Barthes’s model (in which there are two competing types of transgression), sexual identity and transgression are dialectically entwined.

We can thus easily identify at least three categories of transgression in the theory of the novel, which I will call, somewhat reductively, the political, the stylistic, and the sexual (which subsumes gender). As we will see, these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but combining them can be a tricky business. In addition to the three theorists mentioned above, I will limit my discussion to the influential models of Ian Watt, Mikhail Bakhtin, and D.A. Miller. It goes without saying that such a sampling of theorists merely scratches the surface of an extremely complicated field, and I must here apologize for my own transgression against academic thoroughness.

For Lukács—on this issue perhaps alone among leading theorists of the novel—transgression is defined negatively. Lukács’s Gustave Flaubert and Emile Zola, as described in THE HISTORICAL NOVEL, are precursors and abettors of modern(ist) decadence, guilty, like so many Twentieth Century historians, of transgressing against history itself. This historical transgression takes the form of “modernization,” based in the “belief that the fundamental structure of the past is economically and ideologically the same as that of the present.”

Modern writers are not just blind to historicity (their own included), however; according to Lukács, they also needlessly vilify the present. Specifically, in the novels of Flaubert “those brutal and animal features are emphasized and placed at the centre, which occur later in Zola as characteristics of the life of modern workers and peasants. Thus Flaubert’s portrayal is ‘prophetic’. Not however, in the sense in which Balzac’s works were prophetic, anticipating the actual, future development of social types, but merely in a literary-historical sense, anticipating the later distortion of modern life in the works of the Naturalists.”

Lukács places great emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual in history (individualized collectivity) as well as on the uniqueness of the historical moment (historical materialism). To transgress against this uniqueness is the highest literary crime and merits Lukács’s reactionary wrath, as witnessed above. Transgression is further bluntly defined in Lukács’s model as inhuman: “Flaubert has against his will become the initiator of the inhuman in modern literature.” (Note that transgression is not necessarily a matter of will, but can inhere in a text despite the intentions of the writer, a line of thinking which runs, curiously, through Barthes.) Transgression operates equally at the level of style: “The Flaubertian attitude towards history inevitably leads to a disintegration of epic language” by inducing writers to approximate historicity through a misleading “pseudo-historical language form.”

Finally, given that the (true) novel is defined as an accurate portrayal of the individual (once again, collectively defined) within a specific historical moment, Lukács views the tendency to psychologize—so prevalent in modernism—merely as a transgressive aberration. The “tendency to make history private is a general characteristic of the nascent decline of great realism,” he proclaims. To summarize, we might say that, in Lukács’s theory of the novel, transgression is everything that is not realism.
    
In Shklovskean formalism, as in his THEORY OF PROSE, art is defined as that which transgresses against (disrupts) the unconscious: “The purpose of art … is to lead us to a knowledge of a thing through the organ of sight instead of recognition. By ‘enstranging’ objects and complicating form, the device of art makes perception long and ‘laborious.’ The perceptual process in art has a purpose all its own and ought to be extended to the fullest. Art is a means of experiencing the process of creativity.”

Here transgression is (positively) defined as an essential characteristic of the novel, as that which allows its always already old story to be made new. The novel, then, is like the phoenix forever being reborn out of its ashes, forever essentially the same, only plumed with new feathers: “a work of art is perceived against a background of and by association with other works of art. The form of a work of art is determined by its relationship with other preexisting forms … All works of art, and not only parodies, are created either as a parallel or an antithesis to some model. The new form makes its appearance not in order to express a new content, but rather, to replace an old form that has already outlived its artistic usefulness.”

Clearly, Shklovsky’s theory opposes the Romantic (and for that matter, Lukácsean) view of the “natural” (or “realistic”) novel. Stated another way, the natural in Shklovsky’s model—if it exists at all—is purely a question of form, which is said to be in constant (transgressive) flux, rendering the “natural” paradoxically transgressive. Thus artistic formalism is intimately tied to the notion of the avant-garde: the novel is inherently generationally transgressive owing to its ongoing need to make itself new.

Unlike Pierre Bourdieu’s focus on the avant-garde, however, Shklovsky’s theory does not concern itself with economic or other “outside” determining factors of cultural production; rather, the latter’s model operates entirely on the “inside,” offering a view of literature as a closed history of texts in reaction/response to other texts. “If I were to use the analogy of an inventor and his tradition,” writes Shklovsky (using said analogy), “I would say that … literary tradition consists of the sum total of the technical possibilities of [the given] age.”

Strangely, the ostensibly antagonistic theories of Shklovsky and Lukács, after traveling for so long in opposite directions, ultimately approach each other in their mutual disdain for psychologizing and emphasis on the collective nature of art. “There is no point in becoming enamored of the biography of an artist,” writes Shklovsky. “He writes first and looks for motivations later. And least of all should one be enamored of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis studies the psychological traumas of one person, while in truth, an author never writes alone. A school of writers writes through him. A whole age.”

The notion that transgression is constitutive of the novel itself is most evident in the example of Laurence Sterne, author of TRISTRAM SHANDY and arguably Shklovsky’s prototype of the novelist: “Sterne lays bare the device by which he stitches the novel out of individual stories. He does so, in general, by manipulating the structure of his novel, and it is the consciousness of form through its violation that constitutes the content of the novel.”

Sterne’s transgressiveness thus lies in his turning of novelistic tradition mercilessly on its head, in his subversion, or inversion, of the accepted forms of novelistic genre and style. In Shklovsky’s model, the novel as object, however, as “pure form,” merely a “relationship of materials,” is finally not transgressive in the least. Art is ultimately “inoffensive,” “shut up within itself.” Once rendered material, in other words, the novel ceases to be transgressive—the (formal) rendering is itself the transgressive act.
    
In THE RISE OF THE NOVEL Ian Watt defines the novel, as a “novel” form, as that which breaks definitively with the traditional, rigid hierarchy of genres: “literary traditionalism was first and most fully challenged by the novel, whose primary criterion was truth to individual experience—individual experience which is always unique and therefore new.” At the same time, Watt maintains that this break with the past has its roots in Cartesian thinking, which sets the new individual tone for the post-Renaissance. In an attempt to account for mediation, to locate the origins of the novel both on the “outside” and the “inside” (to fuse Lukács and Shklovsky, so to speak), Watt defines the novel as doubly (ideologically and formally) transgressive against the old (collective, rigidly hierarchical) social and artistic order.

For Watt, novelistic formalism translates into “formlessness,” which (whether by dint of “genius” or “accident” it remains unclear) translates into “the lowest common denominator of the novel genre as a whole, its formal realism”: “What is often felt as the formlessness of the novel, as compared, say, with tragedy or the ode, probably follows from this: the poverty of the novel’s formal conventions would seem to be the price it must pay for realism.” And this realism, in the novels of Daniel Defoe, for example, “is as defiant an assertion of the primacy of individual experience … as Descarte’s cogito ergo sum  was in philosophy.” For Watt, then, like Shklovsky and unlike Lukács, the art of the novel is first and foremost an art of transgression.

According to Watt, there is a very important temporal transgression at work in the novel, which “[breaks] with the earlier literary tradition of using timeless stories to mirror the unchanging moral verities. The novel’s plot is also distinguished from most previous fiction by its use of past experience as the cause of present action: a causal connection operating through time replaces a reliance of earlier narratives on disguises and coincidences, and this tends to give the novel a much more cohesive structure.” With the new conception of time comes a new conception of space: “Defoe would seem to be the first of our writers who visualised the whole of his narrative as though it occurred in an actual physical environment.”

Behind these (transgressive) changes in philosophy and literature lies something all-determining for Watt—the emergence of a large (relatively speaking) middle class reading public during the Eighteenth Century: “both the philosophical and the literary innovations must be seen as parallel manifestations of larger change—that vast transformation of Western civilisation since the Renaissance which has replaced the unified world picture of the Middle Ages with another very different one—one which presents us, essentially, with a developing but unplanned aggregate of particular individuals having particular experiences at particular times and at particular places.”

Here Watt’s model insists on a kind of precise historical materialism not unlike that found in Lukács’s theory, and yet Watt, by emphasizing a cultural rift as decisive in the formation of the novel, cannot escape the language of transgression: the transgression effected in and constituted by the novel reflects a vast cultural transgression that undergirds and surrounds it.

Watt’s theory of mediation has its share of inconsistencies. “Formal realism is only one mode of presentation,” he writes, “and it is therefore ethically neutral: all Defoe’s novels are also ethically neutral because they make formal realism an end rather than a means, subordinating any coherent ulterior significance to the illusion that the text represents the authentic lucubrations of an historical person.” Watt’s previous language of cultural transgression has without warning become a language of the social status quo smelling of Shklovskean formalism, a tendency which is even more pronounced when he focuses on the novels of Samuel Richardson: “The importance of Richardson’s position in the tradition of the novel was largely due to his success in dealing with several of the major formal problems which Defoe had left unsolved” (italics mine).

The next step on Watt’s form/ideology roller coaster, however, brings us back to Lukács: the novel typically “makes us feel that we are in contact not with literature but with the raw materials of life itself as they are momentarily reflected in the minds of the protagonists.” Watt goes on to attempt a synthesis of form and ideology which appears naïve at best, condescending at worst: the “combination of romance and formal realism applied both to external actions and inward feelings is the formula which explains the power of the popular novel: it satisfies the romantic aspirations of its readers in a literary guide which gives so full a background and so complete an account of the minute-by-minute details of thought and sentiment that what is fundamentally an unreal flattery of the reader’s dreams appears to be the literal truth.” Thus the reader, that defining figure in Watt’s model, remains little more than a shadow made to dance by the still more abstract concept of “literary greatness.”

The cracks in Watt’s theory are perhaps most pronounced in his treatment of Henry Fielding’s novels, whose “distinguishing elements have their roots not so much in social change as in the neo-classical literary tradition … Fielding’s celebrated formula of ‘the comic epic in prose’ undoubtedly lends some authority to the view that, far from being the unique literary expression of modern society, the novel is essentially a continuation of a very old and honoured narrative tradition.” The possibility of a venerable novelistic tradition, however, Watt firmly denies by locating the source of Sterne and James Joyce (as well as that of Jane Austen and Marcel Proust) not in Fielding’s playful picaresque (in the tradition of Miguel de Cervantes), as one might reasonably expect, but in the formal realism of Defoe and Richardson
a shaky argument at best. So ends in a muddle a model with high hopes for reconciling the formal and ideological poles in the theory of the novel.

In Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogical theory espoused in THE DIALOGIC IMAGINATION, the novel looms forth out of history as the ultimate transgressor, Gargantua consuming (appropriating wholesale) all other genres into its heteroclite body from the dawn of culture onward: “The novel parodies other genres (precisely in their role as genres); it exposes the conventionality of their forms and their language; it squeezes out some genres and incorporates others into its own peculiar structure, reformulating and re-accentuating them.”

Unlike Watt, Bakhtin makes no effort to identify a precise period for the rise of the novel (though he does cite the Renaissance, and particularly François Rabelais, as an important moment in the novel’s history), choosing instead to trace the evolution of the novelistic as a quality that ceaselessly forms and informs the novel genre. Yet, like Watt, Bakhtin stresses both the formal and ideological influences in the novel’s development: “It is of course impossible to explain the phenomenon of novelization purely by reference to the direct and unmediated influence of the novel itself. Even where such influence can be precisely established and demonstrated, it is intimately interwoven with those direct changes in reality itself that also determine the novel and that condition its dominance in a given era.”

Bakhtin defines the novelistic as against the epic. The novelistic (once again, the novel is appropriately “novel”) is that which breaks down (transgresses against) epic’s “absolute past” by admitting the reality of the present. Specifically, this transgression obtains through humor: “It is precisely laughter that destroys the epic, and in general destroys any hierarchical (distancing and valorized) distance.”

In other words, the reading subject, by actively decoding and approving a transgressive message (a message which travels through a semantic static of words in time and space) plays an essential role in the creation of the novel: “the reality reflected in the text, the authors creating the text, the performers of the text (if they exist) and finally the listeners or readers who re-create and in so doing renew the text—participate equally in the creation of the represented world in the text.”

Bakhtin thus adds a critical third element to the formalist/historicist equation—the reader as (actively transgressive) participant in the formation of the novel—thereby calling attention to the complex interplay of textual production. At the same time, his focus on the living word, the word made incarnate in a great transgressive body, is suggestive of the body politic, and from there it is but a small leap to arrive at the concept of a revolution of bodies effected through the word.

Following Bakhtin’s lead, Roland Barthes in S/Z wastes no time locating narrative transgression (for classic texts) in the figure of the narrator. The narrator, as a “joining of two antithetical terms,” positive and negative, inside and outside, “induces or supports a transgression.” Moreover, it is precisely the narrative body which is viewed as the transgressive element: “As supplement, the body is the site of the transgression effected by the narrative … It is by way of this excess which enters the discourse after rhetoric has properly saturated it that something can be told and the narrative begin.”

For the classic, or readerly text, transgression is closely associated with the (bodily) presence of the author, with his/her intrusion into the world of the text which simultaneously effects the narrative and yet limits its free semantic play, thereby restricting our freedom as (re)readers (re)writing the text. Unlike Bakhtin, who stops just short of (approvingly) defining the novel as parody, a genre composed entirely of ironic appropriations by the author, Barthes maintains that irony destroys textual multivalence: “A multivalent text can carry out its basic duplicity only if it subverts the opposition between true and false … if it flouts all respect for origin, paternity, propriety.”

Barthes argues that the readerly text must therefore by replaced by the writerly text, a move with definite implications for the politics of the body. Accordingly, the transgressive bodily intrusion of the readerly text (exemplified by Honoré de Balzac’s SARRASINE) must give way to another type of transgression: the infinitely plural, authorless, writerly text (anticipated, if not exemplified, by Gustave Flaubert’s BOUVARD ET PECUCHET): “multivalence (contradicted by irony) is a transgression of ownership. The wall of voices must be passed through to reach the writing: this latter eschews any designation of ownership and thus can never be ironic … parody, or irony at work, is always classic language … This is the problem facing modern writing: how breach the wall of utterance, the wall of origin, the wall of ownership?”

Thus, to the opposition between readerly and writerly corresponds an opposition between two types of transgression, the former negative, the latter positive, which, Barthes suggests, are currently locked in a struggle for hegemony not unlike the figure of antithesis, defined as a “battle between two plenitudes set ritually face to face.” To read this as simply a conflict between capitalist individualism and collectivist modes of thinking is, I offer, an oversimplification. The political stakes, however, would appear to be high and undoubtedly center on questions of sexual (bodily) freedom. Indeed, Barthes’s model could be thought of as a call to arms of the sexually transgressive which would undermine (or redefine) accepted, “canonical” notions of reading gender and sexuality, paving the way for the later transgressive model of D.A. Miller.

In THE NOVEL AND THE POLICE Miller structures his theory of the novel around Michel Foucault’s theory of discipline. Whereas Foucault focuses on increasing objectification and classification of individuals during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Miller examines discipline at work in the Nineteenth Century (realistic) novel, which he maintains institutes a panoptic (as in Jeremy Bentham
s infamous panopticon prison) transgression against individual privacy concomitant with the increasingly panoptic social ground.

In the typical case of Balzac, for instance, Miller writes that his “omniscient narration assumes a fully panoptic view of the world it places under surveillance.” Unlike Barthes, however, Miller is careful not to identify such narrative transgression with a single body, a move which shifts the focus from transgressor to transgressed against, from writer to reader: “this panoptic vision constitutes its own immunity from being seen in turn. For it instrinsically deprives us of the outside position from which it might be ‘placed.’ There is no other perspective on the world than its own, because the world entirely coincides with that perspective. We are always situated inside the narrator’s viewpoint, and even to speak of a ‘narrator’ at all is to misunderstand a technique that, never identified with a person, institutes a faceless and multilateral regard.”

It is hardly coincidental that, while Barthes chooses a first person narrative to make his point, Miller generally selects texts in the third person. In both cases, however, the narrative is conceived as a limited and limiting perspective which seeks to give itself the illusion of totality. The realistic novel thus effects a kind of underhanded power play which corresponds not only to Barthes’s “reality effect” but also to Bakhtin’s notion of “monologism.” “The panopticism of the novel,” writes Miller, “… coincides with what Mikhail Bakhtin has called its ‘monologism’: the working of an implied master-voice whose accents have already unified the world in a single interpretative center.” The realistic novel, in other words, constituting itself as the always already, the definitive one and only perspective, attempts to answer all questions before they have been asked.

Miller deftly avoids the good guy/bad guy binary he sees at work in realism’s taxonomy by not simply problematizing the panoptic text. In an important move, he points out the reader’s own complicity in the exercise of transgression against himself, writing, “power can scarcely be exercised except on what resists it … one might claim that the novel rather than fearing desire solicits it … desire brings the desiring subject into a maximally close ‘fit’ with the power he or she means to resist … Insistently, the novel shows disciplinary power to inhere in the very resistance to it.” The “pleasure of the text,” according to Miller, is intimately tied to a desire on the part of the reading subject to be exposed (as an individual).

Anticipating Eve Sedgwick, Miller builds his closet out of glass: “Even when a character’s subjectivity may be successfully concealed from other characters, for us, readers of the novel, the secret is always out.” And yet: “the fact the secret is always known—and, in some obscure sense, known to be known—never interferes with the incessant activity of keeping it. The contradiction does not merely affect characters. We too inevitably surrender our privileged position as readers to whom all secrets are open by ‘forgetting’ our knowledge for the pleasures of suspense and surprise … In this light, it becomes clear that the social function of secrecy … is not to conceal knowledge, so much as to conceal the knowledge of the knowledge.”

In the final analysis, secrecy, rather than constituting the subject’s private identity, affords a term of resistance which allows the panopticon to cast its transgressive gaze while at the same time paradoxically affirming its blindness: “In a world where the explicit exposure of the subject would manifest how thoroughly he has been inscribed within a socially given totality, secrecy would be the spiritual exercise by which the subject is allowed to conceive of himself as a resistance … The paradox of the open secret registers the subject’s accommodation to a totalizing system that has obliterated the difference he would make.”

The pleasure of the text is not finally different from a kind of condescending pity which, through a process of self-reflection, renders us, to a greater or lesser extent, “free”: “The charm we allow to Dickens’s characters … is ultimately no more than the debt of gratitude we pay to their fixity for giving us, in contrast, our freedom.” Such freedom, however, as Miller suggests, is purely relative. In the world of the panopticon violation is the rule rather than the exception.

My search for the meaning of transgression in six theories of the novel has, I am afraid, produced far more questions than answers. Following, then, is my conclusion in which nothing is concluded:

• Why does it seem obligatory to define the novel, either negatively or positively, vis-à-vis transgression? Is transgression in fact the art of the novel? If we could answer these questions, we would be much closer to explaining both what a novel is (form) and what a novel does (ideology).

• The novel, as a transgressive genre, is almost always associated with movement, change. Yet it is often difficult to pinpoint exactly where and when this change occurs, not to mention how and why. Is the novel a transgressive act or does it induce one? In other words, what is the relationship between transgression and culture? Is transgression truly transgressive, or is it, as Jonathan Dollimore maintains, “intrinsic to social process”?

• On a similar note, what is the relationship between transgression and subversion in the novel? To what degree is novelistic transgression subversive and vice versa? In Miller’s theory, for instance, transgression serves to maintain, rather than subvert, the social status quo. But Bakhtin suggests that the novel, as a transgressive genre, is somehow revolutionary. Are these views entirely incompatible, or might the novel be both? Barthes implies that it is indeed both, but his model for mediation is practically nonexistent. What might a theory look like that could mediate successfully between the transgressive and the (non)transgressive in the novel?

Copyright (c) 2008 by Sol Luckman. All Rights Reserved.

[Sol Luckman is author of the internationally acclaimed nonfiction Conscious Healing: Book One on the Regenetics Method and the Beginner's Luke Series of novels. Luke's signature obsessions with self, sex, satire and slapdash highlight a serious point: consciousness creates. The point is there is a point to living in the imagination–for only through it can we reinvent our ourselves and our world. Currently, the author is giving away copies of Beginner's Luke. To take advantage of this FREE offer, click here.]

Access_public Access: Public 2 Comments Print views (211)  

Creative Writing 101

Posted on Nov 25th, 2008 by Sol : Crow Rising Sol

The Adventure of an imaginary lifetime begins. Request your FREE copy today!

BEGINNER'S LUKE is a welcome start to what promises to be a mind-bending journey through the mind of the ultimate iconoclast. Apex Reviews

BEGINNER'S LUKE to a conventional novel is what an animated film is to a documentary. It is creative, imaginative, humorous and very distinctive.Reader Views

Definitely a spiritual journey that you do not want to put down.Niama Williams, Ph.D., Host, Poetry & Prose & Anything Goes

Sol Luckman

With the notable exception of Intermediate French, which I recall chiefly because the instructor was a to-die-for Parisian grad student named Emmanuelle whose haute couture hips maintained a constant motion like an Olympic slalom skier’s as she copied dizzying conjugations across the blackboard—I say, not counting French the only class I remember taking my first (and technically, only) semester in Pulpit Hill was Creative Writing 101.
 
Actually, that’s pure fiction. I just told a complete lie in a shameless attempt to streamline the opening of this transitional chapter that has, in all honesty, given me stress ulcers …

That’s another lie. I really just wanted to grab your attention, lure you in with a gratuitous image of exotic sexuality, seduce you into a comfortable narrative rhythm so as to take advantage of your aroused credulity. When the simple fact is I distinctly remember a third class that fall: Sociology of the Imaginary.

Taught by a twitchy little bird-faced Canadian professor named Jean-Michel Possy, Sociology of the Imaginary had fifteen students including yours truly, required no formal coursework other than a final and used a single textbook, Extraterrestrials in Our Lives, written by the professor. Many of the students were, in fact, extraterrestrials.

We spent most of our time watching ET, Close Encounters, Alien, Cocoon and Roswell documentaries, then discussing them in detail—the idea being, according to the syllabus, “to explore humanity by examining our imaginative conception of the Other.” I kept wanting to stand up and tell everybody I was the imagined Other, big as life right there in front of them, and they should be studying me instead of ET. But I was a freshman and still rather shy.

To return, though, to Creative Writing 101. This was an introductory fiction workshop taught by the venerable Department Chair, who wasn’t actually a chair but a slightly senile, possibly alcoholic novelist by the name of Bertha McGough from whom I gained a sobering perspective on the art (for lack of a better word) of writing pedestrian but eminently marketable prose with a distinctly Southern flavor concerned with the ordinary lives of ordinary characters and the ordinary human spirit’s triumph over ordinary adversity and all that Harper Lee crap.

That first afternoon we found ourselves seated around a huge round table, a literary Camelot, twenty or so of us aspiring eighteen-year-old geniuses with helium in our brains, in one of the seminar rooms in Lovelace Hall, home to the English Department. Mrs. McGough arrived fashionably late and, taking her place at the table, launched into a carefully rehearsed, impromptu lecture about how this was a serious course, and we were all expected to turn in our manuscripts on time, and we were to give and receive constructive criticism, and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

The class is designed for no more than twelve students and, since there are twenty of us, the non-registered students are kindly asked to look elsewhere. I’ve already pre-registered, so I’m only giving Mrs. McGough half an ear. It turns out there’s one spot left for a non-registered student that has just been snagged by one William Morocco, a.k.a. Billy, presently engaged across the table in extracting an especially recalcitrant bugger from his aquiline nose.

Billy was, in a word … ugly. I mean that literally. The boy was as ugly as your grandmother bent over reaching for the soap in the shower. I’m quite confident Billy, wherever (and for that matter, whoever) he is, would agree with me good-naturedly. We used to joke about how ugly he was, after we became friends.

You’d think I’d have been accustomed to the sight of an ugly person, having hung out for so long with Egbert and Dante and having, moreover, grown up in Lipton Hill. But Billy was in a class by himself.

Maybe it was the way he always seemed to stoop (he could stoop lying down); or the way his hands, feet and ears looked half a dozen sizes overgrown; or the albino skin mottled with raspberry freckles and the occasional juicy zit; or the shoulder-length, neon red hair that looked like a cheap theatrical wig but that really was his hair … Whatever the case, there was one thing (technically, two things) about him that wasn’t ugly: his eyes.

Don’t panic. I have no intention of blithering on about one of my character’s eyes like some indulgent romance novelist. The eyes are the most overrated of the visible aspects of human anatomy. I myself prefer the earlobes and ankles. But I will say Billy had the most mesmerizing set of peepers I’ve ever stared into.

I can’t even remember what color they were. They could have been hot pink or lemon yellow, that’s how much I was drawn into them, mesmerized, blinded like a deer in headlights, bowled over and taken for a ride. Only much later did I finally break the spell of his eyes and realize how crazy the son-of-a-bitch was.

Long before that I came to love him as you can only love a best friend: totally, utterly, soul-to-marrow. I’d have followed him to the bottom of the ocean, the dark side of the moon, on a Himalayan expedition. And I practically did.



So all the non-registered students are obliged to leave, Billy casually flips the bugger over his shoulder, and the first lesson gets underway. As an ice-breaker Mrs. McGough asked us to go around the table and introduce ourselves. I recall counting only eleven students, including myself, four of whom, in addition to Billy, played at least a minor role in my brief tenure as an undergrad in Pulpit Hill:

Penny Genet. Related through an obscure genealogy to the French playwright, Penny Genet (for some reason nobody ever called her just “Penny”) could talk a mean Shakespeare and was the most naturally talented writer among us. She had a plump, pretty exterior, especially on the rare occasions when she permitted herself to smile, but underneath was a heart harder than marble and liquid nitrogen sluicing through her veins.

“I like eating better than sex because no one is sharing it with me,” she once told the class proudly. Gifted with a razor-sharp wit and microscopic critical eye, Penny Genet was more outwardly pleasant than inwardly kind. While remaining cordial toward one another, she and I both realized, privately, we disagreed about everything.

Tamara Love. A wan, hypersensitive girl who wore ankle-length, earth-tone, hemp dresses with no shoes or stockings (even in winter) and wrote tear-jerking stories about endangered wildlife. Plainly sweet and sweetly plain, Tamara didn’t look like other coeds with her bushy Slavic eyebrows and knotty body. There was something rather beautiful in her ugliness, and something else altogether unattractive in her beauty. She had a strange habit of giving her fellow classmates deep-tissue massages with the pointed end of a yam.

Once, at a party, finding herself alone with me on someone’s porch, she confided that in high school she’d had three abortions and two STDs. That was shortly before she fell to waxing eloquent about how nice my ass was (she’d enticed me to the floor and started in with the yam) and how I was so good-looking (she was stoned) and how we should definitely get together and have sex or something.

I think I hurt her feelings when I politely declined to accompany her back to her room. I never could figure out whether Tamara was stupid or just confused. She went on to become editor of Queue (which Billy and I referred to as Cul, from the French), the student literary magazine.

Reginald Washington. A skinny, animated guy from the Fourth Dimension (so we surmised) who was the spitting image of Spike Lee in Do the Right Thing. Reginald liked to discourse at great length and in tremendous detail on the Bible as science fiction. His stories never had characters—at least none any of us could identify—though he did produce one interesting piece of work: “The Undiscovered Country,” a sketch for a story (presumably with characters) about the discovery, in 1986, of a seventh continent the size of Australia located just a few miles east of the Florida Keys. The somewhat obvious theme being the hubris of science exposed by the mystery of the unknown universe.

It was impossible to tell whether Reginald was on drugs or Foucault. He’d get wound up and suddenly take off like a UFO into some extraordinarily abstruse topic completely off the subject, something like: “What I fail to understand is the contradictory textual situation because of the fact that the narrator is but isn’t, you dig, and also that whole antihero thing, and I was reminded again of the sociolibinal nature of narrative, which translates into a kind of triviality belying a tremendous though hidden and oft-denied importance, like the Crazy Glue cementing this world together whose center just can’t seem to hold otherwise, to paraphrase Shelley and Yeats and, yes, Achebe, a brother, dig, and I felt a vast existential loneliness inherent in the seemingly glib dialogue and compelling descriptions of the wasteland that society has become which came across as pure poetry, lyrical even, dig, and that reminded me of something Nietzsche once said—”

Then there was Tristan. Tristan Dykes. The funny thing was—she really was a dike. “Queer as a tennis helmet,” Billy used to say. Tristan had the droopy hound-dog face of certain Irish women, sported cropped flaming red hair to match her molten Gaelic temperament and was a damned good writer—if you liked stories about arson, gang rape and child molestation.

She wrote like a serial killer. She’d grown up as an army brat in Fayetteville, North Carolina, which she referred to with smoldering odium as “Fayettenam.” I’ll never forget the first sentence of the first story she submitted: “The only serious fire I ever set, aside from a few minor dumpster and trashcan fires, was when I doused my parents’ doublewide with gasoline, threw a lit match on it and walked away without looking back.” Fact or fiction? The shared suspicion was it was unembellished fact, but we never found out for sure.

Tristan carried a chip on her shoulder the size of the Rosetta Stone. She hated men in general, me in particular. She took especial umbrage at my satirical sketch of the feminist writer (cleverly named Kristen Sykes) who, after losing her memory in a near-fatal lesbian sexual accident, hears her own story (which she has absolutely no memory of writing) being read at a workshop by a male colleague and proceeds to attack his “typically myopic, bigoted, phallogocentric point of view.”

Last but not least, there was Billy. Besides being eye-popping ugly, Billy was the official Resident Enigma of the University of North Carolina at Pulpit Hill. A kind of collegiate Gatsby for the 80s, the guy was nobody and everybody, either full of shit or full of gold depending on the source.

Some said he was the estranged (possibly bastard) son of wealthy East Coast aristocrats, the Browns or the Rockefellers or even the Kennedys. And he did vaguely resemble—with that mop of red hair, blueblood nose and equine teeth—Bobby Kennedy as a young man. Others said he was related to Lily Tomlin, that he was descended from George Orwell, that he was Lyle Lovett’s half brother, that he was the son of Ed Sullivan or Jack Palance or even, according to a vocal minority, Buddy Holly.

Whether with plotting purpose or out of unconcerned innocence, Billy added to the intrigue by maintaining a serene, detached silence that had the effect of stirring up more rumors. That he was a heroin smuggler. That he was a KGB spy. That there were secret caves on the coast of Brittany where he’d hosted month-long orgies. All that was known with certainty about him was he was loaded—enough to drive a mint condition orange Ferrari Spider and own (not rent) the sumptuous three-story antebellum manor he resided in on a cul-de-sac off Mephisto Street.

Billy’s silence extended into the classroom, where unless I missed it during one of my daydreams, he never uttered a syllable beyond that first meeting when we all introduced ourselves … That’s not true either. I’m full of lies today! He did speak one afternoon in class when, ordered by Mrs. McGough (who was at her wit’s end) to produce at least the idea for a story, he looked directly at me as if staring into my heart of hearts and outlined the following scenario:

A writer in his early thirties kept sending off his stories to various magazines, contests, agents and editors—without success. The writer became more and more depressed, and at times even a little suicidal, facing all that rejection. But one day he had a brilliant idea: he decided to transform himself and go back to college. But not just any college. He applied to the University of Iowa and enrolled as a freshman in its famous writing program. Of course, he told everybody he was just eighteen, which made his professors (among them John Irving) think he was some kind of prodigy because he wrote so well for his age. So they used their influence to get him a lucrative publishing contract and, presto, despite his actually mediocre talent, he was hailed as the next Tom Robbins.

But other than this singular outburst, Billy’s lips remained tightly sealed. To the best of my knowledge he never even turned in a writing assignment. Yet he never skipped class, was always the first to arrive and last to leave. He even took notes occasionally, scribbling with a Waterman pen in a leather-bound, gold-leafed notebook he carried in the inside pocket of his Harris tweed jacket.

Mrs. McGough eventually stopped making his blatant lack of participation an issue—though she later flunked him. Little by little Billy passed from being one of us aspiring geniuses, to a curious if not altogether engaged onlooker, and finally to nothing more than a specter that haunted our classroom, a friendly apparition more figmentary than real, a regular Boo Radley gone away to college and enrolled in Creative Writing 101.



After introductions Mrs. McGough handed out copies of the syllabus and discussed its particulars, then went on to pose general questions about the nature and purpose of fiction.

“What is a story?” she began, surveying the room over the top of her horn-rimmed bifocals, which she always wore on the tip of her nose when not chewing an earpiece in a polished writerly gesture. “Tell me, what is a story?” An embarrassed silence ensued. No one had an answer.

To this day I’m not sure I’m any closer to answering Mrs. McGough’s question. I’m tempted to say either everything is a story, or nothing is. Maybe it’s simply a matter of semantics. Maybe there’s really no difference between story and non-story. After all, the Word was made Flesh. And certainly Flesh is made Word every day. Take my imaginary life. I used to be a real person, but now I’m just words.

Or am I?

Rule #1: Always believe everything you read, however absurd or implausible it may strike you, because you just never know.

Believe this:

That first class possessed an undeniable fatality. Aside from providing the context for my initial encounter with Billy (an event that was to have immense personal and, to a certain degree, metaphysical and even historical implications), that first class was where I fell madly, desperately, head-over-heels in lust with Vanessa Hope.

Sweet Vanessa! Nymphomaniacal muse! In Life, as in Art, one typically falls for at least one femme fatale. I still get a hard-on when I think about her.

I’d met her briefly a few days earlier at the reception for the incoming Skidmore scholars at the Skidmore Terrarium. A posh event, I’d never felt more like the wide-eyed, slack-jawed, clueless hick I’d chosen to be, surrounded by such stunning Old Money opulence—the shiny brass doorknobs, gleaming crystal chandeliers, period furniture, Turkish rugs, oriental vases and gilt-framed oil paintings; the waiters in black tie serving artisanal hors-d’oeuvres and expensive champagne; the stuffy trustees making the rounds getting to know the new scholars; the scholars themselves, sixty or so, an up-and-coming jet set of Americans, Canadians, Brits and Aussies from Andover, Hotchkiss and Wycombe Abbey destined for executive positions with such philanthropic and spiritually uplifting corporations as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, trying their prep school best to appear suave, witty, urbane and wise beyond their years; and presiding over it all the vast oil portrait of Richard Smedley Skidmore VI, rubber baron, patron of the arts but mostly the sciences whose seven-figure endowment was royally financing not only our educations but the artisanal hors-d’oeuvres and expensive champagne to boot. (The fact every scholar present was underage was casually and, I say with certainty, safely ignored.) Yes, there he was: good old Uncle Skidmark himself.

And there she was—Vanessa, sweet Vanessa, conversing in fluent French with one of the trustees, delicately sipping her champagne with impeccable grace. To look at her, to listen to her, you’d have thought she was untouchable, inviolable, a creature not of this world, a fair-skinned Norse goddess who, unlike her swarthy and promiscuous Greek counterparts, would never deign to be caressed by mortal hands.

Not that she was haughty; to the contrary, her conversation flowed with animation and sincerity. I noticed she had big gums, and the effect was anything but negative, and I returned to my dorm room later that evening still thinking about her, drunkenly aroused and mildly troubled in a sexual way. Imagine my surprise when she waltzed in the door twenty-five minutes late for Mrs. McGough’s Creative Writing 101.

“I’m Vanessa Hope. Sorry I’m late. I had trouble finding the building.”

“Have a seat,” said Mrs. McGough. “Tell us, Vanessa, where are you from? You don’t sound like a Southerner.”

“Boston,” she replied, squeezing into the vacant seat beside Billy, the bastard.

I’d never been to Boston, but the way Vanessa said it, the way the word dripped out of her mouth like fresh maple syrup oozing from a tap, filled me with an intense desire to go there. Immediately.

From that instant, for the duration of the class, I completely forgot about Billy. I forgot he even existed. I forgot I existed. I became an impassioned spirit drifting limpidly, languidly through the streets of an imaginary Boston, lost in Vanessa’s petulant breasts and slender neck, the chiseled line of her jaw, her sparkling emerald eyes that kept boring hot little holes in me.



The sounds of notebooks closing, chairs scooting back and people standing up rudely interrupted my reverie. Class was over. I’d managed to fantasize away the second half of my first lesson.

As we filed out of the room, I tapped Billy on the shoulder. “What’s the assignment?” I whispered.

He looked at me knowingly with his lucid mad eyes and said simply, matter-of-factly, “I haven’t the vaguest idea.” Then, turning to watch Vanessa sashay down the hall: “She’ll go far on that ass.”

I reread the syllabus later for the assignment: a one-thousand-word free association sentence without punctuation or capitalization to be written spontaneously in one sitting. We were also supposed to begin a writer’s notebook like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s to be filled with story ideas, character sketches, dialogue, descriptions, jokes, poems, recyclable tidbits, et cetera.

Meanwhile, I followed my classmates out of Lovelace Hall into a sizzling August afternoon. There wasn’t a hint of fall yet in the flatlands; the bright sunlight was still as hot as a crematorium. I watched furtively, longingly, as Vanessa disappeared around the corner in the opposite direction I was headed.

Parting is especially sweet sorrow when it’s unilateral. I felt empty walking back across campus to my dorm. As I made my way past the Hole, the university’s social epicenter and forum for a variety of lunatics, I overheard a street preacher reading from his King James Bible, voice raised, as if to a circus tent full of revival-goers.

“And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD. They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken? Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD.”

When I looked back I saw Billy, heinously ugly Billy in his Harris tweed jacket, sitting alone on the steps munching a bag of Ruffles, attentively accompanying the preacher’s sermon.

Copyright (c) 2008 by Sol Luckman. All Rights Reserved.

If you'd like to spread the word about this mind-bending journey through the mind of the ultimate iconoclast (Apex Reviews), please take a moment to “Back the Book!” for publication with HarperCollins of London!

http://www.beginnersluke.com//back1.PNG

Who would you be if you could be anyone? go anywhere? do anything? Well, you can! Luke Soloman will show you how.

BEGINNER'S LUKE is the first novel in a series of six madcap adventures that, collectively, make up the imaginary life of this lovably irreverent modern-day Walter Mitty. Luke's signature obsessions with self, sex, satire and slapdash highlight a serious, and life-changing, point: consciousness creates. The point is there is a point to living in the imagination–for only through it can we reinvent our ourselves and our world.

Currently, the author is giving away Books I-III of the BEGINNER'S LUKE Series. To take advantage of this totally FREE offer, click here.


Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (246)