The Critics’ Corner

The Floozman discussion

The Floozman Discussion

by Bertrand Cayzac

Thank you, Don! Your enthusiasm [for chapter 16, part 2] touches me deeply, especially because this chapter contains memories of my childhood. It’s a miracle that they can be found intact in both languages. And it is, assuredly, poetic license that makes possible the intervention of a “familiar spirit” in the prose.

I’m also very excited by the two discussions I’ve found in The Critics’ Corner. They’ve given me a lot to think about, beginning with a rather long thank-you note that I’ve written in English so that you may share it with all interested parties.

Merci! Ton éloge me va droit au cœur. Je suis d’autant plus ému que ce chapitre emporte des souvenirs d’enfance. C’est un miracle qu’ils puissent se retrouver intacts dans les deux langues. C’est assurément la licence poétique dans la prose qui a rendu possible l’intervention d’un ‘daemon’.

Je suis aussi très ému et stimulé par les deux discussions que je viens de découvrir dans le critic’s corner. Elles m’ont inspiré beaucoup de choses, à commencer par ces remerciements un peu étoffés que je rédige en anglais afin que tu les partages avec les intéressés.

I am extremely honored and stimulated by the two simultaneous, interconnected discussions I have discovered in The Critics’ Corner! Wisdom demands a thorough rereading of the good Mr. Yorik’s sermons on self-examination before reacting to so much warmth and fuzziness. This in order to hunt down PRIDE in all its guises, of course.

Does not Gary Inbinder raise sound, inspiring questions? I don’t have the answers, of course, but I still have a lot to say, be it to raise more questions on philosophy and French pop singers. May I?

And Bill Bowler gives me a powerful metaphor to understand and advocate — be it with some pride — the holographic fabric of the work. “Associative is beautiful” goes straight to my heart full of doubt, and I lack words to say how hard I cling to the idea of an emerging plot, how much I cherish its reflection in the reader’s mind.

Do I cling to this emerging, living thing as Jack does to the beanstalk’s foliage? Hm, I wonder. I had been mentally preparing vague considerations about this: how this text is a stumbling, oniric questioning of a sort. But these considerations are actualized, enriched and fecundated by both Bill Bowler’s critique and Don Webb’s continuation, especially the lopin part, if I may say so. Can I step in, Ms. Wisdom, can I? I want only to ride this train of thoughts as a passenger, you know...

Thanks, Don, for the dazzling pick-up on Bill’s and, indirectly, Gary’s critiques. I’m quite overwhelmed. Your analysis contains many ideas to meditate upon before catching the train I mentioned.

I like to think of this train as the convoy of Pancho Villa. We’re all comfortably sitting in a Pullman car, sipping whiskey, when Pancho stands up and exclaims, “Trinch, amigos! The text belongs to those who work on it.”

“Hah,” says the Lone Ranger, on a sofa. “So you think a text can belong to somebody?”

“Never! I’d rather die,” says the text, whistling in the Internet of Things along with the locomotive.

Merci à toi, donc, pour cet éblouissant rebond sur la critique de Bill Bowler et indirectement, sur celle de Gary. J’en suis tout abasourdi. Ton analyse contient beaucoup d’idées que je dois méditer avant de prendre le train dont je parle.

Je l’imagine volontiers comme le convoi de Pancho Villa, ce train – nous sommes tous tranquillement installés dans le wagon pullman en train de siroter du whisky quand Pancho se lève et s’écrie « Trinch, amigos ! Le texte appartient à ceux qui le travaillent. »

« Ha, » fait le lone ranger dans le sofa, « alors vous pensez qu’un texte peut appartenir ? ».

« Jamais, plutôt crever ! » fait le texte en sifflant dans l’internet des choses, à l’unisson avec la locomotive.