Addendum... "missive to HurClites" but really about "Narrativity"

Verst a Fiarag! Ument.

But isn't the 'real' problem not the 'reality' of the narrative as created by the author(a)-centric author, but the {and I'm certain the electronic page of Acker could be back-bent nicely to say this} unreality of narrativity itself.  It isn't that narrative fails to capture a reality that really is, by the limitedness of the authors view (or difference of the author's view from that of the writing reader, as it is here doubly [triply?]); but that any 'reality' would have to be narrated out of the flux/'manifold'/'absolute'/'plane of immanence' (really whatever silly thing youwannaCurlit).  So the mode of 'narration' (either as Acker attempts to pin it down, or as would be more judiciously constructed out of a real assessment of the history of literature) would be one way in which stories are "held" out of everything/anything.

I guess that means we can see why you might be a little irked at the limitation of narrative as a mode of representation, and perhaps even more so at the historical object/process named "narrative" which has its own bias and weight towards certain social structures (whiteness, man-ness, whatevs).  But the think that I still can't wrap and rap my head/saying around is the hope to keep the named thing "narrative" hoping that just looking away from it for a second might allow you not to reproduce its (already, yes, yes, always already reproduced in any possible writer/reader) curve, and without any better insight into the other narrative; the way we think my words can be drawn into something that anyone else could follow and re(-)form the 'Same' way.

So on second glance (a-ver(re)s ?), I get the Acker example narrative, that makes sense and is I think a great example of Narrativity in action.  But the yardstick she puts up to it seems to be there only as 1) as means of construction some 'better' narrative negatively, and 2) fight off all the beautiful formal conflagrations of the example given.  (which on third thought, really didn't need the biographical caveat at the beginning, but I guess if your (R/r)ule(r) is some 'real' "reality" then, well, "there you are"...

Oh, right, and to 'mean' my title... wouldn't want things running off into Arbitrariness (sorry for the punchy/caddy, taking a break from re-re-re-reading all the Heidegger for the thesis... I'm sure that will rise up (def more like vomit than sun, or singing, I'm sure, singeing) sooner than later and would have been a much easier way out of the Heraclitus contract I 'signed' for myself inthatspace at the 'top' of the 'page' [yes, yes, yes De'da, you're next.... sit down and take a fucking number]), but might not that very arbitrariness be that "hidden (hiding) nature ('physis' remember, not naturphilosophie or Rousseau's Nature)".  Yes the same one that Lucretius pretends to have a bullet-proof (proof?) against in his senses, and their obviousness... Silly.