Nevertheless,
This book tells us what:
When it is that we stop being children? Meanwhile, The question may seem trivial, but the answer – the possible answers are far from simple. Meanwhile, Well, you say, you stop being children when the parents are gone, when mom. In addition, dad died And we become, technically, orphans: sooner or later it is a fate that we all go, it is the natural course of things that the old people die first of the young people (although even this law is denied in certain – unfortunately not infrequent, and those really very sad – cases).
Ok sure. Meanwhile, but we are sure that you don’t have adults/elderly behind your shoulders automatically becomes not-più-figli, so adults? Consequently, Of course, in many cases it helps, but in others the passage is not automatic. However, Not this book tells us what to mention that parents continue to exercise their indirect influence. For example, more or less recognizable or recognized, in our lives, through the memory and in any case by virtue of the experience: with parents we can continue to speak – also wanting to fight – whether they are present or absent, alive or dead (this is the meaning of the phrase made, which like all commonplaces contains a fund of truth, according to which “they continue to live within us”).
Another response. Consequently, alternative to the one, so to speak biological, is the practical-cultural solution: we stop being children when we go out of the family-social influence of parents. In addition, Not only. For example, not so much because they are already dead, but because we are the ones who have gone on: physically away from home, alone or to constitute another family unit. this book tells us what Meanwhile, Or in the next step: when we generate in turn some childrenin fact assuming the role of parents and therefore dismantling that of children. Therefore, But are we really sure it’s like that?
This book. However, tells us what
The terrible phrase of the dead father of Donald Barthelme
There is one terrible phrase which would seem to deny this hypothesis too. It is located in the book The dead this book tells us what father the Donald Barthelme. It is a book that, in spite of the macabre title, is far from sad and heavy. Indeed it is comic, unleashed, surreal. If the inconsistencies and contradictions do not frighten you, it is for you. On the other hand. the author is one of the representatives of postmodern literature who in the second half of the last century has dismissed western culture: The Dead Father It is from 1975, in the middle of the creative, general and Barthelme explosion. (It publishes it minimum fax with tRailway by Marco Amante and the preface of another great American writer, of the next generation, Donald Antrim. Of him there are also very beautiful. perhaps even more representative, the stories, collected in various books, always for minimum which among the various recoveries is reprinting the classics of the posmodernism, as a few months ago Roland this book tells us what Barth of which we spoke in a piece on the masterpieces to be recovered).
The book is populated by absurd characters who do strange things. the strangest of all is this who have put themselves in the head to move – slowly, laboriously – the dead father. Which is a kind of master/governor of the city, and in part physically coincides with it. The dead father is at the same time gigantic. very small, lying and standing, very pesant and agile, immobile and capable of escaping, mechanical and biological, despotic and affectionate, Patriarch and old tie -clouded tyrannical, and above all, of course, it is at the same time alive and dead.
The phrase in question says it in a dialogue with the sonwho is directing the movement operations. in short, he is rightly trying to get rid of his father, and this book tells us what speaking with him he claims a sort of autonomy (the Freudian interpretation is the most obvious but also the least satisfying). The phrase is this:
You have never known. In the most complete sense. Because you are not a father.
They are, said Thomas. Forget Elsie.
Elsie does not count, said the dead father. A son will never, in the most complete sense, become a father. To a certain extent, amateur efforts are possible. After honest attempts, a child can give rise to what some technically define children. But it remains a child. In the most complete sense.
The bewilderment in the face of such a statement is the one that takes us generally in front of the whole book. full of these paradoxes. And however it is a not only mental bewilder: in reality we are this book tells us what understanding very well -. this is also the reason why if we abandon ourselves to the flow of narration these apparent inconsistencies do not give any discomfort.
We do not completely gradually grab, but below, in a way, unconsciouswe understand its deep meaning, we grasp its terrible scope. The problem with a dead father like this is that, being already dead, he can no longer die.
He mainly deals with fantastic literature and fried pizzas. Journalist. he co-founded the monthly universal judgment and collaborated with too numerous newspapers to be able to stay in this margin. Writer, he published various books, of fiction and not; the last is Novels for one year – 9Lx1(365,25).
This book tells this book tells us what us what
Further reading: Readings, an unfinished novel by Dickens returns to the bookstore – The new Cims and Bacchilega books in San Prospero inaugurated in San Prospero – “I close the door and scream” by Paolo Nori – Neither polarization nor oblivion the maternal is resistance – In Ripa Teatina the book “Fausto, my Coppi” – Federciclismo debuts.
