The Editor [Flash Fiction]

Foreword

Hamlet is Hamlet; the play is the character as well as the thing in itself; title characters carry more than what they say inside them. Tom Jones  is Tom Jones; does it then mean that Tom Jones is Tom Jones? Not necessarily. It is different for Ishmael and Ahab; Moby Dick is Moby Dick; the looming oversoul of the novel. The play subsumes the character and thus for a time, the character is a metonym for the play in its entirety? But Hamlet is Hamlet, just as Othello is Othello, and becomes important to note when the character does not have most of the lines as does Hamlet in Hamlet. You will have to look for how and where this continues; it will not herein now. This functions in the way we say a person is all of the actors in his dream, if you will.

I

What Has Been Written

Precedes the Essence of Writing

Do we here at The Review intend to examine our social interactions and interogate those who mange their forums? Do we intend to provide commentary and critique of our values, mores, ethos? Yes, we surely do. How could it be otherwise? Isn’t it a compelling logic carried to its conclusion by the premise: ours is a Literary Review? Could I extend any of these questions and answers beyond the limits of this essay? Yes, I could, but I will not, except to say the subjects of our essays range from language and linguistics, to epistemology and ethics, to history and law, to historiography and reading and writing, to painting, sculpture, theater, blogging, the media, et cetera, et cetera. How much more could be said is indeterminable. What is determinable is what gets written when it does get written; the facts around the writing and as a result of having written are the only determinable things about the writing herein. There is no essential writing before the existence of what has been written, what is the writing is only in the writing.

[. . .]

This text has been edited and abridged.

Advertisements

Attention! Warnings to be Warned; From the Editor

Be warned, I tell you. Yes, be warned as we so often prove we love being. Yes, warned. We love to be warned. We are excited when warned about harm. We like being frightened by our media, titillated by a broadcast and print media insistent on overdramatizing the news, creating news based on the demands of sensationalism, irrespective of truth or value as news. News does have a value. It does have a need as well as serve other needs in a society. This need the news itself has is firstly determined by the demands of Truth–and I do know how grandiose this sounds to a contemporaneity driven by a metaphysics of doubt, an overriding doubt that knowledge can be had or the limits of knowing determined. Truth is not a lie used to reinforce the hegemony of elites–we have the most elitist society in our history, all the time we masquerade as being more democratic, or more pluralistic, which always tries to parade as Democratic Truth.

 

Disagree or Mis-agree

We can all disagree in this pseudo-democratic nation managed by power elites bent on keeping the masses semi-educated and semi-literate–but consensus in the end is the mandate. To disagree with mandated consensus is to be excommunicate and anathema, socially. The dogma of all Americans acting Americanly is to reach consensus after they disagree in any verbal exchange. What we have mostly is a ping ping match of monologues. There is no democratic dialogue in America. If we had dialogue, real trenchant democratic dialogue, we would not need to scramble for consensus after extending our disagreements into tangentially drawn monologues, themselves indicative of how our favorite game in America is hop-scotch with the truth It’s absurd; it’s grotesque; this demand for consensus. There isn’t even a thread of coalition drawn up in the paradigms of these consenses. But then reality is by consensus, isn’t, often determined by popular consensus rather than or before other philosophical criteria.

 

From the Editor

Do we intend to write essays about literature?For sure, we do; and about literary figures? Certainly, we will. About poetry, fiction, non-fiction, drama, theater, film and other media arts? Yes, yes, yes and so on yes. Will there be passages of biography included–there is always something of biography herein. In fact, everything any writer writes is also part of his biography–is it a mapping, a sketching, a tracing, a mirroring of the mind, of the thoughts and the thinking of the writer, of me–I do not know what I think until I write. How could I not write, write and write some more about whatever there may be to write about, even not having anything to say about something that could have been written about but was not? The essay on the failed exposition would be a contribution to the form. I’m sure they have been written.

From the Falling Leaf Review Staff

Do we intend to write essays about literature?For sure, we do; and about literary figures? Certainly, we will. About poetry, fiction, non-fiction, drama, theater, film and other media arts? Yes, yes, yes and so on yes. Will there be passages of biography included–there is always something of biography herein. In fact, everything any writer writes is also part of his biography–is it a mapping, a sketching, a tracing, a mirroring of the mind, of the thoughts and the thinking of the writer, of me–I do not know what I think until I write. How could I not write, write and write some more about whatever there may be to write about, even not having anything to say about something that could have been written about but was not? The essay on the failed exposition.

From the Editor

Do we here at The Falling Leaf Review intend to examine our social interactions and forums and provide commentary and critique? Yes, we surely do. How could it be otherwise? Isn’t it a compelling logic carried to its conclusion by the premise: ours is a Literary Review? Could I extend any of these questions and answers beyond the limits of this essay? Yes, I could, but I will not, except to say the subjects of our essays range from language and linguistics, to epistemology and ethics, to history and law, to historiography and reading and writing, to painting, sculpture, theater, blogging, the media, et cetera, et cetera. How much more could be said is indeterminable. What is determinable is what gets written when it does get written; the facts around the writing and as a result of having written are the only determinable things about the writing herein. There is no essential writing before the existence of what has been written, what is the writing is only in the writing.

A Note from the Editor

Is it the purpose of this Review to examine politics in general and politics as they are played out on the American stage both currently and historically? Yes, it is. We take our political responsibility seriously here at The Falling Leaf Review . . . to look again at what everyone has looked at, what everybody has viewed with one or another prejudices–yes, everything seen through one or another distorting lens. Who among sees with absolute clarity–is it really impossible? Are the notions we have about clarity similar to the ones we hold about knowledge–impossibility is a certainty I avoid. Infinite possibility is a mass too dense regardless the size.