Most Read... Rebecca WattsThe Cult of the Noble Amateur
(PN Review 239)
John McAuliffeBill Manhire in Conversation with John McAuliffe
(PN Review 259)
Eavan BolandA Lyric Voice at Bay
(PN Review 121)
Patricia CraigVal Warner: A Reminiscence
(PN Review 259)
Vahni CapildeoOn Judging Prizes, & Reading More than Six Really Good Books
(PN Review 237)
Tim Parksin conversation with Natalia Ginzburg
(PN Review 49)
Next Issue Gwyneth Lewis ‘Spiderings’ Ian Thomson ‘Fires were started: Tallinn, 1944’ Adrian May ‘Traditionalism and Tradition’ Judith Herzberg ‘Poems’ translated by Margitt Helbert Horatio Morpurgo ‘What is a Book?’
Poems Articles Interviews Reports Reviews Contributors
PN Review 276
PN Review Substack

This report is taken from PN Review 228, Volume 42 Number 4, March - April 2016.

Imprudent Remarks on Certain Prudently Unidentified Literary Giants Frank Kuppner
0. Nothing expresses the inexpressible.

1. How surprisingly easy it is, when talking about the Incommunicable, to forget that it is, simply … erm … incommunicable. (Yes. Oh indeed, Eck. They seem to claim modestly enough that they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Transcendent or the Otherworldly – [by the way, is that one thing or two? (or just one infinity or two?)] – but they are forever talking as if in fact they did know about it. (Indeed. And rather a lot about them at that.))

2. (Yes. It seems to be particularly difficult to stay silent for long about the nature of that which cannot at all be put into words.)

3. Certainly, what exists and what gets put into words have a very imperfect overlap. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with transcendence as such. (Can one completely describe, for instance, even, say, a mere, routine sneeze? (Leaves falling from a single tree – of many, one? (Or do fish perhaps transcend the net when they escape through its meshes?)))

4. … consists in the ingenious decking out of conceptual utter-impossibilities in such finely detailed speculative verbal finery that the sheer impossibility becomes difficult – (in an ideal world: also impossible) – to discern.

5. Since we cannot remotely succeed in dealing with this functionally infinite but merely material world in all its vertiginous complexity, we invent symbols, in order to give the impression (if only to ourselves) that we ...


Searching, please wait... animated waiting image