Past Oral

How is an atheist to read Philip Silver's translation from Felix Martinez-Bonati's Fictive Discourse and the Structure of Literature? Sincerely. Descriptively. Observe:

Just as there is a reduction or ellipsis of the basic narrative structure, there is also a kind of overextension of the logical privilege. Reading some works (pastoral novels, for example), we feel that not only the basic narrator but also the characters speak the unrestricted truth (in the double sense of being sincere and of describing the fact to perfection), even when they are not assuming the function of the basic narrator. What could be called the principle of angelicality (since each character becomes a mouthpiece of the godlike narrator) pervades such works, flattening the logical differentiations of the image of speech.

"Reduction" or "ellipsis"?. To answer the question, transcode as a shrinking or a silence.

Shrug shoulders, squint and shrink the god factor: "mouthpiece of the [...] narrator". Transform the angelicality angle. Before that happens focus on

a mouthpiece

and overextend "mouth" to "body".

A character becomes a body of the narrator. Avatars notwithstanding, "a body of the narrator" need not be read in an reproductive sense. It can assume a delegative form such in the case of parliamentary committees being bodies of the deliberative form that is a legislative assembly and an assembly can itself be a body of a sovereign will.

Bodies are produced. The bodies produce "of" are not always if ever produced "for". That is not an open question.

The overextension needs to be extend. Plural eyes see multiplication.

There lurks in the pastoral the grotesque. Just as there is a monological drive to a Burroughs cut up technique, there is also a reduction of the replication. The body instances (whole bodies or parts) no matter how numerous are caught up in the spirit of a single narration where it becomes difficult if not impossible to reconstruct the narrator as a single entity. Pastoral like folk tale belongs to and issues from no one in particular.

The head of a in question turns topsy turvy. How many pins can an angel dance upon?

What counts as a character? Does a character speak? What is this speaking? What does it mean to have an image of this speaking? Ponder the intersection of engraving [see etymology of character] and charades [origin unknown]. When the mute becomes a mouthpiece amazing constructions can be seen when the engraved is allowed to be silent.

The truth shall set you free to ask questions. The half truth like some kinds of ellipsis will privilege logic.

And so for day 22