A Friday Afternoon Ramble on Art and Life and Madame Bovary
This morning John Latta quoted a bit out of Jed Rasula’s new Modernism and Poetic Inspiration:
In lieu of its “vocation of disorder,” Blanchot wonders what qualifies as Romanticism: “Where it manifests itself, rich in projects, or where it dies out, poor in works?” The answer: equivocation. Or, to use a term the Romantics themselves were fond of, the arabesque, the ability to wriggle simultaneously toward contrary poles. Although such wriggling can remain intransitive, and the work uncompleted, “‘this superiority of intelligence over the power of execution’ is the very sign of authenticity” as Blanchot puts it by way of Valéry. Execution is tacitly the domain of the artisan, so the artist asserts authority in a sovereign gesture of disdain, as if the poet, conceiving the masterpiece, says to the reader, you do it, where doing amounts to a laborious temporal extraction of the divine Idea from a patent muddle (in which James Joyce sets his hen pecking at a suspiciously sodden letter in Finnegans Wake). Resisting completion can also be decisive in its prevarication between available means; terminal indecision is hard to distinguish from polyvalent creative options.
John calls the above “another instance of Paul Valéry’s asserting form / invention’s superiority (the particular words hardly matter),” and “incredibly spark-throwing,” and a suggestion of “the mantra of the Language boys,” which strikes me as thrice true.

