|
the words and text of
the project
The essay
The body of the essay draws knowledge from multiple sources to construct what could be called a meta-narrative on the significance of Arnold Swarzengger. It draws its arguments from theories found in psychology, neuromedicine, cognitive science, hypertext scholarship, postmodernism, nationalism, millenialism, popular culture, new-age spiritualism, anthropology, linguistics... an overwhelming pastiche of logic. However, the main effect of this bombardment is to dizzy the reader, and the large sections of unbroken text create a situation where the eye skips and skims the information rather than absorbing it. Blitz and Krasniewicz provide a thorough examination of Arnold Schwarzenegger from multiple angles. They offer many depict ions of this one man: as celebrity, as cultural template, as dream, dreamer and dream weaver. The authors situate Arnold at the centre of their investigative methodology, meaning branching out from the axis to form a thick critique of the man and his significance. He becomes stereoscopic and reassembled much like the Terminator: it is his presence as an instrument which brings into focus separate objects and arguments that seem to create a solid whole. The different aspects of Arnold as stereoscope are explored in the essay and in the dreams. In both, Arnold becomes myth, attributed with deeds and influences by the authors that are at times grandiose. For example, his physicality is explored as a source of nationalism and postmodern identity, and it is this physicality itself that the authors wish to bring into the project. From links to his personal measurements and fact sheets to the inclusion of neat sound bytes at the launch of each new window, Arnold's physical presence is placed on the agenda as a cultural and historical phenomenon. It is his enormous bulk and strength that lead to his initial contact with fame, and with history, and it is this physical aspect of Schwarzenegger that the authors explore. Arnold becomes a myth in this interpretation. He is constructed
by the authors as a hyper-real character with multiple facets and signifiers
that take on god-like proportions. The further they deconstruct Arnold,
it seems, the more they move towards constructing a myth around his constituent
parts to unify the hunches, theories and postulations ultimately informing
the work. I would argue that this process, while intended to bring Arnold
'closer' to the reader, actually distances him. The involved arguments
of the essay and the various sources used to justify them tend to swamp
Arnold, and thus he becomes lost in the narrative. There are many sections
that, while they are incredibly well written, simply have no relevance
to the subject. Tenuous links and tangents are very common and it is unfortunate
that the reader must wade through lengthy exposition of postmodern theory
to find Arnold hidden in the background.
The dreams The dreams of the authors present a knotty problem in regards to how to review them-- what form of analysis is appropriate in this unstable dream world? The authors themselves have investigated dreams in general through the narratives of psychology, postmodernism, science and anthropology. It may be helpful to turn this theoretical method of investigation onto the raw sources themselves in order to extract the most from them. A psychological reading of the dreams Psychologically speaking the dreams are interesting in their display of neuroses, concerns, humour and events in the lives of the authors, with the point of most interest being thrown on the presence of Arnold in the dream narrative. What significance is there to his presence? Why this dream, with these people? These questions, undoubtedly posed by both reader and author, remain unanswered in any explicit way. The personality of the author almost obscures the dream itself here: there are so many personal and intimate references that the bulk of information is irrelevant or mystifying to the reader. Blitz and Krasniewicz make references to their children, partners and lives that are unknown to us: this leads me to conclude that while they may seem coherent, understandable and legitimate in the eyes of the authors, the dreams exist behind a selective membrane, with the reader only able to take on and comprehend certain pieces. Very hypertextural, but is it history? A postmodern reading of the dreams A postmodern reading of the dreams opens up some possible paths that a psychological assessment may not have presented. In the postmodern discourse it is indeed possible to justify the use of the dreams as a source, simply because they reflect in a tangible way many concerns pursued in 'new' history: cultural identity and presence, gender, race, to name a few. The presence of Arnold in this dream world could hint at his presence in a collective unconsciousness or cultural memory. He is icon, god, dream, he is fragmentary, kaleidoscopic, and to the postmodern critic he can become the template for investigating both modern culture and hypertext, as he clearly has for the authors, because in a sense, he is modern culture and hypertext. This postmodern reading is interesting but skates on thin metaphorical ice: nowhere did I feel the authors had explained and legitimated Arnold enough. Rather, they legitimated their motives and process without first firmly establishing Arnold as the central character. The justification of the Dream as a legitimate source. In the discussion of the dreams of Arnold, the authors
pull off a neat prolepsis
in the structure of their argument in the essay. To combat the argument
that dreams do not constitute legitimate or authoritative sources, they
present an extended argument for the use of dreams as a basis for historical
interpretation. But close examination of the dreams is required if we are
to understand and evaluate their point, and this is where we come up against
the recurring barrier between the reader and the source.
The cult of personality:
does the intrusion of the author detract from the project itself?
It is clear that the format of the dream-as-evidence is
going to have some issues relating to foregrounding and personality. The
intrusion of the author is most extreme, for unlike traditional academic
work, the authors have situated themselves at the centre of the research,
becoming their own subjects as it were. This raises some difficult issues
for the presentation of the project, some of which are not addressed by
the authors satisfactorily. As in the essay, Arnold tends to become lost
in the narrative provided by the dreams: he is a figure in them, certainly,
but his presence is not analysed or deconstructed by the authors in this
dream state as it is in the hypertextural state that is discussed in the
essay.
I would argue that the inclusion of the authors as agents
in the historical process is a valid step, but here it becomes almost voyeuristic.
Their claim is that the editing and 'interference' in the dreams and emails
presented will create a singular analysis and deconstruction, working against
the lauded hypertextural quality of personal interpretation through personal
choice. A reader is left to come to their own conclusions when reading
this material, which is certainly flattering, but which offers some issues
about standards and norms within the academy.
|