The next time I re-read ‘Purity’, I may not be so lucky.
“Nonsense” elsewhere in Ligotti) for something else that truly tries to get through the layers of disintentionalisation towards me. The Father’s three principles are just a nonsensical decoy or subterfuge (Cf. Any story title is often a loophole we can cling to. The Purity is the need to disentangle from the story unscathed, unblemished. “Nothing that drives anybody makes any sense.” “There’s nothing in the attic It’s only the way that your head is interacting with the space of that attic.” The story is not about but is Candy as described by the story.
The story itself is my (the reader’s) own Candy. The feel of this story reminds me of ‘Eraserhead’ and ‘House of Leaves’ but something much more which is tantalisingly within my grasp – only to fall into the basement of the story figuratively and literally. renting reality from fiction (or vice versa?). This is about insulation, disintentionalisation, holding things beyond one’s own ownership, i.e. We never really know what will be under a stranger’s boxer shorts. PURITY – The narrator is dead pan, logical about illogicality – and, therefore, from among the many narrators I’ve met in all fiction over the years, he or she (here in ‘Purity’) is one of the most dependable, if not 100% dependable. I imagine the narrator of "Purity" as the sort of kid who would read Alice's children books. In some sense it reminded me of "Alice's last Adventure".
I really wasn't expecting any of that, and the strange relationship between the mother and the narrator was rather ambiguous. The introduction of the hermaphrodite caught me off guard.
Some of the plot elements do seem a bit random here and there, something that I indeed liked… Although then again, maybe I'm just clueless… I see Purity more like a story driven by ideas instead of plot, like "The Red Tower". Is "Purity" one of his "perfect stories"? Or how much so. Indeed I've often felt this with quite a few of Tom's tales, and ones that I've examined so much that I hope that in itself isn't the blinding force at work. I'm disheartened, and greatly fear I'm missing something. I realize this apparent lack may indicate that the story seeks to convey its ideas even in the actual literary form of the piece, but if so, it still doesn't "ring" with me as being well enough of a presentation. Does anyone really think they have a handle on this story? It seems to me, when I pore back over all its elements, that there is a lack of integration among its parts, or that it could defintely be rewritten for a better clarity of its fascinating themes. On second reading of "Purity," this time from the pages of Teatro Grottesco, I admit to being confused.
0 kommentar(er)
