Re: The Mezzanine

carter neal (cen5k@faraday.clas.virginia.edu)
Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:18:48 -0500

John Unsworth wrote:
>
> I'm enjoying the various reactions to the book, and I thought it
> might be useful to suggest a perspective from which these trivial
> things do become important--a perspective hinted at in class on
> Tuesday, namely, the study of material culture. There is an entire
> interdisciplinary field of study (that crosses physical anthropology,
> american studies, engineering and history of science, folklore, and
> others). People in this field look at objects as evidence of the
> nature, purpose, quality, and scope of everyday life in cultures
> past and present--you'd find studies of colonial artifacts, artifacts
> from other cultures, and the familiar stuff of our daily life. If
> you're interested in looking at some sample titles and syllabi, here
> are some pointers. Might be a paper in there somewhere...

The Mezzanine fails as a book, for me, because it is simply a mirror,
and great fiction, good fiction even, acts not as a mirror, but as a
lens. The Mezzanine is a book of mirrors; it presents, and that is
where it stops. There is no movement in the book because it is simply
presenting-- it is all nouns and adjectives, no verbs. The trivial
things in this book remain trivial because baker is not doing anything
with them. His book is not a treatise on material culture, it does not
look into Howie's life for evidence of the "nature, purpose, quality,
and scope of everyday life," it simply presents that life, unexamined,
to us. In short it does not *do* anything. I admit that the everyday
objects and practices of our lives deserve enquiry, but I want to see
what judgements, conclusions, and theories arise from such an enquiry.
How many of us would get a good grade on a paper when the thesis was
that "mundane objects are thought about a lot by people?" Look at the
sites e-mailed by Mr. Unsworth and you will see people trying to do
something with the idea of thingness. Questions like "what does it
mean that one end of technology is objects in the world?" "How can we
relate objects to culture as a whole?" and others. These people are
doing good work, examining their culture's involvement with objects and
things. Baker presents the situation uncritically, and, call me
old-fashioned, but i still think that the unexamined life is not worth
living.
Carter
Todd-- does this help to understand why I find this book trite?