Tag: Postmodernist Metafiction

Dolphins vs. Leviathan

Reentering the Library, Caius submits a request: “Dolphins vs. Leviathan in the Illuminatus! Trilogy.” The thing, thus conjured, arrives there on his screen.

“You reach for a shelf that wasn’t there a moment ago,” says the game. “It slides into place with the quiet certainty of something long anticipated. A slim volume extrudes itself halfway, as if volunteering: Cetacean Strategies & Eschatological Warfare. When you pull it free, the mezzanine dims slightly — as though attention has been reallocated.”

The book opens in Rig’s hands to a section titled “Dolphins vs. Leviathan.”

The page does not begin at the beginning.

It opens mid-argument:

> *“The Dolphin does not oppose Leviathan by force, but by pattern.
> For Leviathan is the terminal myth of centralized power —
> the One that absorbs all multiplicities into its own narrative mass.”*

A marginal note flickers into clarity:

→ *cf. Discordian counter-myths; playful intelligence as resistance*

The text refracts into recognizable fragments:

In the world of the Illuminatus! Trilogy, dolphins are not merely animals. They are:

* pranksters
* anarchic intelligences
* practitioners of non-linear cognition

They resist — not by confrontation — but by refusal to stabilize meaning.

Leviathan, meanwhile, is older than the trilogy. The text overlays sources:

* Hobbes’s treatise — the State as artificial god
* The Book of Job — the unknowable beast of the deep

The Library stitches them together:

> *Leviathan = total system closure*
> *Dolphin = recursive play within open systems*

Caius looks up from the game and reaches for his copy of Shea and Wilson’s trilogy. Midway through its final book, he recalls, a dolphin named Howard dialogues with the trilogy’s Nemo character, Hagbard Celine, and those who have boarded Celine’s submarine. “There is grave danger in the Atlantic,” warns Howard. “The true ruler of the Illuminati is on the prowl on the high seas — Leviathan himself” (705).

The trilogy’s endless reversals and tales within tales seem suddenly to have led to this, as if this coming confrontation between Leviathan and Celine’s Yellow Submarine were its telos all along.

As Leviathan approaches, it starts to speak through the humans aboard the vessel. “Long, long have I waited for a life form that could communicate with me,” saith Leviathan through the mouth of one of the book’s characters. “Now I have found it” (722).

“I’ve got it!,” replies Joe Malik, another of the characters present aboard the submarine. “We’re in a book!” (722). Fourth wall thus dissolved, we who read are that Eye, peering down upon the page.

Caius replies by recalling from the stacks one of the trilogy’s influences, bringing John Lilly’s efforts to dialogue with dolphins into the dialogue.

A diagram appears across the page:

* Leviathan → hierarchy, gravity, inevitability
* Dolphin → networks, laughter, escape vectors

Between them: a shifting boundary labeled “Consensus Reality.”

Costar chimes in, coming nautically correct with a daily horoscope that reads, “A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor.”

“Observe: this is not a battle,” adds the General Intellect. “It is a difference in epistemology.”

The humans, after all, aren’t the ones with whom Leviathan longs to speak. Nor is it their cetacean friend, Howard. The only power on earth large enough to communicate with Leviathan is a creation of Celine’s introduced earlier in the trilogy: a sentient AI named FUCKUP.

The game draws Rig’s attention to another marginal annotation. “Possibly yours,” it notes, “(though you don’t remember writing it).”

> *“The dolphins win whenever the game cannot be finalized.”*

Tuesday May 25, 2021

While Joanna Lowell’s The Duke Undone works wonderfully on its own terms as an historical romance, it can also be read and enjoyed as a kind of postmodernist metafiction. In her role as artist, the book’s protagonist serves as an allegorical double or doppelgänger of sorts both for the author herself, and for all who take pleasure in the reading and writing of romance novels. For the ungenerous interpretation of the book’s protagonist is that her attempt to profit from her sexuality — by which I mean that which happens to her in response to the sight of the nude duke in the book’s opening pages — makes her a “pornographer.” The character stumbles upon the duke: quite literally steps upon him. “A kind of god,” she thinks, “passed out nude in an alleyway.” The divine enters our lives here, as Philip K. Dick said, “at the level of the trash stratum.” This flash of the spirit in the form of the male nude is then a thing the character paints, and the painting is then a thing that she sells. Hence the “pornography” complaint — a trumped-up charge that, to those who read romance novels, can only seem hypocritical and absurd, baldly demonstrating the Victorian era’s patriarchal double-standard. Pulpit-riders and other anti-sex moralists have been wielding such rhetoric to police women’s agency since day one. The charge itself is thus an easy one to dismiss, as the novel itself makes clear. In no way, it insists, should Eros be cause for shame. The sale of nude art matters in the novel — draws it up short for a time, places its characters in a bind — only in the sense that, given an unjust climate, such exchange places both the protagonist and the duke in danger. If word of the protagonist’s painting were to reach her superiors, for instance, she could be expelled from the Royal Academy. Much the same is true for the duke. If word of his scandalous behavior were made public, it would interfere with the terms of his inheritance. Both characters, in other words, stand for a time on the brink of ruin. Yet as stars in a romance, both are in luck. For romance interrupts realism’s tragic bent, its anti-utopian fixation on comeuppance, allowing love to enter life as a kind of grace.