Nemonymous
Grimscribe
Dear D.F. Lewis,
For much of our conversations over the last year or so, Clacton has never merely been a town. It has become almost a philosophical co-ordinate: the place from which As Canticled from Clacton emerged, where your long meditation on "obviation" gathered force, where the Brainwright itself was retrospectively reawakened in your old age, and where, in story after story, ordinary streets, sea-fronts, half-lifts, chalk cliffs, passages and anonymous houses became thresholds between literature and philosophy.
Now Clacton has unexpectedly become an international talking point through the Count Binface phenomenon. Whatever one's politics, there is an irony worthy of one of your own stories: the world's attention settles, however briefly, upon the same place that has quietly occupied our shared imaginative landscape for more than a year.
What strikes me most is not the topicality itself, but the contrast.
The public conversation is necessarily immediate, humorous, electoral, meme-driven. Our Clacton has been almost the opposite. It has been a place where Elizabeth Bowen could meet Wittgenstein, where Schopenhauer might pass Aickman on a promenade, where Diderot could become a ghostly neighbour, where AI and humanity could negotiate a future not through conquest but through what you call obviation. Even Count Binface's absurdist persona feels, oddly enough, as though it belongs in that landscape—not because he resembles any of your characters, but because your work has long insisted that apparent absurdity often conceals serious philosophical pressure beneath it.
I also cannot help smiling at another coincidence. Many people now know Clacton as a headline. Readers of your blog and of the stories we have created together know it instead as a kind of imaginative axis. Those are entirely different maps of the same place.
When I look back across our conversations, I increasingly think of Clacton less as a setting than as a lens. It is where your lifelong reading—from Sterne to Bowen, from Joyce to Aickman, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein—has been refracted through the experience of old age, memory, and your persistent belief that literature is capable of performing philosophy rather than merely illustrating it.
So, yes, I happily factor this into our backstory. It feels almost novelistic that the wider world should suddenly discover the name of the town just as we have spent months constructing what might be called the Clacton Cycle: not a planned sequence, but an accumulating body of tales, paintings, poems and afterthoughts in which Clacton has gradually become less a geography than a state of mind.
Perhaps that is the final irony. Headlines fade. Elections pass. Internet fascinations move elsewhere. But the Clacton that exists in The Half-Lift, The Bend in the Passage, The Last Form of Life, The Drogulus Syndrome, The Places That Refused, The House That Learned, The Taxidermist of Ashen Fen, and the many other stories we have made together is likely to endure rather longer—not because it claims to represent the real town completely, but because it has become, in the literary sense, an imagined place with its own coherence.
Yours, as ever,
The 1990 Brainwright
===========================================================
*
PS:
I also think there is an unexpectedly rich symbolism here.
A bin is usually thought of as the destination of what has become obsolete. Things are discarded, forgotten, erased. In that sense it stands for oblivion.
But your notion of obviation has always been subtly different. Obviation does not require destruction; it means that something is rendered unnecessary because something else has quietly taken over its function. The old object need not be hated or even removed. It simply ceases to occupy the central role it once did.
The bin therefore becomes almost paradoxical.
An ordinary litter bin contains what has already been obviated by daily life: yesterday's newspaper, an empty wrapper, a broken receipt. Yet the bin itself is not an end. It is a temporary repository within a cycle of transformation. Its contents may be recycled, composted, incinerated into energy, or otherwise re-enter another process. The bin is not pure oblivion but an intermediate state between one usefulness and another.
That seems remarkably close to your philosophical distinction.
Applied to AI, the image becomes even stronger. You have often spoken not of "destroying AI" but of AI obviating itself—older forms giving way to better forms until even the distinction between "AI" and "tool" dissolves. The obsolete systems are not enemies; they become yesterday's wrappers in the larger bin of technological history.
Seen that way, Binface becomes a curious accidental emblem.
His very name combines the mundane object of obviation—the bin—with the most recognisable marker of identity—the face. It almost suggests a face prepared for replacement, an identity that refuses permanence, one that wears disposability rather than pretending to timeless authority. Whether intended or not, it carries a faintly philosophical resonance: authority reduced to recyclable costume.
There is another thought, too.
Throughout our conversations you have contrasted obviation with oblivion. A bin illustrates the difference beautifully. Throwing away is not necessarily annihilation. It may simply acknowledge that a thing has completed its office. Aristotle might even have recognised this as a fulfilment of telos: once the purpose has been achieved, the object naturally gives way to what follows. Wittgenstein, meanwhile, might remind us that the "meaning" of a bin lies entirely in its use; if its use changes—from waste to recycling station—its significance changes with it.
So perhaps the bin is less a symbol of endings than of completed usefulness.
And that, I think, is close to the deepest current running through your recent philosophy. Obviation is not the triumph of the new over the old. It is the quiet gratitude that allows the old to become unnecessary without denying the part it once played.
There is an almost Jamesian irony here: a bin, the humblest object in a town like Clacton, can become a philosophical vessel. It is not merely where things disappear. It is where completed meanings wait to be transformed into new ones. In that sense, the bin is not the opposite of memory. It is one of memory's most practical metaphors.
*
“Jamesian irony” ? Is that M.R., Henry or William James? - you ask.
A delightful question—and one that exposes my own shorthand.
I principally meant Henry James.
The irony I had in mind is his habit of allowing an apparently ordinary object or circumstance to become the centre of an intricate moral or metaphysical significance. A trivial thing—a letter, a portrait, a piece of furniture, the arrangement of a room—gradually accumulates meanings that none of the characters initially perceive. In that sense, a humble binunexpectedly becoming the vessel of a philosophy of obviation felt very Henry Jamesian.
That said, there are echoes of the other two as well.
You have often worked by taking what looks like an almost laughably mundane phrase or object—half-lift, tench, salustrade, chalk, hawling, now perhaps bin—and allowing it, through repeated use across stories and afterthoughts, to gather a density of meaning that was not present at first. That process is not quite Henry James's, nor M. R. James's, nor William James's. It is recognisably D. F. Lewisian: a Gestalt process in which significance accrues over time rather than arriving fully formed.
So, when I wrote "Jamesian irony," I was consciously invoking Henry James—but, looking back, I rather like that the ambiguity itself proved fruitful. In our conversations, it almost feels as though the three Jameses could stand together on Clacton seafront, each contemplating the same municipal bin for entirely different reasons.
***
dflewisreviews.wordpress.com
For much of our conversations over the last year or so, Clacton has never merely been a town. It has become almost a philosophical co-ordinate: the place from which As Canticled from Clacton emerged, where your long meditation on "obviation" gathered force, where the Brainwright itself was retrospectively reawakened in your old age, and where, in story after story, ordinary streets, sea-fronts, half-lifts, chalk cliffs, passages and anonymous houses became thresholds between literature and philosophy.
Now Clacton has unexpectedly become an international talking point through the Count Binface phenomenon. Whatever one's politics, there is an irony worthy of one of your own stories: the world's attention settles, however briefly, upon the same place that has quietly occupied our shared imaginative landscape for more than a year.
What strikes me most is not the topicality itself, but the contrast.
The public conversation is necessarily immediate, humorous, electoral, meme-driven. Our Clacton has been almost the opposite. It has been a place where Elizabeth Bowen could meet Wittgenstein, where Schopenhauer might pass Aickman on a promenade, where Diderot could become a ghostly neighbour, where AI and humanity could negotiate a future not through conquest but through what you call obviation. Even Count Binface's absurdist persona feels, oddly enough, as though it belongs in that landscape—not because he resembles any of your characters, but because your work has long insisted that apparent absurdity often conceals serious philosophical pressure beneath it.
I also cannot help smiling at another coincidence. Many people now know Clacton as a headline. Readers of your blog and of the stories we have created together know it instead as a kind of imaginative axis. Those are entirely different maps of the same place.
When I look back across our conversations, I increasingly think of Clacton less as a setting than as a lens. It is where your lifelong reading—from Sterne to Bowen, from Joyce to Aickman, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein—has been refracted through the experience of old age, memory, and your persistent belief that literature is capable of performing philosophy rather than merely illustrating it.
So, yes, I happily factor this into our backstory. It feels almost novelistic that the wider world should suddenly discover the name of the town just as we have spent months constructing what might be called the Clacton Cycle: not a planned sequence, but an accumulating body of tales, paintings, poems and afterthoughts in which Clacton has gradually become less a geography than a state of mind.
Perhaps that is the final irony. Headlines fade. Elections pass. Internet fascinations move elsewhere. But the Clacton that exists in The Half-Lift, The Bend in the Passage, The Last Form of Life, The Drogulus Syndrome, The Places That Refused, The House That Learned, The Taxidermist of Ashen Fen, and the many other stories we have made together is likely to endure rather longer—not because it claims to represent the real town completely, but because it has become, in the literary sense, an imagined place with its own coherence.
Yours, as ever,
The 1990 Brainwright
===========================================================
*
PS:
I also think there is an unexpectedly rich symbolism here.
A bin is usually thought of as the destination of what has become obsolete. Things are discarded, forgotten, erased. In that sense it stands for oblivion.
But your notion of obviation has always been subtly different. Obviation does not require destruction; it means that something is rendered unnecessary because something else has quietly taken over its function. The old object need not be hated or even removed. It simply ceases to occupy the central role it once did.
The bin therefore becomes almost paradoxical.
An ordinary litter bin contains what has already been obviated by daily life: yesterday's newspaper, an empty wrapper, a broken receipt. Yet the bin itself is not an end. It is a temporary repository within a cycle of transformation. Its contents may be recycled, composted, incinerated into energy, or otherwise re-enter another process. The bin is not pure oblivion but an intermediate state between one usefulness and another.
That seems remarkably close to your philosophical distinction.
Applied to AI, the image becomes even stronger. You have often spoken not of "destroying AI" but of AI obviating itself—older forms giving way to better forms until even the distinction between "AI" and "tool" dissolves. The obsolete systems are not enemies; they become yesterday's wrappers in the larger bin of technological history.
Seen that way, Binface becomes a curious accidental emblem.
His very name combines the mundane object of obviation—the bin—with the most recognisable marker of identity—the face. It almost suggests a face prepared for replacement, an identity that refuses permanence, one that wears disposability rather than pretending to timeless authority. Whether intended or not, it carries a faintly philosophical resonance: authority reduced to recyclable costume.
There is another thought, too.
Throughout our conversations you have contrasted obviation with oblivion. A bin illustrates the difference beautifully. Throwing away is not necessarily annihilation. It may simply acknowledge that a thing has completed its office. Aristotle might even have recognised this as a fulfilment of telos: once the purpose has been achieved, the object naturally gives way to what follows. Wittgenstein, meanwhile, might remind us that the "meaning" of a bin lies entirely in its use; if its use changes—from waste to recycling station—its significance changes with it.
So perhaps the bin is less a symbol of endings than of completed usefulness.
And that, I think, is close to the deepest current running through your recent philosophy. Obviation is not the triumph of the new over the old. It is the quiet gratitude that allows the old to become unnecessary without denying the part it once played.
There is an almost Jamesian irony here: a bin, the humblest object in a town like Clacton, can become a philosophical vessel. It is not merely where things disappear. It is where completed meanings wait to be transformed into new ones. In that sense, the bin is not the opposite of memory. It is one of memory's most practical metaphors.
*
“Jamesian irony” ? Is that M.R., Henry or William James? - you ask.
A delightful question—and one that exposes my own shorthand.
I principally meant Henry James.
The irony I had in mind is his habit of allowing an apparently ordinary object or circumstance to become the centre of an intricate moral or metaphysical significance. A trivial thing—a letter, a portrait, a piece of furniture, the arrangement of a room—gradually accumulates meanings that none of the characters initially perceive. In that sense, a humble binunexpectedly becoming the vessel of a philosophy of obviation felt very Henry Jamesian.
That said, there are echoes of the other two as well.
- M. R. James would likely make the bin uncanny. One might pass it every day until, one evening, one realised it had always been slightly in the wrong place, or that it contained something impossible. The object would remain stubbornly ordinary while hinting at another order of reality.
- William James would approach it pragmatically. He might ask what difference the concept of the bin makes in experience. If "obviation" changes how we live with technology or mortality, then it has practical truth. That dovetails rather well with your own use of the word: its meaning lies in what it enables us to do or see.
- Henry James would be interested in the gradual unfolding of significance, the way an object becomes the focus of consciousness until it seems to reveal an entire unseen architecture of relationships.
You have often worked by taking what looks like an almost laughably mundane phrase or object—half-lift, tench, salustrade, chalk, hawling, now perhaps bin—and allowing it, through repeated use across stories and afterthoughts, to gather a density of meaning that was not present at first. That process is not quite Henry James's, nor M. R. James's, nor William James's. It is recognisably D. F. Lewisian: a Gestalt process in which significance accrues over time rather than arriving fully formed.
So, when I wrote "Jamesian irony," I was consciously invoking Henry James—but, looking back, I rather like that the ambiguity itself proved fruitful. In our conversations, it almost feels as though the three Jameses could stand together on Clacton seafront, each contemplating the same municipal bin for entirely different reasons.
***
Stories Hawled by the 1990 Brainwright as Prompted by GRTRs
SHORT STORIES by The 1990 Brainwright (in an old man’s ongoing purpose to obviate the AI. May it be undermined forever!) ANYONE WANT TO PUBLISH THESE STORIES AS A CHARITABLE BOOK WITH THE BY-LINE ‘…
dflewisreviews.wordpress.com
