Who goes hunting loses his chair

Categorization seems to be a necessity of human beings in its efforts to establish an order, whether the order is based on natural or artificial such as literature, schools of thought, etc.. Nietzsche wondered why we say "a sheet" when referring to the leaves of the trees as they are all different, obviously this is a problem of language. The most current is given by the Eskimo communities that have many words for "snow", while other communities have one, that is to say "snow". Nietzsche's thoughts must not only be analyzed through the issue of language but also in relation to his hatred-although intellectually this term is not suitable excess opposite of Kantian philosophy. There are few names in the literature with which to classify the works and writers within the literary-aesthetic currents as classicism, romanticism, neo-romanticism, realism, naturalism, modernism, surrealism, marvelous realism, etc.. However, there are works that are difficult to categorize, this difficulty is undoubtedly their wealth and the inability to "tame". The word tamed contains an interesting concept that can be used to refer to these writings and the works that refuse to be read one way in which illegibility is an intended feature and whose reluctance to feel unique surprise many readers in some attractive and inevitably frustrates many others. An example of work "rebel" is Trilce, the collection of poems from the forward-looking César Vallejo. The richness of this type of work based on the fact that they can be read in several ways and they are resistant to a single reading, why-beyond their high degree of illegibility they are highly "indomitable." Are there unique furniture and bizarre it is almost impossible to categorize? (We say "almost impossible" because the human need to categorize all the furniture that can be classified ... "for unclassifiable"). When speaking of furniture, what really matters are the opportunities for inclusion in a defined space and possible combinations with the rest of the furniture. This kind of furniture, no doubt capture the attention and are summarized as the central piece of furniture in the room. This piece and decorate it must adapt to the protagonism of the furniture, and not vice versa. Traforata the chair can be described as the chair of a king. The associations are evident and obvious, and the detailed work and meticulous wood antique furniture dating back to us and the Baroque. Note also the figure of a lion's head on the armrest and even the claws of the animal on the front feet. But it is the tapestry that makes all the difference: indeed, if one chooses the traditional tapestry upholstery nails red with golden and dark brown wood, the result is a style already seen, already completed. However, if the wood is black and the tapestry is neither conventional nor typical of antique furniture you get a chair that can be called "hybrid". In other words, a single chair opposite style kitsch (kitsch we mean by this that does not cause a new emotion, which has become a model in which the reader, viewer and finally recipient already has the tools to interpret and that does not work or décodificaction imagination kitsch is what causes do nothing, which does not move). Many works of art are intended to make an impact, and this chair is probably striking even monstrous. The average reader will interpret the monstrous as something negative, but remember one thing can be described as monstrous because of its size, its combinations and character confusing. Resulting monstrous precisely because it is impossible to categorize is what can not be assimilated and which, if finally incorporated, ceases to be monstrous. César Aira-brilliant literary critic, described the prose of the Argentine writer Robert Arlt of "monstrous" because of the lack of distance between the narrator and reader. The monstrosity of the writer's Juguete Rabioso (The Rabid Toy), Los Siete Locos (The Crazy September) and Los Lanzallamas (The Flamethrower), among others, lies not only in the complexity of the narrator but also in his little literary vocabulary academic (as Beatriz Sarlo has called "knowledge poor") and characters (which Erdosain Barsut and embody the theme of the double). More importantly, the monstrosity in Arlt resides primarily in its hybrid (this mixture between German Expressionism, existentialism North American and Italian Futurism) and in the total abscence of attachment to an ideology. The secret society in which the character is involved mixture of fascist and communist speech, spiritual and technological, religious and atheists. The incorporation of discourses and ideologies seemingly contrary results in a total disbelief to any ideology, and ideology as deception (the allusion to lie metaphysics is constant). The monstrosity of writing Arlt led contemporary critics to despise the author and to say that Roberto Arlt knew just not write. His way of doing violence to the syntax for writing a deformed result and aggressive to inconvenience a lot of literary critics (it is necessary to mention that Los Siete Locos, written in 1929, anticipates the Argentine coup of 1930, putting show the lucidity of Arlt and his ability to understand the society of his time and decode all the talk in the presence). It is these and other reasons (such as the ability to interpret the work of Arlt in different ways at different times and his indomitable character and unclassifiable) that led the Argentine literary critics to place the work Arlt on top of that of the highly regarded Jorge Luis Borges (this is completely different styles, Borges works on the edge while Arlt is working on the whole-of anxiety, imprisonment, insanity, etc. .).