Page:Knight (1975) Past, Future and the Problem of Communication in the Work of V V Khlebnikov.djvu/130

122 KHLEBNIKOV'S ANTI-LITERACY manifests itself in virtually all aspects of his poetic practice. We may see it in:

These eight points may seem somewhat arbitrarily-chosen. In part they overlap with each other, and probably other; relevant characteristics could be thought of. However they may provide a convenient framework for our discussion. It would be to go beyond the scope of this work to undertake any original or extensive analysis of Khlebnikov's language. All that is proposed is that a note be made of the essentials of what is involved in each of the above points.
 * 1) Khlebnikov's general reluctance to finish anything.
 * 2) His repudiation of the dictionary.
 * 3) His hostility to Moscow-standard Russian.
 * 4) His attempts to reproduce or restore "pre-literate" language-forms (the language of children and pre-historic men).
 * 5) His epic inclinations.
 * 6) His hostility to the "fossilization" of language.
 * 7) His championship of "transreason".
 * 8) His emphasis on the voice.

I. Khlebnikov's general reluctance to finish anything. There is an element of finality about words which have been written down. The spoken word floats away on the air as soon as it has been uttered——other words replace it, and these, too, may themselves be replaced. Spoken language is a continuous process, a liquid stream rather than a "thing". A body of writtenwords is a "thing". If it is recalled that written language originates historically in connection with official or state purposes: to preserve laws, property-titles, monetary accounts