“Well, one must be serious about something, if one wants to have anyamusement in life. I happen to be serious about Bunburying.” – Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest
I: PREAMBLE
This manifesto – which has been developed by seasoned Bunburyists – serves, firstly, as a declaration ofthe existence of our Union of Bunburyists, secondly, as an outline on how one may Bunbury, if one is soinclined, and thirdly, most importantly, it serves as a continuation and transcendence of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest.
The social milieu of today seems, almost, to have no substance; no milieu whatsoever. But even as a mime, to give an example of when both authors noticed a popular street performer, which, subsequently began the Bunbury epiphany, may pretend he is trapped in a glass box, this apparition of social courting, of make believe, of miming, is nothing but that. When one shatters one’s “glass box”, they begin to see, rather, un-see, one’s motives or one’s make-believe any longer.2 What, then, is the point of Bunbury? Is it not, as Wilde put it in his monumental play, “being Ernest in town and Jack in the country”? This expression shall be touched upon later, expanded, and its motives made clearer. But, first, a history of our time must be expanded upon, its motives made clearer – perhaps through social analysis, upheaval, dialectics… 'historical materialism', if one should use that expression developed by Marx and his devotees.3 To leave this introduction on a more palatable, more enticing note, in hopes to gauge our Dear Reader, they should know what invigorates this manifesto. To Bunbury is to live! To live without Bunburying is not to live at all! Thus: to live is to Bunbury!
“Nothing will induce me to part with Bunbury,” Our hero, Algernon, puts it. “You will be very glad to know Bunbury. A man who marries without knowing Bunbury has a very tedious time of it. ”There may be, to a Bunburyist’s dismay, readers of whom remain on par with the Jacks of our world rather than its Algernons.4 We have only one thing to say to you. And that is: “Then your wife will.”
1: Out of five. This is in the spirit of David Foster Wallace, whom was a ‘five draft man’.
2: A “glass box” is an especially vivid, even overused, representation of mime. Therefore, both authors fought, even amongst themselves, to find something not too clichéd. It was left here, though, in order to expand the idea of 'socialised motivations in the form of jokes’. Better to be vividly cliché than too esoteric.
3: A Bunburyist may muse an apt quote from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum: "Historical materialism?" Agliè smiled. "Oh, yes, I believe I've heard of it. An apocalyptic cult that came out of the Trier region. Am I right?"
4: Jack says, quite arrogantly, to Algernon: “If I marry a charming girl… I certainly won’t want to know Bunbury.”
II: AN ENTIRE HISTORY OF JESTING
The history of all jokes or jest, whatever, even “shitposting” (as it is nowadays called) is the history of Bunburying. Rather, it is the history of the formation of Bunbury. Its embryonic cell is not only the contextin which it came from – Damn Daniels, Wojacks and Epic Departments – but un-seriousness itself.Some things must be straightened out first. Bunbury, apart from un-seriousness, means quite another thing.It also means earnestness, gravitas, sincerity, et al. It encapsulates a field of sincerity, away from its insincerity, as a writer of our time (more-or-less) summarised as where one might have “the gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles”.1 Do not fret or foam, Dear Reader, your lamentations and frustration can already be heard:
… How comes it that Bunbury, which is purportedly seriousness, comes from those dark fathoms of un-seriousness!
… And, besides, is Bunbury not make-believe and childishness! How is this seriousness!…
This man whom you call, quite gaily, Bunbury, I found him, not to anybody’s surprise I’m sure, in my wedding bed, after a grinding day’s work, fucking my wife!
All good things take explaining. All good things come in time, at least. Then, what is Bunburyism role in this long history of jest? It is the final stage of jest.
1: David Foster Wallace goes on to describe so-called ‘anti-rebels’ who, he predicts, shall bring about a new era of Sincerity. “Outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval.”
III: POST-IRONY & THE IRONIC EMERGENCE OF “NEW SINCERITY” IRONY
Now, for the full understanding of the the impact of Post-Irony, New Sincerity, and David Foster Wallace (who, to our dismay, passed away some time ago), we must have a definition of the meanings of ironic, Post-Ironic, sincere, and New Sincerity. This understanding is through the medium of 'internet memes', as they are often called. In the medium of memes, there is an intertwined-becoming between Irony with satire and sarcasm. It can be seen in the subsection of memes: 'Montage Parodies', per se. Montage Parodies take mannerisms from Major League Gamers, and (Call of Duty) 'Let's Players', such as the use of "dub-step", reference to marijuana, Snoop Dogg (the rapper), and that tired line, 'Mum get the camera!', and then truly twist, as if churned in the steely grinder of Capitalism, them into the Post-Modern narrative. It must first be said that these 'Let's Players' use these things sincerely, the makers of Montage Parodies do not. Montage Parody-ists take key mannerisms from their victims, and over use them to a point of utmost obnoxiousness, and use of different source material . They are there to poke fun at the people who use these mannerisms non-ironically, not the source material itself - which is there to aid the joke even further.Sincerity we will define as the un-ironic use of a meme. Examples of this include Rage Comics, et al.
The humour in a sincere meme is the content itself, an embodiment of Jacques Derrida's idea of 'Nothing Outside of the Text'. No outside knowledge is needed to appreciate the meme in its entirety. Post-Irony, however, is a murky substance. It gets in the hair, in the water, under fingernails, and everywhere else. It teeters ever so closely to New-Sincerity. The sincere users are still being made fun off, but the makers of the memes are centre-stage at this point in time. This plateau of memes, as it were, is extremely meta - that is, self-aware of its own a qualia. Possibly making it nu-meta, and overlaying the mannerisms onto a 'Let's Player' or even another Montage Parody. The meme has been taken ever more out-of-context. New Sincerity is a historical process. It first begins in the satirising of a certain mannerism. It transcends from Sincere, to Ironic, from Ironic, to Post-Ironic, and into New-Sincerity. These mannerisms become integrated into the life of the satirist and they become indistinguishable from the person they made fun of originally. This is truly encapsulated by the work of David Foster Wallace (may his days in Heaven be good ones) - specifically his Opus, Infinite Jest. In this text, David Wallace (may he rest in peace) transcends the post-ironic, tongue in cheek, disjointed cliches of Pynchon and Postmodernism into the form of New Sincerity. Pynchon's work will go on tangents that - while needed to understand the narrative fully - make the author have to pay constant attention to fully make sense of the piece. Wallace (he will always be remembered, and that's what truly matters) transcends this childish, elitist intellectualism by the use of end-notes or footnotes. While this does disrupt the narrative - which was his aim in Infinite Jest, in an attempt to mimic a tennis game1 - it does not - as a Pynchon work would - make it hard to follow the narrative, if the reader were to get to the stage where they needed reminder of where exactly they were - due to the length of some of David's footnotes - they would jump a sentence back and get right on track with their experience. This in a sense is a return to Modernity, an ordered, neat narrative. To expound on this further, the authors would like to quote Reddit user Platykurt: 'One of DFWs [sic] concerns was that anything too sincere in contemporary art was getting sneered and laughed at. Sincere art came to be seen as too goopy [sic]. Like a Hallmark card or something. That environment made it nearly impossible to create art that sincerely looked at sensitive human issues that were so important to the author. Thus, his efforts to create a New Sincerity that allowed the artist to, once again, tackle emotional issues without fear of being ridiculed.'
This presents the truly dialectic notion of David Wallace (bless him). His 'anti-rebels' would be the antithesis,continuing the dialectic against the thesis that is Post-Modernism. The dialectic would play out and create, in full, what he had begun to create, Post-Postmodernism or New-Sincerity, the synthesis. A partial return to modernism, involving the modernist mannerisms in a post-modern context until they were seamlessly integrated making it as stated before, indistinguishable from the writing the Post-modernists loathed and satirised so much. Bunburyism, albeit a form of escape, is not, as some would have it, lifestylism. Rather, it is expression: real, actual expression. This distinction, among a multitude of others, must be established. And even though a Bunburyist oft struggles, to a point of dire discombobulation, to find what, truly, they’re trying to express, they, nonetheless, accept that it is expression for which they Bunbury. This expression, whatever it may (or may not) be, is worth Bunburying for. Sometimes it can be little than an exacerbated sigh… Or a rolling tear across a cold, hardened cheek… Or a faint whisper, “Help!”, to no-one in particular… that signifies the beginning, an upstart of various machinations, of a Bunburying. This ballroom dance, full of all its extravagance and Otherness, which, Dear Reader, we call Bunburying, brings one to new heights where they can finally, if ever, be set free.2
The sole reason to Bunbury is to express this, or what insofar appears to be, Nothing. One can, without too much duress, expel (through expression) this Nothing from oneself, unbeknownst to anyone until then.
But what if a Bunburyist chooses to not only mime the “glass box”, but Bunbury a man who is, ironically, Bunburying the mime? Already the lines are blurred to a strange limit where it now materialises, solidifies, etc., becomes once again a sincere irony, becomes a writhing Nothing that is dialectically opposed to its own existence. The Bunbury writes their own fiction, becomes this fiction, then they’re made real, fact, solid, etc. This, perhaps, is the reason for which they Bunbury. To become real, they have to pretend, appeal to the world of appearances and make-believe, and so on.
What does the person whom Bunburies – whether every day or weekend, for work or for pleasure, it doesn’t matter – truly desire? Well, that’s all relative, one Mark Bunbury explains. I want nothing but Bunburyism, says a Vernon Bunbury, everything else bores me. Who is right here? Mark or Vernon? Is there someone else we forgot to ask? Should we ask every Mr, Ms, Mrs or Dr Bunbury?
New Sincerity comes to use out of the frustration of the ironic, as state above. The parody, becomes indistinguishable from the real - often to a point of the parody becoming the real itself. 3 A form o’ kitsch per se that the Bunburyist can present. the birth of bunbury is found in a bag in Victoria Station. A p’culiar event said the Simpleton but to the Bunbury it is simply the flowering of his essence. The problem with Postmodernity is the presentation of deconstruction with no alternative, accompanied with emphasis on individual interpretation leads to the creation of narcissism, cynicism and detachment, that doesn't mean appeal to abstract notions, ideologies or grand narratives of modernism is key. A Bunbury’s call is a speech:
‘One must not be ironic f’ irony’s sake! We must harness Irony to present a sincere m’ssagge or meaning with
unwavering sincerity behind. This unwavering sincerity must never be let go, to bunbury is to bunbury to the
bitter end. We must break from our moulds of detatchement and step forth as the goo-prone Bunburies of
tomorrow”
To quote Fineman: ‘polysyllabic, the word itself is polysyllabic, short is itself short, and English is itself English, an English word.’ Ibid in his essay is presenting a semiotic signifier for the Bunburyist. From this assumption presented by Ibid, so too we can assume a ‘Bunbury’ is a ‘Bunburyist’ work. So, to is ‘Bunburyist’ a ‘Bunbury’. Ibid proceeds to state there are two forms of ‘words’; autological, and heterological. If we ourselves ask is the heterological itself autological or heterological 4, we get a paradoxical 5, and pure example of a Bunbury 6. Now, the authors must state here that to ‘Bunbury’ is not – as presented by Wilde – an unconscious action 7 - which culminates in the dialectical opposites – but a deliberate attempt to critique the current social situations the Bunburyist finds themselves in. Now, we’re sure that our just passed section has tired you out, so here we present you some light entertainment:
1: It would also be extremely useful to observe the footnoting ways in his more journalistic essays, which the footnotes do indeed deviate from the normalities of magazine writing, pushing this elaborated Pynchon into the mainstream,thus popularizing it even more.
2: Italics here emphasise freedom - whatever that may be. Again, one doesn't wish to fall into that cesspit of cliches, but, we all, nonetheless, must swim through the septic once, even twice, to find a lost wedding-ring we may have slipped off on our rushed visit to the lavatory.
3: Commonly referred to as Poe’s Law which states that there is an impossibility of creation of extreme parodies of people, culture, things etc. without proper knowledge of the author's true intent - from the author them self - as it will be seen as ‘sincere’. It is also crucial to delve into the history and ‘creation’ of Poe’s law to understand the societal circumstances that lead to its existence. Poe’s Law was engendered by a fellow called Nathan Poe 3a —on the website christianforums.com 3b . In reply to a comment 3c on a thread centred about the Creationism/ Evolution debate, Mr Bunbury states "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.". Mr Bunbury’s original quote was only in relation to this debate but is has thus been generalized to all situations.
3a) Even Mr Bunbury if we are to present him as one of the birthers of Bunburyism as a theoretical device, larger than DFW R.I.P ur beautiful soul’s small quote.
3b) Whether or not Poe visited this website to Bunbury himself is unknown 3b1
3b1] Poe could not be contacted for questioning
3c) "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious."
4: The author recalls a memory, although a half-memory, mayhaps a dream, where the mime in his “glass-box” whispered to us - though he didn’t speak, only miming - ‘Do not trust “heterological discourse’’ [sic]’ 4a . An eerie memory, indeed.
4a) To which the author replied, gasping. “Define your terms, xer.” 4a1
4a1] However he failed to define his terms.
5: An analogy could be made to Jacques Derrida’s essay Differance , in which Derrida identifies that the French verb différer at times refers to a distinction between two things/objects etc. or the deferral – a delay , ‘interval of spacing and temporalizing that puts off until “later” what is presently denied, the possible that is presently impossible’. Derrida further states that ‘Sometimes the different and sometimes the deferred correspond [in French to the prior stated verb]’, and that ‘this correlation, however, is not simply one between act and object, cause and effect, or primordial and derived. In the one case “to differ” signifies nonidentity; in the other case it signifies the order of the same, Yet there must be a common, although entirely differant [différante ] [Derrida states that his use of ‘difference’ refers to the signification ‘to differ’, while ‘difference’ signifies ‘to defer’], root within the sphere that relates the two movements of differing to another. We provisionally give the name difference to this sameness which is not identical: by the silent writing of it’s a, it has the desired advantage of referring to differing, both as spacing/temporalizing and as the movement that structures every dissociation’. According to Derrida ‘distinct from difference, difference thus points out the irreducibility of temporalizing (which is also temporalization – in transcendental language which is no longer adequate here, this would be called the constitution of the primordial temporality – just as the term “spacing” also includes the constitution of primordial spatiality). Difference is not simply active (any more than it is a subjective accomplishment); it rather indicates the middle voice, it precedes and sets up the opposition between passivity and activity. With it’s a, difference more properly refers to what in classical language would be called the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play [jeu ] of differences. Its locus and operation will therefore be seen wherever speech appeals to difference.’ Derrida states that ‘Difference is neither a word nor a concept. In it, however, we shall see the juncture – rather than the summation – of what has been most decisively inscribed – rather than the summation – of what has been the most decisively inscribed in the thought of what conveniently called our “epoch”: the difference of forces in Nietzsche, Saussure’s principle of the semiological difference, differing as the possibility of [neurone] facilitation, impression and delayed effect in Freud, difference as the irreducibility of the trace of the other in Levinas, and the ontic-ontological difference in Heidegger. Reflection on this determination of difference will lead us to consider difference as the strategic note of connection – relatively or provisionally privileged – which indicates the closure of presence, together with the closure of the conceptual order and denomination, a closure that is effected in the functioning of traces.’
6: This paradox could also possibly be presented as the embodiment of the dialectical embodiment (?) / presentation (?) of such.
7: As in unconsciously being one thing when attempting to be another – put by Wilde as being earnest when they aren’t [sic] 7a, and not being earnest when they are [sic]
7a) “try” may be a better word, but for simplicity the author will use “aren’t” etc.
IV: A SHORT POEM ON BUNBURYISM, BY A BUNBURYIST, FOR BUNBURYISTS, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CONFOUNDED BUNBURY, REVISED [SIC] FOR THE SAKE OF BUNBURYISM
Still cold, ‘neath pale sheets, for newlyweds,
Autumnal sun doth bring its seas’nal warmth,
Not for us, cacoon’d inside barren beds,
Our ol’ lives now absent. Sadly, we mourn’th.
Monot’nous I’ve become. Dear’st kind monsieur
Algernon, Best-Man, hath gay friend for me,
Says: Come see Bun’bry. Gaily, I agree.
‘E’ll giveth much, you’ll peep: “Je ne sais qoui!”
Loveliest Bun’bry injects his youth’ness
Inside e’ry o’ mine orifices,
His Cherubic qualities doth confess
A deep’st love of Men – tonight I am his.
Still, thou layeth upon mine homely lap…
And inhaled Yggdrasil’s gold, honeyed sap.
– "Sonnet, I...", by Anon. Bunburyist
