Zooropa and Post-Modernism
RICARDO ROMAN-CARBAJAL
First of all. English is not my mother tongue. So if you really want to read
this article you gotta forgive my grammar eh!?
I don't know How many of you are familiar with the Post-Modernism
Philosophy. I wasn't until this year at School.So I'll explain it a little
before starting
Probably, you have notice that some U2 albums are a whole, a story, a piece
of work that gets its whole meaning just taking the music and the words of
the album as a complete work. Compare the first song with the last one.
In "War" for example they start with "Bloody Sunday", where they scream "How
long I have to sing this song?!" following themes that show anguish, despair,
and anger for Social Issues. The very last song is "40", where they express
a spiritual hope "I will sing, sing a new song, how long to sing this song"
In Joshua Tree they start with "where the streets have no name" showing and
internal search for the self or anguish experience, perhaps in drugs , then
they go through " I still haven't found" a religious experience that means a
pilgrim experience. "With or with out you" a love experience and then they
finish going back to a different search for selfs but not that leads to
anguis but not personal selfs ;"mother of disappeareds", they are people
that have no time neither interest to search for themselves.
In Atchung Baby they talk about love as pure sensous experience. Starting
with "Zoostation" the words go " I'm ready, I'm ready... ", then follows
"the real one",then they shows disappointment in a love that they belived
was true Love " Who's gonna ride your wild horses" and try to be happy
if "can we still be friends" and then they reach a sort of disenchant in
"Love is blidness, I dont wanna see".
I dunno if those analysis are correct or not but in Zooropa works
wonderful.
Post-Modernisim denies the posibility of absolute truth. And it's
optimistic in finding meaning in meaningless things. Language has power over
meaning. And the self is lost as personal experience unable to know other
selves. The self can no longer be sure about itself. The truth is that
all is truth and no one is truth. Some Post-Modernist are quite opitimistic,
and actually believe that language would control technology and lead to a
better world. Therefore, there is hope in technology ("Star Trek".)
Now, have a look to the words of zooropa and listen the kind of music the
use.
The first song, "Zooropa" says "be a winner, eat to get slimmer"... "and
I have no religion"...."everything is fine"....and says also something like
"confussion can be a guide". The next songs follow the same pattern "Don't
think, don't talk, dont comment" ...."every thing is just fine"....."she
wears lemmon" etc. etc. You can find despair, anguish, dread, confussion,
loneliness in all the songs.But over all insecurity. It's quite interesting
that "daddy is gonna pay your crash car" is the story of a guy that believes
too much of himself "but at the end daddy is your only friend". It is the
story of a Capitalist guy and the song starts with communist march. "For the
first time" shows us a guy that can find love neither in a relationship nor
in friendship. However, when he rejects religion, he still feels love's God
A prodigal son figure? someone might argue that he finds love rejecting God.
However rejecting God, he would find freedoom not love. The love that lover
and brother give are based in a relationship. The love of God seems to be
"despite that". The final song is interesting. "The wanderer" who wanders
in this selfdestructed society, in search for experience and in his
wandering sees many things even meets religious people that got ride of
God "the say they want the kingdom but don't want God in". He has a
particular faith, a faith ina context of a post-modern society " I went out
with bible and gun, the word of God layed heavy on my hard" He is the only
sure about his truth "I was sure I was the chosen one". Somehow this strange
post-modern interpretation of faith is the only one that make him to be sure
who he is and what he wants. Unlike all the people named in the other songs.
I don't try to prove any religious thought in this U2's work I'm attempting
to describe it phenomenologicaly or if you want philosophicaly. I don't have
the words on hand to quote more stuff, but I find this album as a strong
critic and sarcasm to the post-modern version of the world within a
postmodernist style. In the same way Atchung baby was a critic or better a
reflexion of love as a pure sensous experience using a sensual style
of music (sensual does not mean bad, it means that only affect our senses).
For example "The real one" and what it talks about could not have other
music than the one that it actualy has.
Anyway, I find Zooropa as master piece of music and philosophy.
I you thing that all these are nonsenses ..... well It's just a thought,
and I like it :) try to do the same with the last Sting's album
Ricardo Roman
Nova Scotia, Canada
where am I from? ......well Peru, didn't you amigos tell in my accent? :)
Neal A. Davis
>First of all. English is not my mother tongue. So if you really want to read
>this article you gotta forgive my grammar eh!?
>I don't know How many of you are familiar with the Post-Modernism
>Philosophy. I wasn't until this year at School.So I'll explain it a little
>before starting.
Let me get this right, baboso, you do not speak-a-da-English
but you are going to enlighten us with your philosophical
knowledge? Before your pedantic theorizing about Fuckault
or Jaquesoff Derrida, how 'bout learning our language first?
>"With or with out you" a love experience and then they
>finish going back to a different search for selfs but not that leads to
>anguis but not personal selfs ;"mother of disappeareds", they are people
>that have no time neither interest to search for themselves.
What the hell does this mean? Ga ga goo goo. Put on your
dunce cap--I think your brain is beginning to leak out
of your ear.
>I dunno if those analysis are correct or not but in Zooropa works
>wonderful.
What I do know is that you've got way too much time
on your hands, and a lot of huevos to come on our
board to practice your pathetic English. Here's
some language advice: in English, we have prepositions,
unlike Spanish, so use "it" so we know what the hell
your referring to!
>Post-Modernisim denies the posibility of absolute truth. And it's
>optimistic in finding meaning in meaningless things. Language has power over
>meaning. And the self is lost as personal experience unable to know other
>selves. The self can no longer be sure about itself. The truth is that
>all is truth and no one is truth. Some Post-Modernist are quite opitimistic,
>and actually believe that language would control technology and lead to a
>better world.
You certainly epitomize the fractured postmodern psyche.
Your thought wonders like a cigarette floating
in the toilet. You are about as lucid as Texas crude
oil. Can you not put an idea into words without sounding
like my five year old sister?
>The first song, "Zooropa" says "be a winner, eat to get slimmer"... "and
>I have no religion"...."everything is fine"....and says also something like
>"confussion can be a guide". The next songs follow the same pattern "Don't
>think, don't talk, dont comment" ...."every thing is just fine"....."she
>wears lemmon" etc. etc. You can find despair, anguish, dread, confussion,
>loneliness in all the songs.But over all insecurity. It's quite interesting
>that "daddy is gonna pay your crash car" is the story of a guy that believes
>too much of himself "but at the end daddy is your only friend".
First of all, the least you can do is get the titles of
the U2 songs right. "Daddy is gonna pay your crash car"
does not appear on my copy of Zooropa, but then again,
I don't have the Idiot version of the CD. Secondly,
your so damn solipsistic that you cannot get out
of your own head and speak in a manner that is not
stream-of-consciousness. Space to Ricky Ricardo,
I mean Ricardo Roman, are you aware that people
cannot understand your narcissistic drool?
>I don't try to prove any religious thought in this U2's work I'm attempting
>to describe it phenomenologicaly or if you want philosophicaly.
Okay, I'll take both big words Ricardo. You get five points
for stretching your big mouth!
>In the same way Atchung baby was a critic or better a
>reflexion of love as a pure sensous experience using a sensual style
>of music (sensual does not mean bad, it means that only affect our senses).
Thanks for defining sensual for us. You see, we Americans. Like
you, we dummer than bag of hammers. We no understand many word.
>RICKY Ricardo Roman MAMACULO
>Nova Scotia, Canada
>where am I from? ......well Peru, didn't you amigos tell in my accent? :)
All I could tell from your accent is that you have no
business studying North of the border. Gracias a dios
estas en ese paiz al norte de nosotros porque eres
un pajero y un fracasado, y no te queremos aqui.
Entiendes, boludo? I don't know if your posting was
a joke or not, but you're better off keeping your nose
in Jean-Frog Lyotard and out of our intelligent
network discussions.
John S. Jacob
Neal A. Davis <nda...@aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
> Let me get this right, baboso, you do not speak-a-da-English
> but you are going to enlighten us with your philosophical
> knowledge? Before your pedantic theorizing about Fuckault
> or Jaquesoff Derrida, how 'bout learning our language first?
Let me get this right, Mr. Daddy-bought-my-way-into-SC, you are
participating in a world-wide newsgroup but expect everyone to know
English as well as you think you do? Just because your puny little
mind can't comprehend anything outside of LA doesn't mean there aren't
a few billion people on Earth -- some of them get along quite well
without learning your one and only tongue. So try something new:
use some effort. I know this might be difficult, but you've got to get
beyond "See Spot run" if you want to survive. Daddy's not gonna pay
for your crashed car all your life. Before you flame this guy for poor
grammar, how 'bout reading what he has to say?
--
[========== John S. Jacob ==========]
| jsj...@uclink.berkeley.edu |
| jsj...@cory.eecs.berkeley.edu |------- Address ----------+
| jsj...@soda.berkeley.edu | 2527 Piedmont Ave #3 |
+-----------------------------------+ Berkeley CA 94704-3139 |
+----------------------------+
Adrian B. Lebuffe
I'd like to second what Jon S. Jacob said. This is not a place for
personal attacks, especially not ones based on language. I found Mr.
Roman's analyses pretty perceptive for someone who's not a native
speaker, or even for someone who is.
I also found Mr. Davis' pathetic attempt at high school Spanish to
be insulting and absurd. If you can't even compose a sentence without
making grammatical errors how can you exepct someone to comprehend and
analyse a whole body of work without any errors?
-Adrian
Daniel Scott Margolin
Your ridiculous comments made me sick, it is people like you that ruin the
world.
True, the person who started the post does not write well, in our language,
but that is true of many very intelligent people. The original poster had
an excellent analysis of zooropa, one that I am sure you will never understand.
Fuck you mr.davis
Tom Oakley
to Neal Davis's flame of Ricardo Roman:
>
> you know, Mr.Davis, you are a piece of shit.
> Fuck you mr.davis
Yes, fuck you mr. davis. You're not worthy of an intelligent response like
you say exist on the network. You certainly display nothing but bigotry
and stupidity.
Tom Oakley
toa...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Neal A. Davis
my bounds as a member of this news network, and not
only am I sorry to you guys, but I offer my sincerest
apologies to Ricardo, whose attempt to speak English
was most noble. Jacob, your point is especially
well-taken. It is true that the only reason I got into
USC is that my father is the partner of a large Southern
California law firm, and he payed most of the money to
build USC's prestigious "Davis Recreation Center." If
it weren't for him, my mediocre GPA would have
had me expelled a couple of years ago. Just don't tell
anyone this, or I'll have to answer to the Dean.
But if I may simply make one point in my defense, which
might explain the nastiness of my rebuttal to Ricardo.
I find it extremely presumptuous that someone who does
not speak a language very well comes onto the network
and pontificates for five or six pages about U2
music. I am sure that if I hooked up to a Latin-American
billboard, and explained to them in my mediocre Spanish
what postmodernism means, I would be torched. I should
make it clear, though, that this is no justification for
my abhorrent behavior, which I hope you gracious souls
will forgive. God Bless.
Richard 'T-Bone' Burton
> You people are absolutely right. I completely overstepped
> my bounds as a member of this news network, and not
> only am I sorry to you guys, but I offer my sincerest
> apologies to Ricardo, whose attempt to speak English
> was most noble. Jacob, your point is especially
> well-taken. It is true that the only reason I got into
> USC is that my father is the partner of a large Southern
> California law firm, and he payed most of the money to
> build USC's prestigious "Davis Recreation Center." If
> it weren't for him, my mediocre GPA would have
> had me expelled a couple of years ago. Just don't tell
> anyone this, or I'll have to answer to the Dean.
Boy, Neal, you must have a tough time finding those Hallmark
cards that say "Happy birthday, Uncle Dad!"
> But if I may simply make one point in my defense, which
> might explain the nastiness of my rebuttal to Ricardo.
> I find it extremely presumptuous that someone who does
> not speak a language very well comes onto the network
> and pontificates for five or six pages about U2
> music.
As opposed to presumption and pontification by ... well, you get
the idea.
Does this whole thread remind anybody else of the Messiah scenes in
"Life of Brian"?
T-Bone
Joe Moffat
> might explain the nastiness of my rebuttal to Ricardo.
> I find it extremely presumptuous that someone who does
> not speak a language very well comes onto the network
> and pontificates for five or six pages about U2
> music. I am sure that if I hooked up to a Latin-American
> billboard, and explained to them in my mediocre Spanish
> what postmodernism means, I would be torched.
saying in his initial posting rather than running Spell-Checker
on the article, you might have noticed some very shrewd observations
and comments.
If U2 (being the world famous band that they are) are prepared
to play in non-english speaking countries and to non-english
speaking audiences then those people have every right to
comment and have their own opinion about U2's music and the
thinking behind it.
> will forgive. God Bless.
Indeed.
RICARDO ROMAN-CARBAJAL
>Xref: dragon.acadiau.ca alt.fan.u2:3119 alt.music.u2:1104
>Path:
>dragon.acadiau.ca!nstn.ns.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!torn!howland.resto
>n.ans.net!usc!aludra.usc.edu!not-for-mail
>From: nda...@aludra.usc.edu (Neal A. Davis)
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.u2,alt.music.u2
>Subject: Re: Zooropa and Post-Modernism
>Date: 18 Apr 1994 00:28:38 -0700
>Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
>Lines: 30
>Sender: nda...@aludra.usc.edu
>Message-ID: <2otcr6$m...@aludra.usc.edu>
>References: <002564r.14...@axe.acadiau.ca> <2or2hd$m...@aludra.usc.edu>
><2oscfk$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
give me a break!!!! you can't be more false
> You people are absolutely right. I completely overstepped
> my bounds as a member of this news network, and not
> only am I sorry to you guys, but I offer my sincerest
> apologies to Ricardo, whose attempt to speak English
> was most noble.
what a nice guy!! I think I'm going to cry.
> Jacob, your point is especially
> well-taken. It is true that the only reason I got into
> USC is that my father is the partner of a large Southern
> California law firm, and he payed most of the money to
> build USC's prestigious "Davis Recreation Center." If
> it weren't for him, my mediocre GPA would have
> had me expelled a couple of years ago. Just don't tell
> anyone this, or I'll have to answer to the Dean.
???
> But if I may simply make one point in my defense, which
> might explain the nastiness of my rebuttal to Ricardo.
defence? defence for what? did I atack? did I say that somebody was wrong?
I got an opinion and I wanted to share it. Is it a sin?
> I find it extremely presumptuous that someone who does
> not speak a language very well comes onto the network
> and pontificates for five or six pages about U2
> music.
1) a page an half
2) I did apologize for my English at the beginningof my posting . You could
not forgive a simple apologie know you ask me for one. When you really
ofend me.
3) I am a U2 fan. Is it an English people exclusivity?
As U2 fan I have opinions. I want to share it with
other U2 fans. Do I have the right?. Does my condition of not having
English as mother tongue unable me?
4) I did not see any other comparison of U2 with post-modernist phylosophy
Why could I not make that analysis?
5) I said that I did not know post-modernist philosophy before this year.
Why is wrong to assume that other people are not aware of it yet. If
I was not. This is not a Philosophy group. I see logical to explain a
phylosophy before using it. I do it daily with conversations with other
U2 fans in my university. It does not make superior neither inferior.
happens that I take Phylosphy others take math. If U2 makes a refernce
to the Laplace Theorem in one of the songs. Would be presumptuos
that a Math student explain the theorem in order to share her/his
interpretation of the song?
6) If my article is wrong tell me. "Ricardo , you absolutly miss the
point" or if you did not understand at all. Tell me "Ricardo, your
English is pretty bad. Improve it and try next time"
7) The following is what you wrote and now graciously say sorry
Who do you think I am?
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 101
Sender: nda...@aludra.usc.edu
Message-ID: <2or2hd$m...@aludra.usc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
^^^^^^
> Let me get this right, baboso, you do not speak-a-da-English
^^^^^^
baboso = stupid
somebody that leaks a lot
of saliva
> but you are going to enlighten us with your philosophical
> knowledge? Before your pedantic theorizing about Fuckault
? or Jaquesoff Derrida, how 'bout learning our language first?
> What the hell does this mean? Ga ga goo goo. Put on your
> dunce cap--I think your brain is beginning to leak out
> of your ear.
>
> What I do know is that you've got way too much time
> on your hands, and a lot of huevos to come on our
^^^^^^
balls
> board to practice your pathetic English. Here's
> some language advice: in English, we have prepositions,
> unlike Spanish, so use "it" so we know what the hell
? yourreferring to!
> You certainly epitomize the fractured postmodern psyche.
> Your thought wonders like a cigarette floating
> in the toilet. You are about as lucid as Texas crude
> oil. Can you not put an idea into words without sounding
> like my five year old sister?
> First of all, the least you can do is get the titles of
> the U2 songs right. "Daddy is gonna pay your crash car"
> does not appear on my copy of Zooropa, but then again,
> I don't have the Idiot version of the CD. Secondly,
> your so damn solipsistic that you cannot get out
> of your own head and speak in a manner that is not
> stream-of-consciousness. Space to Ricky Ricardo,
> I mean Ricardo Roman, are you aware that people
> cannot understand your narcissistic drool?
> Okay, I'll take both big words Ricardo. You get five points
> for stretching your big mouth!
> Thanks for defining sensual for us. You see, we Americans. Like
> you, we dummer than bag of hammers. We no understand many word.
^^^^^^^^
>RICKY Ricardo Roman MAMACULO
>Nova Scotia, Canada ^^^^^^^^
MAMACULO = mother's ass
> All I could tell from your accent is that you have no
> business studying North of the border.
> Gracias a dios
> estas en ese paiz al norte de nosotros porque eres
> un pajero y un fracasado, y no te queremos aqui.
> Entiendes, boludo?
In a not bad Spanish
He says "thanks god that you are in this country at our north.
becouse you are a freak and an unsuccesfull. We don't want
you here. Do you understand, big balls?"
> I don't know if your posting was
> a joke or not, but you're better off keeping your nose
> in Jean-Frog Lyotard and out of our intelligent
? network discussions.
If the problem is with me, a Peruvian, Why do you need
to offend Canadians. Is this part of your intelligent discussion
> I am sure that if I hooked up to a Latin-American
> billboard, and explained to them in my mediocre Spanish
> what postmodernism means, I would be torched.
No! In our groups we have Americans, Germans , Canadians and British
commenting Latin_American Politics in a bad Spanish and if we
desagree we don't pick in his bad Spanish neither treat them like
garbage. We can desagree.That's part of the discussion.
I wouldn't mind if you desagreed with me
> I should make it clear, though, that this is no justification for
> my abhorrent behavior, which I hope you gracious souls
> will forgive. God Bless.
Give me a break. Fortunatly I know that jerks like you don't represent
anybody. However,I apologize again for my bad English. Not for guys like
this one, but I think for respect to the group I should try
to be more readable. And thanks to those that read mu posting and answer
the comments of this Gentelman.
I don't care if he writes again.These are U2 groups and I'd rather prefer
to discuss U2 issues.
Ricardo Roman
Nova Scotia Canada
J. Gareth Williams
What the fuck's your problem, pal? In the last 115 posts on this newsgroup,
this is the ONLY one you've written, so what the fuck have YOU contributed
to "intelligent network discussions"? What the hell gives you or me or any
other person any more right than Ricardo to post on this newsgroup? He's a
fan just like the rest of us.
Fuck off and die, red-neck.
"If you can't get along in here, how will you get along out THERE?"
- Paul Hewson
J. Gareth Williams
University of Waterloo
J. Gareth Williams
>
>What the fuck's your problem, pal? In the last 115 posts on this newsgroup,
>this is the ONLY one you've written, so what the fuck have YOU contributed
>to "intelligent network discussions"? What the hell gives you or me or any
>other person any more right than Ricardo to post on this newsgroup? He's a
>fan just like the rest of us.
>
>Fuck off and die, red-neck.
>
>"If you can't get along in here, how will you get along out THERE?"
> - Paul Hewson
>
>J. Gareth Williams
>University of Waterloo
Oh. I just switched to alt.music.u2, and yes it seems you *have* written
something else recently. Some drivel about how they've sold out, blah, blah,
blah. And you have the arrogance to then go and write that some other guy
has no right to post.
Same advice as last time,
Andrew Glennie
Reeshard:
Surely Zooropa is a minor masterpiece, but it is also attempt to undercut
the post-modernist "philosophy," not play it up. for PM is a nihilistic
sophistry which is simply a digitalized version of fascism. No wonder
that one of its founder and leading thinkers, Paul de Man, wrote
anti-Semitic articles for a Belgian quisling paper during World War II,
and then wrote voluminous books and articles denying the "fact" of
history. It was his own history he wished to deny.
--
q
Timo Ahonen
> I find it extremely presumptuous that someone who does
> not speak a language very well comes onto the network
As amazing as it may seem to you, the Americans do not own or even
control the Net. English being the closest there is to a universal
Lingua Franca, it is being used most frequently in most of the
newsgroups of the Net. But... that's where it ends. No other reason.
Only that as many people as possible will understand my post.
Full stop (that's period to you). Don't like it? Too bad. This just
isn't your little playground to boss around at. Niin etta jos mua
huvittaa kirjoittaa tahan suomea, niin sen voin varsin hyvin tehda (=if
I want to write Finnish here, I can do it). Not too many people will
understand without the translation, but if I so choose to do...
> and pontificates for five or six pages about U2
> music. I am sure that if I hooked up to a Latin-American
> billboard, and explained to them in my mediocre Spanish
> what postmodernism means, I would be torched.
If you don't like it, don't read it. The contents of his post were
appropriate for this group, and that's all that is required. No rules
about the language used.
Grow up!
Timo Ahonen "There's never enough time to
timo....@helsinki.fi do all the nothing you want."
Univ. of Helsinki Calvin (Bill Watterson)
C092...@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
002...@axe.acadiau.ca (RICARDO ROMAN-CARBAJAL) writes:
>
>
>First of all. English is not my mother tongue. So if you really want to read
>this article you gotta forgive my grammar eh!?
>
>
>I don't know How many of you are familiar with the Post-Modernism
>Philosophy. I wasn't until this year at School.So I'll explain it a little
>before starting
>
>Post-Modernisim denies the posibility of absolute truth. And it's
>optimistic in finding meaning in meaningless things. Language has power over
>meaning.
>
>
>Nova Scotia, Canada
>
Neat interpretations of the albums,but, also a good example of the
failure of postmodernism. It is unable to deal with meaning, so is
of no value in trying to interpret anything. You used the example
"language has power over menaning." but, without meaning there
is no such thing as language. If language has power over meaning,
how do you now know that I think postmoderism is nonsense? QED.
Postmodernism has been used effectively for one thing: giving
people something novel to say. Not valuable, just new. Lots of
your philosophy profs will try to get you to dismiss this distinction,
despite its utility.
I don't mean to go overboard I think
it's great that someone thinks as deeply aboout U2's lyrics (or for
that matter anything at all these days). Just don't get fooled by
your profs BS about postmoderism. I'd be very interested to know
what you think about the songs aside from the formal systemic
mumbo jumbo.
Crusty
>
>
ROBERT CURRY
>From: nda...@aludra.usc.edu (Neal A. Davis)
> All I could tell from your accent is that you have no
> business studying North of the border. Gracias a dios
> estas en ese paiz al norte de nosotros porque eres
> un pajero y un fracasado, y no te queremos aqui.
> Entiendes, boludo? I don't know if your posting was
> a joke or not, but you're better off keeping your nose
> in Jean-Frog Lyotard and out of our intelligent
> network discussions.
Well, I wonder what U2 would have to say about Mr. Davis' response to
Ricardo's posting? Think they would be impressed? I think not.
Over this past year I have gotten to know Ricardo quite well(as we go to
school together). And I for one am happy to have him "north of the border".
As a matter of fact, I'm glad that we have him and the States don't.
Ricardo has come to Canada and has done quite well in regards to language
and school. He has many friends and fits well into the social aspect of
Canadian life. I have had many enlightening conversations with him.
Ricardo, like most foriegn students, need to be helped and encouraged
with their understanding of English. I mean, let's face it, it's not easy
for people to learn such a loose language.
Ricardo has become quite a big U2 fan, and wanted to share his
thoughts. And this is what he got in return. Maybe in the future people will
be more understanding to those whose mother tounge isn't English.
Thanks and good-bye,
Glenn
ALBERTO
Look, I'm from Mexico and if one day you post something in one of
the Latin-American news groups, if the things you say are interes-
ting, i wouldn't really care about the way you say them. I would
understand that there's no reason for you to express yourself
fluently in spanish. I think no one would torch you.
BETO
>
>
>
>
>
>
Neal A. Davis
definitely went too far, but not to criticize Ricardo's
interesting, if difficult to follow, analysis of U2
and postmodernity.
Andrew Glennie, for instance, associated
postmodernism with Paul de Man (who I agree was an
anti-semite), and then Andy branded de Man a fascist. First of
all, de Man was not a postmodernist, but a deconstructionist.
Also, his friend, Jaques Derrida, who is a Jew, defended
de Man in an interesting article in Critical Inquiry. Secondly,
de Man's flirtations with Nazism does not
automatically discount him as a legitimate thinker. After
all: Sartre was an apologist for Stalin, Althusser strangled
his wife, Heidegger was a member of he Nazi party, and
Foucault was into S&M and died of AIDS from unsafe sex.
And I have it on good word that Jesus drank. But we do
not simply dismiss these people's teachings because of their
questionable affiliations or actions.
Ricardo has hit upon an essential truth (if there is such
thing as a monolithic truth anymore): U2, on its last two
albums, has embarked on its postmodern phase. Clearly,
Bono has taken his Critical Theory 101. By pushing
popular music and culture to its limits, he is attempting
to completely undermine the two things. It's what Baudrillard
calls "fatal theory," which in many ways was a response to
the elitism of the Frankfurt School. The more grotesque
the U2 spectacle becomes, the more the band reminds us
of our banal existence in late capitalist (consumer)
society. Why do you think Bono is always calling Home
Shopping Network during concert? Is not the "Real Thing"
about simulacra, as Buadrillard defined it, and how
the real and the artificial are conflated in our
postmodern epoch?
I also think that Ricardo's critique of Zooropa disproves Crust's
(is that his real name?!?) comment that Postmodernism is
"unable to deal with meaning." Clearly, Crust does not
understand postmodernism, which might explain why he so
easily dimisses his "professors' BS." Postmodernity is
all about meaning, and how to come to terms with it in a new
era that is ahistorical, fragmented, and driven by
consumer fetishism. In Ricardo's analysis, I see a lot of
meaning, not simply vapid theorizing.
Elin Nicolaysen (I120)
|>
|> But if I may simply make one point in my defense, which
|> might explain the nastiness of my rebuttal to Ricardo.
|> I find it extremely presumptuous that someone who does
|> not speak a language very well comes onto the network
|> and pontificates for five or six pages about U2
|> music. I am sure that if I hooked up to a Latin-American
|> billboard, and explained to them in my mediocre Spanish
|> what postmodernism means, I would be torched. I should
|> make it clear, though, that this is no justification for
|> my abhorrent behavior, which I hope you gracious souls
|> will forgive. God Bless.
|>
On the other hand, this group does have *world* distribution, and as such, it
should not be limited to those who have a perfect command of the English language
(or English American, if you prefer).
I mean, isn't this one of the great things about the net; you get to talk to
people from all over the world with common interests.
(Besides, no one says you have to read through all six pages of bad English if it
offends you...)
Elin
MUE...@hist.unibe.ch
I do not like the idea of getting involved in a flame-war, but I think
the quoted stuff below is an "affront" against all foreign-language subsrcibers
of this news-group.
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
> Let me get this right, baboso, you do not speak-a-da-English
> but you are going to enlighten us with your philosophical
> knowledge? Before your pedantic theorizing about Fuckault
> or Jaquesoff Derrida, how 'bout learning our language first?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We're doing a hard job to learn other languages - there are also other
languages in the world than just english - in Switzerland we do have
four different languages (swiss-german, french, italian and roman) and
we do learn english in addition. I have not met a lot of native english
speaking persons that do speak more than one language
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
>
> What the hell does this mean? Ga ga goo goo. Put on your
> dunce cap--I think your brain is beginning to leak out
> of your ear.
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
> What I do know is that you've got way too much time
> on your hands, and a lot of huevos to come on our
> board to practice your pathetic English. Here's
> some language advice: in English, we have prepositions,
> unlike Spanish, so use "it" so we know what the hell
> your referring to!
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
>
>
> You certainly epitomize the fractured postmodern psyche.
> Your thought wonders like a cigarette floating
> in the toilet. You are about as lucid as Texas crude
> oil. Can you not put an idea into words without sounding
> like my five year old sister?
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
>
> First of all, the least you can do is get the titles of
> the U2 songs right. "Daddy is gonna pay your crash car"
> does not appear on my copy of Zooropa, but then again,
> I don't have the Idiot version of the CD. Secondly,
> your so damn solipsistic that you cannot get out
> of your own head and speak in a manner that is not
> stream-of-consciousness. Space to Ricky Ricardo,
> I mean Ricardo Roman, are you aware that people
> cannot understand your narcissistic drool?
>
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
>
> Okay, I'll take both big words Ricardo. You get five points
> for stretching your big mouth!
>
>
> Thanks for defining sensual for us. You see, we Americans. Like
> you, we dummer than bag of hammers. We no understand many word.
>
["philosophical" stuff deleted]
>
> All I could tell from your accent is that you have no
> business studying North of the border. Gracias a dios
> estas en ese paiz al norte de nosotros porque eres
> un pajero y un fracasado, y no te queremos aqui.
> Entiendes, boludo? I don't know if your posting was
> a joke or not, but you're better off keeping your nose
> in Jean-Frog Lyotard and out of our intelligent
> network discussions.
And you are surely the first in calling a german a "nazi", flaming anyone
who is critical against the US. I'm fed up with this self-righteous attitude.
who is not a native english-speaking person. I always thought UseNet is
world-wide.
These are just my 2c worth and I do apologize for my bad english - as it
seems to be necessary here!
Greetings from Switzerland
Thomas
David Davis
>In article <2otcr6$m...@aludra.usc.edu> nda...@aludra.usc.edu (Neal A. Davis) writes:
>>Xref: dragon.acadiau.ca alt.fan.u2:3119 alt.music.u2:1104
>>Path:
>>dragon.acadiau.ca!nstn.ns.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!torn!howland.resto
>>n.ans.net!usc!aludra.usc.edu!not-for-mail
>>From: nda...@aludra.usc.edu (Neal A. Davis)
>>Newsgroups: alt.fan.u2,alt.music.u2
>>Subject: Re: Zooropa and Post-Modernism
>>Date: 18 Apr 1994 00:28:38 -0700
>>Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
>>Lines: 30
>>Sender: nda...@aludra.usc.edu
>>Message-ID: <2otcr6$m...@aludra.usc.edu>
>>References: <002564r.14...@axe.acadiau.ca> <2or2hd$m...@aludra.usc.edu>
>><2oscfk$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
>give me a break!!!! you can't be more false
>> You people are absolutely right. I completely overstepped
>> my bounds as a member of this news network, and not
>> only am I sorry to you guys, but I offer my sincerest
>> apologies to Ricardo, whose attempt to speak English
>> was most nob
> 2) I did apologize for my English at the beginningof my posting . You could
> not forgive a simple apologie know you ask me for one. When you really
> ofend me.
> 3) I am a U2 fan. Is it an English people exclusivity?
> As U2 fan I have opinions. I want to share it with
> other U2 fans. Do I have the right?. Does my condition of not having
> English as mother tongue unable me?
>
>> Gracias a dios
>> estas en ese paiz al norte de nosotros porque eres
>> un pajero y un fracasado, y no te queremos aqui.
>> Entiendes, boludo?
> In a not bad Spanish
> He says "thanks god that you are in this country at our north.
> becouse you are a freak and an unsuccesfull. We don't want
> you here. Do you understand, boludo?
THE POWER OF BABEL.
Actually, Mr. Ricardo's translation on Neal's vindictive is quite restrained
GIven the tone of the letter it would be something like: Thank God you're
in that country to the North since you're such a jack-off and fuck-up and
we don't want you here. You got it, dumbshit?" And I also think mamaculo would be something like ass-sucker, or ass-kisser (chupaculo)
Pero, mi meta aca no es criticar la traduccion de Mr. Ricardo, que es una
traicion a lo que dijo Mr. Davis, sino que promover una glosalalia, un torre
de babel y no de babosa (o babosos). Si Mr. Ricardo quiere escribir en
americano puede escribir en lo que quiera. Al fin y al cabo, que es el
americano. Lo bueno del Inter Net es que se puede escribir en cualquier
cosa, sea English, espanol, o Spanglish. Actually, I prefer el espanglish,
el ruido que hace al ear. Las imperfecciones son para mi lo mas interesante.
Si el ingles de Mr. Ricardo falta el saber, se recupera en el sabor. Y si
estamos hablando sobre la posmodernidad que es una lingua franca. Yo digo,
cago en todo. Por que Mr. RIcardo no escribe en espanol, o el otro tipo
que escribio de FInlandia, por que no escribe en su propio idioma? Aunque
hablo ingles, y aunque se ha convertido en una especie de lingua franca, yo
me siento mas y mas restringido por mi uso del idioma. Yo se como es ser
extranjero, aun quizas exiliado y aunque no estoy de acuerdo con lo que dijo
Mr. Ricardo en cuanto a la posmodernidad aplaudo el modo en que trato(')
el incidente de Neal A. Davis (quien aunque es mi tocallo, no somos (ojala)
relacionados). Pero, no debe tener que disculparse por su "mal" ingles.
Mr. Ricardo, debe ud. decir "la puta madre que les pario a todos uds juevones."
michael santos
:
I enjoyed your article. However, in claiming that Ricardo has hit upon an
"essential truth" in identifying the post-modern nature of U2 is in and of
itself a misunderstanding of post modernism. One way of seeing post
modernism is as a rejection of grand narratives (and essential truths, as
there are none). Post modernism is doomed to eat itself. It is
contradictory. It is is its own grand narrative, that which it abhorres,
and that is its undoing. As for U2... yeah, they're latest phase is post
modern. But that's nothing really special. They are products of post
modernity, and have not created it, as you and Ricardo suggest. I don't
think U2 are providing the kind of scathing critique of late capitalism
which you seem to believe they do. Remember, this is only a phase.
Furthermore, like Madonna, who epitomizes late capitalism, they are
rolling in it financially... so don't tell me they are all of a sudden the
'anti capitalists'. So what do you think? Is this a lot of bullshit or what?
--
|| Michael Santos || "E V E R Y O N E ||
|| msa...@superior.carleton.ca || I S ||
|| Mass Communication, M.A. Program || E V E R Y W H E R E" ||
|| Carleton University, Ottawa || (James Carey) ||
Neal A. Davis
I hardly think what I said is a misunderstanding of the
subject. What directly follows the phrase "essential
truth" in my letter? Let me remind you: "(if there is
such thing as a monolithic truth anymore)". Remember,
text AND context. Don't take my quotes out of context
in order to formulate your straw man argument.
Post modernism is doomed to eat itself. It is
>contradictory. It is is its own grand narrative, that which it abhorres,
>and that is its undoing. As for U2... yeah, they're latest phase is post
>modern. But that's nothing really special. They are products of post
>modernity, and have not created it, as you and Ricardo suggest.
I haven't read Ricardo's post lately, nor do I have any
desire to do so, but I am not stupid enough to suggest
that U2 is special and innovative. One can take postmodernity
in pop. music as far back as Elvis. The Beatles
from 1967 on, and the Velvet Underground, are some
of the more obvious examples (now you know why Bono
had Lou Reed sing on the "Achtung Baby" tour).
I don't
>think U2 are providing the kind of scathing critique of late capitalism
>which you seem to believe they do. Remember, this is only a phase.
>Furthermore, like Madonna, who epitomizes late capitalism, they are
>rolling in it financially... so don't tell me they are all of a sudden the
>'anti capitalists'. So what do you think? Is this a lot of bullshit or what?
Certainly U2's critique of capitalism is scathing, although
subtle. Instead of didactically criticizing capitalism--
a la Brecht--U2 is very sneaky. When Bono dresses as
Elvis and sings "The Real Thing," he reminds us of the
simulacra and the ahistoricism that permeates our
postmodern existence. Bono does not ram an anti-capitalist
spiel down our throats, like some militant Marxist; instead,
he suggests, he whispers.
Now, I've given textual support for my point. It's your turn
to tell me why they are not critical of capitalism, and remember
to support your argument with SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
Oh God, if I only had a time for every time I your other
argument....I could never understand its logic. Just because
U2 makes a lot of money does not mean that their
criticism is not legitimate. After all, the pre-eminent
American Marxist and postmodernist, Fred Jameson, makes
$300,000 a year at Duke. Are we supposed to ignore him
because of this? Armand Hammer, the billionaire, had
strong Communist sympathies. Is he a fraud? You
remind of the guy who says we should not
read de Man because he is a fascist. In other words,
you're a reactionary.
Devotedly,
Neal
P.S. Madonna is not all that bad. Keep in mind that, through
her music, she has done incredibly subversive things, like
opening people's minds to sexuality and sexual taboos. It
might do you some good to read Camille Paglia on Madonna
before you go off on the Boy-Toy.
RICARDO ROMAN-CARBAJAL
well, that's the discussion that I was looking for.
If I write in English is for practical reason. I love my language but
I think is more practical to use English in group where 100% understand
English and perhaps 70% or 80% has English as mother tongue.
anyway.....
>msa...@superior.carleton.ca (michael santos) writes:
and
>>Neal A. Davis (nda...@aludra.usc.edu) wrote:
> Post modernism is doomed to eat itself. It is
>>contradictory. It is is its own grand narrative, that which it abhorres,
>>and that is its undoing. As for U2... yeah, they're latest phase is post
>>modern. But that's nothing really special. They are products of post
>>modernity, and have not created it, as you and Ricardo suggest.
> I haven't read Ricardo's post lately, nor do I have any
> desire to do so, but I am not stupid enough to suggest
> that U2 is special and innovative. One can take postmodernity
> in pop. music as far back as Elvis. The Beatles
> from 1967 on, and the Velvet Underground, are some
> of the more obvious examples (now you know why Bono
> had Lou Reed sing on the "Achtung Baby" tour).
I have never suggested that U2 created post-modernity. I Remeber I wrote
tha zooropa is "within" post-modernist style.
I know Post-modernism in society is a little bit old. Post-modernism as a
phylosophy might be new to me, but it is not a new philosophy. I just wasn't
aware about it. After lerning about it, I noticed that Zooropa followed
some features of post-modernism. Trying to do an analysis I finished
convinced that the album was made on purpose whithin post-modernism style.
This is one if the reasons because many people hate Zooropa. It is the
reflexion of our time and our fears. But in a hypocritical optimism/pesimism
in modernity. Common feature of our time.
One of the adventages/disadventages of Zooropa is that Post-modernism by
definition cannot be critized succesfully. If there is "no absolute truth"
you cannot blame it for being wrong. It never said that It was right.
However, Zooropa never states anything. It breaths post-modernism in the
lyrics and in the music. Zooropa is full of contradictions and hopless
dreams. Each song express confusion and incongruency. It's empty. People
think that zooropa is a joke, is a fake, that it is just stupid. Well there
we go Zooropa is post-modernism. But Zooropa never says that post-modernism
is good or bad it just show it. And in showing it, denounces it.
> I don't
>>think U2 are providing the kind of scathing critique of late capitalism
>>which you seem to believe they do. Remember, this is only a phase.
>>Furthermore, like Madonna, who epitomizes late capitalism, they are
>>rolling in it financially... so don't tell me they are all of a sudden the
>>'anti capitalists'. So what do you think? Is this a lot of bullshit or
>what?
> Certainly U2's critique of capitalism is scathing, although
> subtle. Instead of didactically criticizing capitalism--
> a la Brecht--U2 is very sneaky. When Bono dresses as
> Elvis and sings "The Real Thing," he reminds us of the
> simulacra and the ahistoricism that permeates our
> postmodern existence. Bono does not ram an anti-capitalist
> spiel down our throats, like some militant Marxist; instead,
> he suggests, he whispers.
> Now, I've given textual support for my point. It's your turn
> to tell me why they are not critical of capitalism, and remember
> to support your argument with SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
> Oh God, if I only had a time for every time I your other
> argument....I could never understand its logic. Just because
> U2 makes a lot of money does not mean that their
> criticism is not legitimate. After all, the pre-eminent
> American Marxist and postmodernist, Fred Jameson, makes
> $300,000 a year at Duke. Are we supposed to ignore him
> because of this? Armand Hammer, the billionaire, had
> strong Communist sympathies. Is he a fraud? You
> remind of the guy who says we should not
> read de Man because he is a fascist. In other words,
> you're a reactionary.
> Devotedly,
> Neal
That's the whole thing. You cannot say that post-modernism is wrong. If you
say so, they will say that you are right. Post-modernism is self-destructive
but at the same time it feeds itself from its own destruction
Peolpe tend to think that Post-modernism as a phylosophy is death. However,
academicaly might be death (I doubt it). But society still lives it. And
society seems to believe strongly in it. I think that U2 is attaking post-
modernism from inside postmodernism. It's perhaps the best way to do it. It
would be usless to writte songs against it or to denounce it publicaly.
Who is going to say " oh yes I'm a post-modernist I'm wrong".
It's better to live it, and in living it to denounce it.And I think that's
what U2 is doing know. They are are in a new stage, inmmerse in a post-
modernist fashion and sytle. But not as comformism to it but as a denonce
to it. It's a risky business. They can get cought in, it if they are not
cought yet. But isn't Bono dancing as a devil or dressing as Elvis smashing
values and taboos of conservatives and modern society, becoming meaningless
those values or icons that people thought had some meaning. And using
maningless symbols asif they would be full of meaning redefine a new world
that we hate because somehow we know we are part of it. Their behaviour,
music and lyrics are a sort denounce life-style. They are having fun making
fun of us and of themselves.They can say something like "what is U2? a rock
band?, no U2 is nothing because it is everything. You are following us, well
we have no meaning,but you ask me can we still be friends? You Like us
becoase we are U2, we do not know what U2 is but you still like us". I
think that they are screaming. "We are post-modernism's children, we are
just "you" . Don't you like us?, don't you like yourselves?."
Pay attention to Zooropa. It's just a master piece. Don't you find
confussion, desenchantment, lack of meaning in everything, And a sort of
meaning where there is no meaning. But at the same time a wish to believe
that "everything is alright, every thing is just fine".
I know I might be wrong. In that case you would be right. And I would be
right to think that I might be wrong, so I'm not wrong.Neither you are. But
If you are right and I'm right Who is wrong? nobody is wrong. "Well every
thing is just fine.so,be a winner, and eat to get slimmer, wear lemmon ,
don't think, buy a pakagge of cigarretts, I know you don't smoke, but
who cares? Does not make sense? who needs sense? are you confussed? It's
O.K. every thing is going to be just alright. Ambiguity or confussion can
be guiding stars.
Ricardo