Crash ban lifted ?
Felidae
I wonder if Westminster Council will lift the ban on Cronenberg's "Crash".
It appears that Camilla Parker-B. has adopted the films plot for her own
pleasures and maybe the rest of the Royals will catch on soon as well.
One can only hope........ ;-)
Miaow
Fox
Previously, Felidae wrote:
Why? The film's pure hype and little to no content.
Fox
--
/\_/\ F "Some you lose, some you lose."
\O O/ O Deus Ex Machina (Alpha) - Stuff It!
\o/ X The Dragon's Tear - 65% complete
Ian Sturrock
In article <33a21630...@news.demon.co.uk>, Fox <f...@scio.demon.REMO
VE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk> writes
>
>Why? The film's pure hype and little to no content.
>
postmodernism. I`ll admit it does help to have read the book. It`s
classic Ballard tho`- the interplay of man & machine, the loss of human
emotion in the machine age, misfits & mavericks cruising the apocalyptic
highways, jaded thrill-seekers out fer kicks, wild-eyed loners at the
gates of a oblivion & we haven`t even told our parents what time we`re
going to be back....
It must have had *some* content tho`, `cos you had real difficulties
crossing Oxford Rd after seeing it...
--
Ian
"Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire,
are of us." AL II.20
jen...@innocent.com
In article <33a21630...@news.demon.co.uk>,
f...@scio.demon.REMOVE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk wrote:
>
> Previously, Felidae wrote:
>
> >I wonder if Westminster Council will lift the ban on Cronenberg's "Crash".
> >It appears that Camilla Parker-B. has adopted the films plot for her own
> >pleasures and maybe the rest of the Royals will catch on soon as well.
> >One can only hope........ ;-)
>
>
Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to see it yet, but I'll be going
on Sunday as it's National Cinema Day then (as everyone should be aware)
which means it will cost only one pound to see _any_ movie in _any_
cinema in thr UK. <bounce> The Emperor Penguin and I reckoned we could
fit at least four films into the day. :) I am really looking forward to
crash as I've been wanting to see it since it was first mooted about two
years ago - I love the book (hence my car crash party last year) and am
very fond of Ballard's work in general, as well as Cronenburg's. I
wouldn't advise it to anyone expecting narrative-based cinema, though, or
looking for the kind of sex and violence which the would-be censors have
advertised it with.
Jennie
"You hit her with a force of steel
"She's wrapped around your dirty wheels." - the Creatures
http://grelb.src.gla.ac.uk:8000/~cube/jennie.html
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Stephen Mellor
Fox muttered...
> Previously, Felidae wrote:
>
> >I wonder if Westminster Council will lift the ban on Cronenberg's
"Crash".
> >It appears that Camilla Parker-B. has adopted the films plot for her
own
> >pleasures and maybe the rest of the Royals will catch on soon as well.
> >One can only hope........ ;-)
>
> Why? The film's pure hype and little to no content.
Has there been any major release in the last 5 years that wasn't?
(Serious question, not just sarcasm - I don't get out to the cinema much).
Mel
Be not drunk upon wine, for that is excess, but fill thyself
instead with the spirit.
Paul Crowley
jen...@innocent.com writes:
> "You hit her with a force of steel
> "She's wrapped around your dirty wheels." - the Creatures
What about "Hear the crashing steel, feel the steering wheel"?
"A tear of petrol
Is in your eye
The handbrake
Penetrates your thigh
Quick
Let's make love
Before you die" - The Normal
RRRRR - eeeeeeeeeeeee - RRRRR - eeeeeeeeeee etc.
Too obvious perhaps.
__
\/ o\ pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley -+- DATA IS SACRED /~\
G Greenway
In article <87u3j1x...@hedonism.demon.co.uk>
Paul Crowley <pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> wrote:-
>jen...@innocent.com writes:
>> "You hit her with a force of steel
>> "She's wrapped around your dirty wheels." - the Creatures
> ^^^^^
Burning ? Dirty ? (Whatever...)
>What about "Hear the crashing steel, feel the steering wheel"?
>
>"A tear of petrol
>Is in your eye
>The handbrake
>Penetrates your thigh
>Quick
>Let's make love
>Before you die" - The Normal
>
>RRRRR - eeeeeeeeeeeee - RRRRR - eeeeeeeeeee etc.
>
"Bend over -I'll drive,
Bend over I'll DRIVE,
Is this the way Jayne Mansfield died ?
BEND OVER I'LL DRIVE !"
"At the Sado County auto show,
The Sado County auto show,
Can't be late, ya gotta go go go,
To the Sado County auto show..."
-The Cramps
"Augeas",
A collector of car songs.
>Too obvious perhaps.
> __
>\/ o\ pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk \ /
>/\__/ Paul Crowley -+- DATA IS SACRED /~\
>.
--
___________________________ _ _ _ _ _____
/ \ \ T | \ | | | \ / | | ___| ARE
| _\ aug...@elis.demon.co.uk \ | \ | | | \/ | | |___
\/__\ ______________________\___ H | |\\| | | |\/| | | ___| THE
\ / \ \ | | \ | | | | | | |___
\\_| | E |_| \_| |_| |_| |_____| ENEMY
\_/________________________/
Fox
Previously, "Stephen Mellor" wrote:
>Fox muttered...
>
>> Why? The film's pure hype and little to no content.
>
>Has there been any major release in the last 5 years that wasn't?
>
>(Serious question, not just sarcasm - I don't get out to the cinema much).
Is "Crash" a major release though? I'd put it on a par with Merchant
Ivory productions in terms of distribution which should answer your
question.
"The English Patient" is definitely comparable and, whilst I haven't seen
it, I believe it definitely deserved it's Oscars.
Fox
--
/\_/\ F "Some you lose, some you lose."
\O O/ O Deus Ex Machina (Alpha) - Stuff It!
\o/ X The Dragon's Tear - 75% complete
Fox
Previously, Ian Sturrock wrote:
>In article <33a21630...@news.demon.co.uk>, Fox <f...@scio.demon.REMO
>VE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Why? The film's pure hype and little to no content.
>>
>You just don`t appreciate its raw sexiness & style-over-substance
>postmodernism.
You appeared on the net too late to see my rant about the crapness of
"Style Over Substance". Actually I don't even remember if it was on upg
or ag. Anyway, the same goes for post-modernism. It's a wonderful
little buzz word to be used by people who want to be "Hip And Cool" (not
trendy though) and anyone who aspires to such heady heights should be
shot through the spleen with an industrial rivet thrower.
>It must have had *some* content tho`, `cos you had real difficulties
>crossing Oxford Rd after seeing it...
Too damned right. That Porsche was SEXY!
Fox
Previously, Jodi Quinn wrote:
>Postmodernism is a genuinely accepted movement in philosophy, sociology,
>history, literary scholarship and just about any discipline that deals
>with people and the world we live in. It is about challenging received
>ideas about life, the universe and everything. It is about asking
>questions about the world around us and relationships between people,
>culture, etc.
>
>So is your last sentence advocating that I and most of the people on my
>course should be executed just for not being mindless consumers?
Oops. Clarification time.
Postmodernism of the kind that you described is a very valid and
necessary tool and, as such, most forms of it should be nurtured and
encouraged wherever it thrives. I'll immediately apologise to anyone
like Jodi who may have taken my statement about postmodernism to be a
generalisation. As everyone knows, one should never generalise.
I was actually taking issue with Ian's specific use of the phrase
"style-over-substance postmodernism" and was attacking the people who use
the p word in this context. Now if you want to argue this point with me
feel free. Just give us a mo whist I go and get some more rivets.
Fox
Jodi Quinn
Fox wrote:
>
> Previously, Ian Sturrock wrote:
>
> >You just don`t appreciate its raw sexiness & style-over-substance
> >postmodernism.
>
> You appeared on the net too late to see my rant about the crapness of
> "Style Over Substance". Actually I don't even remember if it was on upg
> or ag. Anyway, the same goes for post-modernism. It's a wonderful
> little buzz word to be used by people who want to be "Hip And Cool" (not
> trendy though) and anyone who aspires to such heady heights should be
> shot through the spleen with an industrial rivet thrower.
I know I shouldn't even be dignifying this with a response, but that was
the sound of my career being trashed.
Postmodernism is a genuinely accepted movement in philosophy, sociology,
history, literary scholarship and just about any discipline that deals
with people and the world we live in. It is about challenging received
ideas about life, the universe and everything. It is about asking
questions about the world around us and relationships between people,
culture, etc.
So is your last sentence advocating that I and most of the people on my
course should be executed just for not being mindless consumers?
Jodi
Fox
Previously, "Stephen Mellor" wrote:
>Fox said...
>
>> >It must have had *some* content tho`, `cos you had real difficulties
>> >crossing Oxford Rd after seeing it...
>>
>> Too damned right. That Porsche was SEXY!
>
>Ah, the male menoPorsche (what was that about "style over substance"?).
>=;-)
I was being sarcastic Mel.
Now if it had been a ZZR-1100 in black...
Anybody got a box of tissues?
Yaruar
In article <33A599...@man.ac.uk>, Jodi Quinn <jodi....@man.ac.uk> says:
>
>Fox wrote:
>>
>> Previously, Ian Sturrock wrote:
>>
>> >You just don`t appreciate its raw sexiness & style-over-substance
>> >postmodernism.
>>
>> You appeared on the net too late to see my rant about the crapness of
>> "Style Over Substance". Actually I don't even remember if it was on upg
>> or ag. Anyway, the same goes for post-modernism. It's a wonderful
>> little buzz word to be used by people who want to be "Hip And Cool" (not
>> trendy though) and anyone who aspires to such heady heights should be
>> shot through the spleen with an industrial rivet thrower.
>
>I know I shouldn't even be dignifying this with a response, but that was
>the sound of my career being trashed.
>So is your last sentence advocating that I and most of the people on my
>course should be executed just for not being mindless consumers?
I think the problem like most things, is that the people who don't
understand or are ignorant about a movement just go with the
media representation, which in itself is usually illinformed.
Look at the whole political correctness thing in the 80's which
shat on the work on people working for the good of everyone.
Personally I have reservations about some aspects of postmodernism,
but I do with most movements. Personally I'm for deconstructing
anyone who bites out of ignorance, and that goes for all subjects.
As my mum should have said 'if you don't know about the subject,
keep your oar out!'
Nick/Yaruar
Ian Sturrock
In article <33a93124...@news.demon.co.uk>, Fox <f...@scio.demon.REMO
VE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk> writes
>I was actually taking issue with Ian's specific use of the phrase
>"style-over-substance postmodernism" and was attacking the people who use
>the p word in this context. Now if you want to argue this point with me
>feel free. Just give us a mo whist I go and get some more rivets.
to my mind is the essential reference work when dealing with the *style*
of postmodernism as applied to everyday life rather than academia.
Y`see, _Crash_ wasn`t about cars & sex, it was about "cars" & "sex." Or
even "'cars'" and "'sex.'"
Stephen Mellor
Fox said...
> You appeared on the net too late to see my rant about the crapness of
> "Style Over Substance". Actually I don't even remember if it was on upg
> or ag. Anyway, the same goes for post-modernism. It's a wonderful
> little buzz word to be used by people who want to be "Hip And Cool" (not
> trendy though) and anyone who aspires to such heady heights should be
> shot through the spleen with an industrial rivet thrower.
>
> >It must have had *some* content tho`, `cos you had real difficulties
> >crossing Oxford Rd after seeing it...
>
> Too damned right. That Porsche was SEXY!
Ah, the male menoPorsche (what was that about "style over substance"?).
=;-)
Mel
Starkle, starkle, little twink, who the 'ell you are I think,
I'm not under what they call, the alcofluence of incohol.
I'm not drunk as thinkle peep, I'm just a little slort of sheep;
Tee Martoonis make a guy fool so feelish - don't know why.
Really don't know who's me yet, the drunker I stay the longer I get;
So just one more to fill my cup, I've all day sober to Sunday up!
Fox
Previously, Ian Sturrock wrote:
>In article <33a93124...@news.demon.co.uk>, Fox <f...@scio.demon.REMO
>VE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk> writes
>>I was actually taking issue with Ian's specific use of the phrase
>>"style-over-substance postmodernism" and was attacking the people who use
>>the p word in this context. Now if you want to argue this point with me
>>feel free. Just give us a mo whist I go and get some more rivets.
>
>I`d recommend that you go get Ted Polhemus` book _Stylesurfing_, which
>to my mind is the essential reference work when dealing with the *style*
>of postmodernism as applied to everyday life rather than academia.
Translation: "It's the only book on postmodernism I've read but it's
convinced me enough to harp on about at every opportunity"
>Y`see, _Crash_ wasn`t about cars & sex, it was about "cars" & "sex." Or
>even "'cars'" and "'sex.'"
It was about sitting in a cinema watching a load of "cars" and a lot of
"sex" and being bored by it all at an early stage actually.
This little debate has got me wondering if my own definition of
postmodernism isn't skewed so I did a little research into the subject.
Turns out that most people have their own ideas about what postmodernism
is and isn't. Ask five people for a definition and you will receive five
different responses. A lot of the time people seem to get postmodernism
and deconstructionism confused. The best concise definitions I have seen
can be summarised as follows (liberally ripped off from another source, I
hasten to add)...
In their ERIC Digest, Hlynka and Yeaman (1992) outline some key
features of postmodern thinking (liberally paraphrased for
simplicity):
1. A commitment to plurality of perspectives, meanings,
methods, values--everything!
2. A search for and appreciation of double meanings and
alternative interpretations, many of them ironic and unintended.
3. A critique or distrust of Big Stories meant to explain
everything. This includes grand theories of science, and myths
in our religions, nations, cultures, and professions that serve
to explain why things are the way they are.
4. Granting a plurality of perspectives and ways of knowing,
a recognition that there must also be multiple truths.
In a lovely section, Hlynka and Yeaman (1992) suggest
(ironically!) four easy steps to becoming a postmodernist:
1. Consider concepts, ideas and objects as texts. Textual
meanings are open to interpretation.
2. Look for binary oppositions in those texts. Some usual
oppositions are good/bad, progress/tradition, science/myth,
love/hate, man/woman, and truth/fiction.
3. "Deconstruct" the text by showing how the oppositions are
not necessarily true.
4. Identify texts which are absent, groups who are not
represented and omissions, which may or may not be deliberate,
but are important. pp. 1-2.
As you can see, style-over-substance does not come into it at all. As
far as I can tell, the basis of postmodernism of thought is to understand
the 'truth' through appreciation of the parts that make up the whole
rather than attempting to understand the entire entity. Jodi's
definition, whilst correct in essence, was woefully incomplete as it
would cover postmodernism and the scientific essence of modernism.
Ripping text off from an unaccredited source...
"Whereas modernity trusted science to lead us down the road of progress,
postmodernism questioned whether science alone could really get us there.
Whereas modernity happily created inventions and technologies to improve
our lives, postmodernism took a second look and wondered whether our
lives were really better for all the gadgets and toys. Postmodernism
looked at the culmination of modernity in the 20th century--the results
of forces such as nationalism, totalitarianism, technocracy, consumerism,
and modern warfare--and said, we can see the efficiency and the
improvements, but we can also see the dehumanising, mechanising effects
in our lives. The Holocaust was efficient, technical, rational. There
must be a better way to think about things.So what about the age-old
questions about truth and knowledge? A postmodernist might say, "Truth
is what people agree on," or "Truth is what works," or "Hey, there is no
Truth, only lots of little 'truths' running around out there!"
Postmodernists tend to reject the idealised view of truth inherited from
the ancients and replace it with a dynamic, changing truth bounded by
time, space, and perspective. Rather than seeking for the unchanging
ideal, postmodernists tend to celebrate the dynamic diversity of
life."
And that about sums it up.
Except for the bit at the end where I say that I really don't care what
you say Ian. "Crash" is not a postmodern film although the book may well
have been.
Fox
Jodi Quinn
It may surprise some of you to know that I'm not *always* a completely
patronising bitch...BUT:
Fox wrote:
>
> Previously, Ian Sturrock wrote:
>
> >I`d recommend that you go get Ted Polhemus` book _Stylesurfing_, which
> >to my mind is the essential reference work when dealing with the *style*
> >of postmodernism as applied to everyday life rather than academia.
I went to an academic lecture on precisely that subject once.
The irony of the situation escaped no one.
> Translation: "It's the only book on postmodernism I've read but it's
> convinced me enough to harp on about at every opportunity"
Actually I thought Ian harped on about Magick at every opportunity... :)
Even in my position as Supreme Academic Snob I would never, ever give
anyone a hard time for taking an interest in something, even if their
level of research/interest isn't up to mine. Taking an interest and
trying
to broaden your horizons is *always* good.
>
> >Y`see, _Crash_ wasn`t about cars & sex, it was about "cars" & "sex." Or
> >even "'cars'" and "'sex.'"
Aaah - meta-textuality (big word for the day kids)
> It was about sitting in a cinema watching a load of "cars" and a lot of
> "sex" and being bored by it all at an early stage actually.
>
> This little debate has got me wondering if my own definition of
> postmodernism isn't skewed so I did a little research into the subject.
> Turns out that most people have their own ideas about what postmodernism
> is and isn't. Ask five people for a definition and you will receive five
> different responses. A lot of the time people seem to get postmodernism
> and deconstructionism confused.
And you can tell the difference?
<definitions snipped>
> As you can see, style-over-substance does not come into it at all.
Actually it does but that's not what it's called in academic terms.
It's about asking if an object or image means anything in itself, ie can
exist with meaning independent of context. Something to do with that
textuality you mentioned. And the word signifiers tends to come up a
lot.
> As
> far as I can tell, the basis of postmodernism of thought is to understand
> the 'truth' through appreciation of the parts that make up the whole
> rather than attempting to understand the entire entity. Jodi's
> definition, whilst correct in essence, was woefully incomplete as it
> would cover postmodernism and the scientific essence of modernism.
I thought it's what I said but in academia-babble(of which I've had
quite enough of
late). Then again it's also what came off the top of my head while the
better part
of my brain is trying to come to grips with expressing my views on one
tiny aspect of
one of the most difficult poems in the english language. The booking in
the asylum
is confirmed.
> Ripping text off from an unaccredited source...
Now *that's* postmodernist...
Hands up who gets that last comment.
>
> And that about sums it up.
>
> Except for the bit at the end where I say that I really don't care what
> you say Ian. "Crash" is not a postmodern film although the book may well
> have been.
Not having seen the film yet, I couldn't comment. But Ian's approach to
it
is postmodernist. And anyone who says people haven't got the right to
interpret
media in their own way and express their views thereonis coming pretty
near to
setting themselves up as the thought police.
Jodi
Fox
Previously, Jodi Quinn wrote:
>> Translation: "It's the only book on postmodernism I've read but it's
>> convinced me enough to harp on about at every opportunity"
>
>Actually I thought Ian harped on about Magick at every opportunity... :)
It's a mixture. He argues about Magick on the newsgroup cos he actually
knows what he's talking about but in real life he tends to happily rabbit
on about anything including spam sandwiches, ferrets and the pre-Cambrian
era and then categorise it all as being postmodern.
He says 'Grok' a lot as well, obviously looking for someone who hasn't
read enough Heinlen so he can explain what it means. He'd probably get
that wrong too.
Oh, and he seems to enjoy trying to wind me up which is why I enjoy doing
the same *8)
>Even in my position as Supreme Academic Snob I would never, ever give
>anyone a hard time for taking an interest in something, even if their
>level of research/interest isn't up to mine. Taking an interest and
>trying to broaden your horizons is *always* good.
Excellent. Can you explain the Dadaist movement to us then? We almost
came to blows about it last night.
>> It was about sitting in a cinema watching a load of "cars" and a lot of
>> "sex" and being bored by it all at an early stage actually.
>>
>> This little debate has got me wondering if my own definition of
>> postmodernism isn't skewed so I did a little research into the subject.
>> Turns out that most people have their own ideas about what postmodernism
>> is and isn't. Ask five people for a definition and you will receive five
>> different responses. A lot of the time people seem to get postmodernism
>> and deconstructionism confused.
>
>And you can tell the difference?
Did I say that? I believe the difference is that post-modernism is the
act of questioning the generally accepted and the generic in order to
make a constructive criticism. Deconstructionism is not necessarily
constructive, by definition.
><definitions snipped>
>
>> As you can see, style-over-substance does not come into it at all.
>
>Actually it does but that's not what it's called in academic terms.
OK, I missed this bit then. Why does it come into it?
>It's about asking if an object or image means anything in itself, ie can
>exist with meaning independent of context. Something to do with that
>textuality you mentioned. And the word signifiers tends to come up a
>lot.
But if something means something in and of itself then surely it has
substance? In which case style-over-substance is replaced by
style-with-substance.
<snip>
>> And that about sums it up.
>>
>> Except for the bit at the end where I say that I really don't care what
>> you say Ian. "Crash" is not a postmodern film although the book may well
>> have been.
>
>Not having seen the film yet, I couldn't comment. But Ian's approach to
>it is postmodernist.
His reasons for stating that the film is postmodern, regardless of
whether it is or is not in another context, are still invalid in my
opinion.
>And anyone who says people haven't got the right to
>interpret media in their own way and express their views thereon
>is coming pretty near to setting themselves up as the thought police.
Too damned right. Maybe I'm just riled at the fact that, having
expressed my opinion on the film once we'd exited the cinema, I was
informed that it didn't matter what I thought as I'd obviously been
addled by too much "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day". Glad you
agree with me there old bean!
David Whewell
f...@scio.demon.REMOVE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk (Fox) wrote:
>"The English Patient" is definitely comparable and, whilst I haven't seen
>it, I believe it definitely deserved it's Oscars.
<gush>
You should definitely see it, it's brilliant. Ralph Fiennes is a bit
wooden, as usual, but the leading lady (whose name escapes me right
now) ought to have one an oscar too. Brilliant performances, a great
story, great settings, and a wonderful film.
</gush>
David
fate the lacemaker implacably at work, | David Whewell
holding upon her knees the cushion of | <fr...@dial.pipex.com>
our lives, and stuffing it with pins. | http://ds.dial.pipex.com/fross/
-jean cocteau | (Progress count: 81.4%)
Anthony Chefles
Fox wrote:
>
> Turns out that most people have their own ideas about what postmodernism
> is and isn't. Ask five people for a definition and you will receive five
> different responses. A lot of the time people seem to get postmodernism
> and deconstructionism confused.
Here are some of my musings on deconstructionism and postmodernism:
What is it to deconstruct? Here, I suppose, is a good example: why is
it that goths wear black? Is it because darkness symbolises death,
privation of truth, subversion or something similarly `hand-waving'?
Certainly there is a historical relation to death - people have been
wearing black at funerals for centuries, but again why? The
deconstructionist will not try to conjure up some justification for
black being the `colour of death', but will instead treat the matter
historically and look to when this practice first arose and why. The
answer to this is that people used to think that when someone dies they
need life energy to make the journey up to Heaven, and it was believed
that the corpse would try to steal the life energy from the mourners
standing at the graveside. So two questions arise: how do the mourners
stop their deceased relative getting at their life energy, and what
other sources of life energy could be given to the corpse instead?
Someone hit upon the idea that wearing black would prevent the corpse
from detecting this life energy, believing that it was some form of
light, and as for the second question, someone thought of leaving
flowers at the graveside. These, being bright and colourful, would be
detected by the corpse, and should work as an alternative source of life
energy. So people have associated black with death and flowers with
mourning and condolence for centuries, but how many know why? Everyone
engages in practices which have been established for reasons that very
few know. Deconstruction is nothing other than philiological
back-tracking to the origin of these practices, and according to the
deconstructionist, everyone does things for reasons which are very
different from the reasons they think they're doing them. So who has
the right of way, the acting individual or history? The (pre-)
existentialists like Kierkegaard and Kafka would probably say the
former, although twentieth century continental philosophy has, since
Heidegger, largely favoured the latter. One of Heidegger's concerns was
the deconstruction of language. He wondered, how do words become
attatched to things? His researches led him to conclude that it isn't
gratuitous. On the contrary, in older languages, when something was
first named, the word which was invented to signify it is designed, as
far as possible, to communicate the essence of the thing it attatches
to. In fact it's stronger than that: discovering the correct word is
being told the essence of the thing - like a kind of super-onomatopia.
However, as languages have merged and warped over the years, this
original essential insight into things that language once facilitated
has been lost, so that language can no longer really communicate, only
signify. Later deconstructionists (e.g. Derrida - death of the author,
Foucault - death of man) have reached similar conclusions, although with
different emphasis.
So where then does postmodernism come into this? The postmodern
condition follows from the recognition that this back-tracking of all
aspects of life is too Herculian a task to be carried out by any
individual. In this sense, postmodernism is post-deconstruction. All
that is left of history are signs, abstractions, which are consquences
of what has gone before, but carry no information about their causal
relation to their origins. Instead they take on a life and meaning of
their own independent of their causes. Eventually signs evolve which
refer to nothing other than other signs, and all contact with the solid,
real world is severed. Is there a cure? Is there a way to reclaim
reality? Have sex with someone, or be involved in a car crash,
perhaps.
justicar
Jodi Quinn <jodi....@man.ac.uk> wrote:
> Now *that's* postmodernist...
>
> Hands up who gets that last comment.
are you sirius? =!>
<my tuppence>
postmodernism has become in itself meaningless, as we search to
deconstruct what deconstruction *is*. a self-perpetuating cycle of
disassembly until we eventually realise that only self-awareness
remains, and all other aspects of reality are subjective. and in time,
even our own awareness becomes subjective as we struggle to interperet
the morass of information we are bombarded with by this cosmos of ours.
</tuppence>
shit. erm...
type o negative are ace!
ah, that's more like it. didn't mean to startle anyone.
--
justicar
antony johnston
http://subnet.virtual-pc.com/~jo437306/
NP: bad ground, type o negative
Ian Sturrock
In article <33a65042...@news.demon.co.uk>, Fox <f...@scio.demon.REMO
VE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk> writes
>Previously, Ian Sturrock wrote:
>>
>>I`d recommend that you go get Ted Polhemus` book _Stylesurfing_, which
>>to my mind is the essential reference work when dealing with the *style*
>>of postmodernism as applied to everyday life rather than academia.
>
>Translation: "It's the only book on postmodernism I've read but it's
>convinced me enough to harp on about at every opportunity"
>
no.
_Stylesurfing_ is the only book I`ve read which recognizes postmodernism
as a trend in "fashion" or "antifashion" rather than something
understood only by academics. As you will no doubt realize, I have
studied postmodernism academically, though not particularly extensively,
`cos it can degenerate into a load of pretentious wank. If you want to
check out something other than your meticulously researched "Bluffer`s
Guide To Postmodernism" definitions you`ll also need _Society of the
Spectacle_ by Deleuze, which is more about postmodern society, media &
culture, rather than other books- although given when it was written,
you could almost call it pre-"postmodern" ;)
You`ll be pleased to know that _Foucault`s Pendulum_ is considered
postmodern literature, since that would no doubt bring your total
postmodern book consumption up to one-and-a-half (tho` to my mind Eco
isn`t half so much fun as Marquez, Calvino, or indeed Lucius Shepard,
whose _Life During Wartime_ is the only piece of cyberpunk postmodern
fiction I know of...
>>Y`see, _Crash_ wasn`t about cars & sex, it was about "cars" & "sex." Or
>>even "'cars'" and "'sex.'"
>
>It was about sitting in a cinema watching a load of "cars" and a lot of
>"sex" and being bored by it all at an early stage actually.
>
Oh, and should they give discounts for students actually?
<postmodern samples of postmodernist definitions snipped>
>And that about sums it up.
>
>Except for the bit at the end where I say that I really don't care what
>you say Ian.
<sniff>
<sob>
> "Crash" is not a postmodern film although the book may well
>have been.
>
Given that the author considers the film to be a near-perfect adaptation
of the film I`d have to disagree with you there. I`d also like to point
out that even ignoring the whole style-over-substance thing (which is
really more about how the consensual hallucination that is our "culture"
has integrated the concepts of postmodernism within itself, & so might
better be described as postpostmodern), _Crash_ fulfills a number of the
other definitions of postmodernism you quoted.
Andrew Clegg
In article <33A6F3...@man.ac.uk>, Jodi Quinn <jodi....@man.ac.uk>
writes
>>
>> >Y`see, _Crash_ wasn`t about cars & sex, it was about "cars" & "sex." Or
>> >even "'cars'" and "'sex.'"
>
I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere about textual intercourse.
(If we deconstruct hard enough...)
>> As you can see, style-over-substance does not come into it at all.
>
>Actually it does but that's not what it's called in academic terms.
>
>It's about asking if an object or image means anything in itself, ie can
>exist with meaning independent of context. Something to do with that
>textuality you mentioned. And the word signifiers tends to come up a
>lot.
Isn't this basically semiotic analysis? Or am I confused again?
BTW on the subject of films -- I finally got round to watching
Eraserhead last night. Yay! It *is* as good as it's cracked up to be!
Andrew. [tel: 0402 649008]
"Don't you ever sleep?"
"Not when there's a vacant terminal." -- Demon Seed, 1977
NP: Coil -- Circles of Mania [Horse Rotorvator]
Ian Sturrock
In article <TrQprCAE...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>, Ian Sturrock
<i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes
>_Society of the
>Spectacle_ by Deleuze,
oops! I meant Debord. I always get those postmodernist situationist
types confoozled.
Ian Sturrock
In article <33b48940...@news.demon.co.uk>, Fox <f...@scio.demon.REM
OVE.THIS.SPAMBLOCK.co.uk> writes
>Previously, Jodi Quinn wrote:
>
>I thought Ian harped on about Magick at every opportunity... :)
>
>It's a mixture. He argues about Magick on the newsgroup cos he actually
>knows what he's talking about
Hmf. Only when the subject comes up. I`m quite careful not to start
pushing my beliefs on Magick &c, but if someone starts a thread called
"Magick" & begins it with a post quoting me, I feel justified in
replying.
> but in real life he tends to happily rabbit
>on about anything including spam sandwiches, ferrets and the pre-Cambrian
>era and then categorise it all as being postmodern.
Well, we live in a distinctly postmodern era- a hell of a lot of the
stuff that comes up on this ng is fairly postmodern, just in the way
that it`s a comment on the modern, rather than a part of the modern.
>
>He says 'Grok' a lot as well, obviously looking for someone who hasn't
>read enough Heinlen so he can explain what it means. He'd probably get
>that wrong too.
>
I say `grok` a lot `cos all the people I say it too grok what it means
instantly. It`s only a word, & one that most people grok ok, so why not
use it?
>Oh, and he seems to enjoy trying to wind me up which is why I enjoy doing
>the same *8)
>
You enjoy winding yourself up? I wondered why you always looked as if
you were about to bust a bloodvessel...
>Excellent. Can you explain the Dadaist movement to us then? We almost
>came to blows about it last night.
>
=)
I`m very much reminded of an old Alan Moore _Bojeffries Saga_ from
Warrior comic, in which there`s a li`l side theme of some pissed people
going down the street arguing & fighting:
"You heard him! He called Jean-Paul Sartre a tosser!"
>
>But if something means something in and of itself then surely it has
>substance? In which case style-over-substance is replaced by
>style-with-substance.
>
I think the point here is that style-over-substance can in & of itself
become substantial, because of what you make of it. If you replace
"style" with "information," & "substance" with "energy," you`ll see that
by watching certain images (information) people can give those images
importance (energy) in their own lives. So, an image of a swastika, tho`
just some lines arranged in a certain way, has acquired energy, due to
all the significance people have accorded it with. (ObMagick- the more
theoretical magicians will suggest that this is the way gods are created
& given power- through people worshipping them).
>>And anyone who says people haven't got the right to
>>interpret media in their own way and express their views thereon
>>is coming pretty near to setting themselves up as the thought police.
>
>Too damned right. Maybe I'm just riled at the fact that, having
>expressed my opinion on the film once we'd exited the cinema, I was
>informed that it didn't matter what I thought as I'd obviously been
>addled by too much "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day". Glad you
>agree with me there old bean!
>
Hey, I didn`t say you didn`t have the *right* to your opinion. Just that
your opinion was wrong. ;)
I didn`t really claim you were addled tho`. I just think that most of us
find it hard to appreciate any movie that isn`t full of fancy special
effects & snappy dialogue. And that`s more Tarantino`s fault- fun tho`
he is, he`s the movie equivalent of a Royale with Cheese. If you get 2
vids out, always watch the Tarantino one second...
Kevin O' Gorman
Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Hmf. Only when the subject comes up. I`m quite careful not to start
>pushing my beliefs on Magick &c, but if someone starts a thread called
>"Magick" & begins it with a post quoting me, I feel justified in
>replying.
You are such an asshole. You're the one that started a thread on
the subject - just check dejanews.
K.
-
--
"We're abysmal creatures, with gross horrific features."
Kevin O' Gorman
Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
>"You heard him! He called Jean-Paul Sartre a tosser!"
"Fuck him up Tim! His views are invalid!"
Andrew Clegg
In article <XoWYLnAd...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>, Ian Sturrock
<i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>He says 'Grok' a lot as well, obviously looking for someone who hasn't
>>read enough Heinlen so he can explain what it means. He'd probably get
>>that wrong too.
>>
>I say `grok` a lot `cos all the people I say it too grok what it means
>instantly. It`s only a word, & one that most people grok ok, so why not
>use it?
In that respect, has anyone else noticed the similarity between
Heinlein's "grok" and the Smurfs' "smurf"?
The latter's far more general than the former, obviously, but they're
very alike in that even those who haven't come across the usage before,
manage to smurf the meaning instantly.
Andrew. [tel: 0402 649008]
"Don't you ever sleep?"
"Not when there's a vacant terminal." -- Demon Seed, 1977
NP: Fields Of The Nephilim -- Wail Of Sumer [Elizium]
Ian Sturrock
In article <5o97u0$6...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>, Kevin O' Gorman
<spi...@maths.tcd.ie> writes
>Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Hmf. Only when the subject comes up. I`m quite careful not to start
>>pushing my beliefs on Magick &c, but if someone starts a thread called
>>"Magick" & begins it with a post quoting me, I feel justified in
>>replying.
>
>You are such an asshole. You're the one that started a thread on
>the subject - just check dejanews.
>
channel 5" or something, which had gotten on to the sbject of LaVey. You
and I had a brief argument on the subject of the Western Mystery
Tradition. About a week later, *you* started a thread called "Magick"
quoting from my last post on the Manson thread.
Kevin O' Gorman
Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
>That, quite simply, is a lie. I responded to a thread called "MM on
>channel 5" or something, which had gotten on to the sbject of LaVey. You
>and I had a brief argument on the subject of the Western Mystery
>Tradition. About a week later, *you* started a thread called "Magick"
>quoting from my last post on the Manson thread.
[snip]
---------------------
Subject: Magick.
From: Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1997/05/28
Message-Id: <mAOUBBAU...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk [194.222.147.127]
References: <33834...@ns1.interedge.co.uk> <5m17a6$7...@news.ox.ac.uk> <33842EAF...@newcastle.ac.uk> <5m1da0$e64$1...@redwood.shu.ac.uk> <3384EC...@soas.ac.uk> <01bc6a7b$b95f8d60$bbc7...@EUBPCW199.CEU> <k4gUvKAp...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> <5meuf2$d...@graves.maths.tcd.ie> <6kNT4JAa...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> <5mhhh1$l...@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
Organization: New Aeon Books
Newsgroups: uk.people.gothic
In article <5mhhh1$l...@walton.maths.tcd.ie>, Kevin O' Gorman
<spi...@maths.tcd.ie> writes
>The basis of magick, or the "Western Mystery Tradition", or whatever you
>choose to call it, is faith,
Wrong, as I`m coming to expect from you.
...
--------------------
This post, the first under the subject header of "Magick.", was in reply
to the following article:
--------------------
Subject: Re: MM on chnl 5
From: spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
Date: 1997/05/28
Message-Id: <5mhhh1$l...@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
Sender: math...@walton.maths.tcd.ie
References: <33834...@ns1.interedge.co.uk> <5m17a6$7...@news.ox.ac.uk> <33842EAF...@newcastle.ac.uk> <5m1da0$e64$1...@redwood.shu.ac.uk> <3384EC...@soas.ac.uk> <01bc6a7b$b95f8d60$bbc7...@EUBPCW199.CEU> <k4gUvKAp...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> <5meuf2$d...@graves.maths.tcd.ie> <6kNT4JAa...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Newsgroups: uk.people.gothic
Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
[I say]
>>As distinct from what other "magickal recommendations"?
>>'Always feed your rabbit'?
[he says]
>As distinct from the large body of occult lore known as the Western
>Mystery Tradition. I have to assume that you`re one of these daft super-
>skeptic types who`d prefer to poo-poo an idea rather than conduct a
>scientific investigation of it yourself. How very irrational of you.
The basis of magick, or the "Western Mystery Tradition", or whatever you
choose to call it, is faith, bolstered by a feeling of informed
superiority.
...
---------------------
*plonk*
Yaruar
>
>>And that`s more Tarantino`s fault- fun tho`
>>he is, he`s the movie equivalent of a Royale with Cheese. If you get 2
>>vids out, always watch the Tarantino one second...
>
>You're just bitter cos my movie choices don't send people to sleep.
Hmm, this reminds me of the pub last night when we were
discussing Shallow Grave 'v' Trainspotting.
Shallow Grave of course won as it has depth and trainspotting
lost because it has all the content of a 20 minute short.
Not that that is bad, just that trainspotting is a Larger, where as
Shallow grave is a fine whisky!
Nick/Yaruar
Karl
> That, quite simply, is a lie. I responded to a thread called "MM on
> channel 5" or something, which had gotten on to the sbject of LaVey. You
> and I had a brief argument on the subject of the Western Mystery
> Tradition. About a week later, *you* started a thread called "Magick"
> quoting from my last post on the Manson thread.
Excuse me for butting in but if this is going to continue further would you
two mind taking it to E-mail.
Cheers
Karl....
Stephen Mellor
> Shallow Grave of course won as it has depth and trainspotting
> lost because it has all the content of a 20 minute short.
Still haven't seen trainspotting - and I'm in it! (Allegedly, as Renton).
> Not that that is bad, just that trainspotting is a Larger, where as
> Shallow grave is a fine whisky!
And both leave you with a bad taste in your mouth?
Well I enjoyed the book anyway (Trainspotting).
Mel
"Midway this way of life we're bound upon,
I woke to find myself in a dark wood,
Where the right road was wholly lost and gone."
Dante Alighieri - The Divine Comedy; Hell
Andrew Clegg
In article <33A824...@QMWCC2.qmw.ac.uk>, Erin Nelson
<AC5...@QMWCC2.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>upon reading the story, we quickly figured out that something had gone
>terribly wrong in the photocpoying and somehow a quite straightforward
>kate choping story had gotten choppen (hahaha) into six bits and
>rearranged in a nonsnesical order
>
>completely by mistake, mind you
Are you *sure* it was by mistake and not part of some complex double-
blind headfuck? These academics are all dangerous subversives.
Jodi Quinn
Andrew Clegg wrote:
>
> Are you *sure* it was by mistake and not part of some complex double-
> blind headfuck? These academics are all dangerous subversives.
>
Jodi
Erin Nelson
Andrew Clegg wrote:
> Are you *sure* it was by mistake and not part of some complex double-
> blind headfuck? These academics are all dangerous subversives.
nah
this particualr professor didn't have the creative capactiy to imagine
doing anything that would upset/bemuse students as much as this did
i did get my score upped ten points for reconstructing the story
correctly before the prof even noticed what was wrong
erin
Yaruar
In article <33AE6112...@vbc.SPAM.net>, HiRez <j...@vbc.SPAM.net> says:
>
>
>You'll have seen 'The Pillow Book' then?
>
I had heard that he was *ahem* very impressive
Pity about the fact that he is hapily married with a kid!
*grin*
Nick/Yaruar
the girl who wanted to be God
HiRez wrote:
>
> You'll have seen 'The Pillow Book' then?
*Sigh* Yes.....
Marge xxx
Awaiting Ewan McGregor coming to his senses...
Eleanor, the Megaflow Junkie
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 05:13:47 +0100, Pete Scathe
<pe...@scathe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>justicar <just...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>>
>>type o negative are ace!
>>
>There are *limits* to subjectivity, you know!
But unfortunately they tend to be very subjective in themselves...
- Eleanor, THE MeGafLow JUnkiE
transgender: a tired label gender punk: a way of life >8^)
--
gothcode 3.1A: GoPS6CS7$Mu2 TZFeNr8 PPeSa B9/21BK"3z1 cBk(Dbr)p8 V7s
M3p3wD ZGoMePuFan C8o a27- n6 b54 H175 g6!0689A mEa2@Z6 w6LAT v1ER
r7E p71555EdFp D46 h7(TFeCyAn) sM9Mn SrNN k6Bm N0988JN HsS*1 LukKent4
Paul Crowley
Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <5o97u0$6...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>, Kevin O' Gorman
> <spi...@maths.tcd.ie> writes
> >Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >>Hmf. Only when the subject comes up. I`m quite careful not to start
> >>pushing my beliefs on Magick &c, but if someone starts a thread called
> >>"Magick" & begins it with a post quoting me, I feel justified in
> >>replying.
> >
> >You are such an asshole. You're the one that started a thread on
> >the subject - just check dejanews.
> >
Sword of Truth time. See also Kevin's post; these are some of the
posts before that, on how the subject arose.
Start at Marilyn Manson and Satanism. "Lorraine" <spen...@bp.com>
referred to LaVey's Church of Satan as Thelemites; Ian took the
opportunity to discuss the relative merits of LaVey and Thelema.
Kevin asked whether "magickal recommendations" can be said to have
merits. Ian gave what could fairly be described as a broad-spectrum
reply.
Now, I have many hobbyhorses, and the extent to which I give them a
rest is almost that to which I switch from one to the other, but I
have no illusions that I'm reticent on these subjects.
Yes, I did had a bad day the other day, any reason you ask?
__
\/ o\ pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley -+- DATA IS SACRED /~\
Subject: Re: MM on chnl 5
From: "Lorraine" <spen...@bp.com>
Date: 1997/05/27
Message-Id: <01bc6a7b$b95f8d60$bbc7...@EUBPCW199.CEU>
References: <33834...@ns1.interedge.co.uk>
<5m17a6$7...@news.ox.ac.uk> <33842EAF...@newcastle.ac.uk>
<5m1da0$e64$1...@redwood.shu.ac.uk> <3384EC...@soas.ac.uk>
He does actually belong to LaVey's Church of Satan, which follow the
teachings of Alastair Crowley.
From: Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <k4gUvKAp...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk>
Some of the tenets are similar to Thelema, but the magickal
recommendations LaVey makes are worth a lot less than the paper they`re
printed on.
From: spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
Message-Id: <5meuf2$d...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>
As distinct from what other "magickal recommendations"?
'Always feed your rabbit'?
Paul Crowley
Ian Sturrock <i...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Preface: I`ve no particular interest in burdening ukpg with any more of
> this argument- replies by email please.
Done.