[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

jesus christ. 56 pages. gonna have to print it out and read it at lunch, although I am now in the middle of Rudy Rucker's Geometry, Relativity, and the Fourth Dimension

hey, you read "illuminatus!" which is like 555,000 pages long!

anyway, i think this is more mind-blowing than rudy rucker.

also, i know you despise e-readers and shit, but a pdf opens up nicely on a kindle.

the translated version has better typography than the french one. does anyone know how to change fonts on a pdf? on a mac? i mean, without adobe acrobat. i was able to change background colors for night reading but fonts no. they use print fonts and stingy spacing (trying to save paper?).

[Rob Instigator]

fuck those photon producing e-readers! I want my photons reflected off of the fibrous pulp of deciduous trees.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

don't sweat the thread. read the pdf, which is great.

agreed. it was like Octavio Paz The Pyramid only about french chicks. Actually quite good, some of it a bit meh redundant but the golden parts were just that, solid gold insights.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's pretty good, very "french" in style, which is always a pleasure

If only they'd stop trying to rethink 1968.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

If only they'd stop trying to rethink 1968.

i know.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

only about french chicks.

from page 2 (preliminaries, section iii)

let's be clear: the concept of the Young-Girl is obviously not a gendered concept. the
nightclub-going jock conforms to it just as much as the second-generation north
african girl painted up to look pornstar old. The spirited telecom retiree that splits his
leisure time between the Cote d'Azur and the Parisian offices where he's kept a foot in
the door, and the metropolitan single too caught up in her career in consulting to
realize that she's already lost fifteen years of her life to it - both obey the concept. After
all, how would it be so easy to see the secret connection linking the plugged-in, puffedup,
civil-unioned humanity from the hip neighborhood and the petty-bourgeois
americanized girl in the suburbs with her plastic family, if it were a gendered concept?
in reality, the Young-Girl is only the model citizen such as commodity society has
defined it since world war one, as an explicit response to revolutionary threats against
it. As such, she is a polar figure, guiding becoming more than predominating in it.

read more slowly mang

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

If only they'd stop trying to rethink 1968.

well, they did have their may 68. don't be jealous!

i've seen mentions of it here but i haven't finished yet so i don't know exactly what you mean (if you mean it about this particular text)

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

As such, she is a polar figure, guiding becoming more than predominating in it.

Oh, I got that it was a bigger, existential/economic text, but the lens from which the economic structures was analyzed was that of a 20-something girl, and since it was French, I inferred a 20-something French girl, particularly because many of the descriptions and insights resembled NOTHING of any American 20-something girls

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Oh, I got that it was a bigger, existential/economic text, but the lens from which the economic structures was analyzed was that of a 20-something girl, and since it was French, I inferred a 20-something French girl, particularly because many of the descriptions and insights resembled NOTHING of any American 20-something girls

really? to me the description resembles that tv nincompoop phil dunphy, or the banality or so many people right on this board. just look the fuck around you.

[!@#$%!]

some of my favorite quotes from the first part:

The most extreme banality of the Young-Girl is still to have herself taken as something "original."

Why must the Young-Girl always feign some activity or other? In order to remain impregnable in her passivity

The Young-Girl resembles her photo.

--

and have you been on facebook/twitter lately?

The Young-Girl only exists in proportion to the desire that "people" have for her, and is only known by what they say about her.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

really? to me the description resembles that tv nincompoop phil dunphy, or the banality or so many people right on this board. just look the fuck around you.

that is true, but again, the lens from which this caricature of banal post-modern life was examined is a 20-something woman. After all, the word "Young-girl" is repeated about 25,000 times

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

that is true, but again, the lens from which this caricature of banal post-modern life was examined is a 20-something woman. After all, the word "Young-girl" is repeated about 25,000 times

yesbut yesbut yesbut.

EVERYONE WHO LIVES FOR THEIR APPEARANCE IS A FUCKING YOUNG-GIRL.

EVERYONE WHO IS OBSESSED WITH "YOUTHINESS" IS A FUCKING YOUNG-GIRL

in other words, MORE AND MORE PEOPLE EVERY DAY.

oy! i get that the label is misdirecting but you're reading without tact (tact: a polite attempt to understand). e.g., looking for jungian essentialisms-- does not apply. that's not what they meant at all. it's something else. try making your eyes blurry and see if you can see. like those 3D pictures? *make your eyes blurry*

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

!@#$%!, that is fine, that is how you read it, I disagree, I think that while everyone can insert themselves as a 20-something woman, that in particular, 20-something women fit the best in that author's economic and cultural analysis. You don't have to be scoffing and say "You're reading without tact" simply because YOU can't just read words literally enough sometimes. And please, enough with your whole "more academic than thou" attitude yo, its lame. Everything's lame.

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well, they did have their may 68. don't be jealous!

Why would anyone be jealous of a defeat?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Why would anyone be jealous of a defeat?

yeah it was a brutal defeat, but come on, for a moment, they thought they had a chance. "if only", etc.

of course they will be marked by it.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

!@#$%!, that is fine, that is how you read it, I disagree, I think that while everyone can insert themselves as a 20-something woman, that in particular, 20-something women fit the best in that author's economic and cultural analysis. You don't have to be scoffing and say "You're reading without tact" simply because YOU can't just read words literally enough sometimes. And please, enough with your whole "more academic than thou" attitude yo, its lame. Everything's lame.

i "see" her/it as more of a teenager (13+ up?) but this is about the creatures of capitalism rather than "women".

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yeah it was a brutal defeat, but come on, for a moment, they thought they had a chance. "if only", etc.


i "see" her/it as more of a teenager (13+ up?) but this is about the creatures of capitalism rather than "women".

It seemed clear from the empowered context that such women were in their 20s rather than teens. Teenage girls don't assert half as much power and influence as 20-something women, and yet 20-something women always have that same appeal as teenage girls, if not more so. How are women NOT creatures of capitalism?

Again. Stop bogarting the interpretations. That is what literature is for. You can read it your way, and your insights are cool, valid, and important. HOWEVER, they don't negate anyone else opinions simply because they only half-agree with yours. I've conceded that the book was about macro-economics, but the microscopic analysis was again through the lens of the young woman, who are also the driving force of most economies as they have been for 100,000 years or so

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

It seemed clear from the empowered context that such women were in their 20s rather than teens. Teenage girls don't assert half as much power and influence as 20-something women, and yet 20-something women always have that same appeal as teenage girls, if not more so. How are women NOT creatures of capitalism?

Again. Stop bogarting the interpretations. That is what literature is for. You can read it your way, and your insights are cool, valid, and important. HOWEVER, they don't negate anyone else opinions simply because they only half-agree with yours. I've conceded that the book was about macro-economics, but the microscopic analysis was again through the lens of the young woman, who are also the driving force of most economies as they have been for 100,000 years or so

say whatever you want, but i insist that i think you read it too fast, and rather than let it fuck with your brain you've subordinated it to your preexisting interpretations. maybe i'm overreacting but this shit is like nothing i've read in a loooong time. maybe i just haven't read anything in a long time. ha! but i think it can be mind-altering if you let it (unlike most shit which is just repetitions of repetitions and i'm tired of them)

[demonrail666]

The 'young girl' isn't gendered (or aged) in any literal sense, but 'her' use as a symbol clearly is, which is why some feminist critics are having such a problem with it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The 'young girl' isn't gendered (or aged) in any literal sense, but 'her' use as a symbol clearly is, which is why some feminist critics are having such a problem with it.

ha ha ha. thanks for the links! i mentioned in my initial comment something about high chances of protracted celibacy and old resentments on the part of the (likely male) writer(s). will read the rest of the review in a minute.

meanwhile, professore, and if not you someone else who read and understood the text and won't obfuscate their lack of comprehension with obscurities-- can you(s) clarify some of the words i'm running into here?

namely:

Empire - who's?
Spectacle - i remember this from vaguely post structuralist readings on late capitalism. whose coinage is it and what is it exactly (or approximately)?
Bloom - lost me there. mrkgnao!

dense shit, needs translation footnotes, and it's making me wanna read stendhal and proust, which i've previously attempted with only failure as a result, but i have a nice lazyish summer ahead of me and so why not (huayno).

[!@#$%!]

okay, society of the spectacle is guy debord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soc..._the_Spectacle

more shit to read!