Miklós > Recent Status Updates

Interesting, but heavily economic introduction and history on the socialisation of the stock market and the introduction of abstraction into personal economics. It’s nice to see a heavier treatment than just (“something, something Fiat currency” - I’m looking at you, Bifo!)

Lol Marinetti putting himself in his own book to self aggrandise - classic M.

I quite wish I was enjoying this more than I am...

Fun notes on the early reception of Proust amongst other authors, Barrès and Maurras as artists (who have been buried by their political allegiances, alas), with Morand's lyrical prose. What's not to love?

Gane's comments on Baudrillard's poetry is interesting - probably slightly generous in how much artistic credence he lends them (people also seem to do this with his foray into photography....).

Interesting that Gane takes umbrage with Baudrillard's early reading of Borges, considering how when most people think of Baudrillard and literary characters, they think of him and Borges (okay, perhaps *after* Ballard).

This is probably the most I’ve heard Deleuze compared to Frege in some time...

The first chapter has been rather interesting; a general overview of Deleuze’s philosophy, and how one is to view it, especially in light of those who wish to turn it into a “program”.

Been very lax about reading due to it being finals season. Will have to wait, but this rivals his The Skin, easily.

Malaparte is unique in that he can write of a more gruesome scene than any Bataille or Guyotat, yet maintain a coyness, and a certain tone which lends his subject matter far more than Bataille or Guyotat. They are mere shock artists by comparison (especially the latter).

This has been a very quick read (explained by being at an airport with nothing to do). Virilio has a real prescience these days, but a lot of these texts feel rather unfinished/underwhelming.

This is interesting to compare to the secondary literature on Artaud that I’m familiar with. Especially « Fous d’Artaud », with its investigations into the nature of Artaud in the clinic. It’s cast the comments given by his clinicians, hit letter to Hitler, and so on in a much different light.

Interesting thus far. The brunt of Artaud's correspondence with Rivière is a good introduction, I think. However, the smaller texts and poems are from multiple translators, giving an ever-so-slightly fractured voice to Artaud. Having read some of the originals in French, they're not necessarily unfaithful, considering anthologies of this nature have a difficult time accounting for minor quirks between translators.

This has been rather illuminating thus far - interesting points on the œdipus of Freud (qua Diderot) in contrast to that of Deleuze (qua Hölderlin), and a case made for not necessarily pitting Deleuze against Freud, but instead as a continuation (in a very broad historical/problematic-if-nothing-else sense [companion maybe?]).

Houellebecq n'est pas un prophète de la "fin". Il se moque d'eux.

Hmmmm, reading about eroticism and taboo from the guy who jacked it over his mother's corpse...

Virilio, in his usual way when speaking with Lotringer (this book is presented in the Semiotext[e] style many will be acquainted with by now), such as his asides on Al Jolson in blackface, and various offside comments about Duchamp and Warhol. That being said, his commentary on the place of the body in art, and art's many failings are very erudite. Artists wished to destroy artists, but only ever as artists.

Still probably amongst my favourite pieces of literature, if not my favourite. Up there with Rochelle’s Gilles.

V’s 1er thesis (not unique to this book but instead the leitmotif of his œuvre) is summed up on the dying page of the first chapter in qualifying the aims of modern médiatisation as the same as that which stripped historic states of their autonomy (borrowing the archaic definition) - media is able to integrate various other languages (advertising, etc.) into its fold, castrating them/putting them at its own service.

As I’m no great fan of Foucault, Merquior is “preaching to the converted”. This having been said, it’s a fair treatment of the brunt of Foucault’s work, especially his historicism, though his emphasis on Nietzsche excludes certain aspects (Klossowski’s Nietzsche as opposed to another). Much different to critiques à la Baudrillard, though refreshingly so.