« Let me tell you more about myself Anne. As you know I’m twelve and Boob is nine. We were both born in New York at Lenox Hill hospital but our parents are from other places. Mama is from Los Angeles and Daddy is from Chicago. They’ve taken us to both places on vacation. I don’t like Los Angeles or Chicago. They’re horrible places and I’m glad they’re burning down.
Mama was an English professor at New York University until they let her go last semester. She teaches aoth Century Literature when she teaches. Right now she’s trying to get another job at another school but isn’t having much luck. She also writes books and papers on what writers were really doing when they were trying to do something else, that’s the way she explains it. Students aren’t very good any more she says. `Darling they’re so dumb you want to pinch them to see if they’re asleep. But sweetie they’re so sweet too and they do try and they have so many problems you have to let them get away with murder sometimes.’
Mama says even when they read something they really don’t. She says it’s because TV erases their minds. But she and Daddy watch TV all the time. Daddy writes for TV. When she was still teaching I asked her if Daddy distracts her students. `Oh darling he writes good things they’d never watch anything like that nobody does’ she said. She misses going to work and I hope she gets to go to another college soon. Doesn’t look good so far, that’s what Mama says. »
Dans ces derniers temps, un malheureux fut amené devant nos tribunaux, dont le front était illustré d’un rare et singulier tatouage: Pas de chance! Il portait ainsi au-dessus de ses yeux l’étiquette de sa vie, comme un livre son titre, et l’interrogatoire prouve que ce bizarre écriteau était cruellement véridique.
Il est d’ailleurs facile de supposer qu’un homme aussi réellement solitaire, aussi profondément malheureux, et qui a pu souvent envisager tout le système social comme un paradoxe et une imposture, un homme qui, harcelé par une destinée sans pitié, répétait souvent que la société n’est qu’une cohue de misérables (c’est Griswold qui rapporte cela, aussi scandalisé qu’un homme qui peut penser la même chose, mais qui ne la dira jamais)
Parmi l’énumération nombreuse des droits de l’homme que la sagesse du XIXe siècle a recommencée si souvent et si complaisamment, deux assez importants ont été oubliés, qui sont le droit de se contredire et le droit de s’en aller. Mais la société regarde celui qui s’en va comme un insolent; elle châtierait volontiers certaines dépouilles funèbres, comme ce malheureux soldat, atteint de vampirisme, que la vue d’un cadavre exaspérait jusqu’à la fureur.—Et cependant, on peut dire que, sous la pression de certaines circonstances, après un sérieux examen de certaines incompatibilités, avec de fermes croyances à de certains dogmes et métempsycoses,—on peut dire, sans emphase et sans jeu de mots, que le suicide est parfois l’action la plus raisonnable de la vie.
Mais il arrivait parfois—on le dit, du moins,—que le poëte, se complaisant dans un caprice destructeur, rappelait brusquement ses amis à la terre par un cynisme affligeant et démolissait brutalement son œuvre de spiritualité. C’est d’ailleurs une chose à noter, qu’il était fort peu difficile dans le choix de ses auditeurs, et je crois que le lecteur trouvera sans peine dans l’histoire d’autres intelligences grandes et originales, pour qui toute compagnie était bonne. Certains esprits, solitaires au milieu de la foule, et qui se repaissent dans le monologue, n’ont que faire de la délicatesse en matière de public. C’est, en somme, une espèce de fraternité basée sur le mépris.
nous nous trouvons souvent sur le bord même du souvenir
elle, la toujours placide Ligeia, à l’extérieur si calme, était la proie la plus déchirée par les tumultueux vautours de la cruelle passion. Et je ne pouvais évaluer cette passion que par la miraculeuse expansion de ces yeux
J’étais devenu un esclave de l’opium, il me tenait dans ses liens,—et tous mes travaux et mes plans avaient pris la couleur de mes rêves.
[will perhaps be edited/completed later.]
This brings us back, then, to my initial question, and I think that there are three reasons that Children of Men is so contemporary.
Firstly, the film is dominated by the sense that the damage has been done. The catastrophe is neither waiting down the road, nor has it already happened. Rather, it is being lived through. There is no punctual moment of disaster; the world doesn’t end with a bang, it winks out, unravels, gradually falls apart. What caused the catastrophe to occur, who knows; its cause lies long in the past, so absolutely detached from the present as to seem like the caprice of a malign being: a negative miracle, a malediction which no penitence can ameliorate. Such a blight can only be eased by an intervention that can no more be anticipated than was the onset of the curse in the first place. Action is pointless; only senseless hope makes sense. Superstition and religion, the first resorts of the helpless, proliferate.
Secondly, Children of Men is a dystopia that is specific to late capitalism. This isn’t the familiar totalitarian scenario routinely trotted out in cinematic dystopias (see, for example, V for Vendetta, which, incidentally, compares badly with Children of Men on every point).
If, as Wendy Brown has so persuasively argued, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism can be made compatible only at the level of dreamwork, then Children of Men renders this oneiric suturing as a nightmare. In Children of Men, public space is abandoned, given over to uncollected garbage and to stalking animals (one especially resonant scene takes place inside a derelict school, through which a deer runs). But, contrary to neo-liberal fantasy, there is no withering away of the State, only a stripping back of the State to its core military and police functions. In this world, as in ours, ultra-authoritarianism and Capital are by no means incompatible: internment camps and franchise coffee bars co-exist.
In P.D. James’ novel, democracy is suspended and the country is ruled over by a self-appointed Warden. Wisely, the film downplays all this. For all that we know, the Britain of the film could still be a democracy, and the authoritarian measures that are everywhere in place could have been implemented within a political structure that remains, notionally, democratic. The War on Terror has prepared us for such a development: the normalisation of crisis produces a situation in which the repealing of measures brought in to deal with an emergency becomes unimaginable (when will the war be over?) Democratic rights and freedoms (habeas corpus, free speech and assembly) are suspended while democracy is still proclaimed.
Children of Men extrapolates rather than exaggerates. At a certain point, realism flips over into delirium. Bad dream logic takes hold as you go through the gates of the Refugee Camp at Bexhill. You pass through buildings that were once public utilities into an indeterminate space – Hell as a Temporary Autonomous Zone – in which laws, both juridical and metaphysical, are suspended. A carnival of brutality is underway. By now, you are homo sacer so there’s no point complaining about the beatings. You could be anywhere, provided it’s a warzone: Yugoslavia in the 90s, Baghdad in the 00s, Palestine any time. Graffiti promises an intifada, but the odds are overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the State, which still packs the most powerful weapons.
The third reason that Children of Men works is because of its take on cultural crisis. It’s evident that the theme of sterility must be read metaphorically, as the displacement of another kind of anxiety. (If the sterility were to be taken literally, the film would be no more than a requiem for what Lee Edelman calls ‘reproductive futurism’, entirely in line with mainstream culture’s pathos of fertility.) For me, this anxiety cries out to be read in cultural terms, and the question the film poses is: how long can a culture persist without the new? What happens if the young are no longer capable of producing surprises?
Children of Men connects with the suspicion that the end has already come, the thought that it could well be the case that the future harbours only reiteration and repermutation. Could it be, that is to say, that there are no breaks, no ‘shocks of the new’ to come? Such anxieties tend to result in a bi-polar oscillation: the ‘weak messianic’ hope that there must be something new on the way lapses into the morose conviction that nothing new can ever happen. The focus shifts from the Next Big Thing to the last big thing – how long ago did it happen and just how big was it?
The key scene in which the cultural theme is explicitly broached comes when Clive Owen’s character, Theo, visits a friend Battersea power station, which is now some combination of government building and private collection. Cultural treasures – Michelangelo’s David, Picasso’s Geurnica, Pink Floyd’s inflatable pig – are preserved in a building that is itself a refurbished heritage artefact. This is our only gilmpse into the lives of the elite. The distinction between their life and that of the lower orders is marked, as ever, by differential access to enjoyment: they still eat their artfully presented cusisine in the shadow of the Old Masters. Theo, asks the question how all this can matter if there will be no-one to see it? The alibi can no longer be future generations, since there will be none. The response is nihilistic hedonism: ‘I try not to think about it’.
T.S. Eliot looms in the background of Children of Men, which, after all, inherits the theme of sterility from The Waste Land. The film’s closing epigraph ‘shantih shantih shantih’ has more to do with Eliot’s fragmentary pieces than the Upanishads’ peace. Perhaps it is possible to see the concerns of another Eliot – the Eliot of ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ – ciphered in Children of Man. It was in this essay that Eliot, in anticipation of Bloom, described the reciprocal relationship between the canonical and the new. The new defines itself in response to what is already established; at the same time, the established has to reconfigure itself in response to the new. Eliot’s claim was that the exhaustion of the future does not even leave us with the past. Tradition counts for nothing when it is no longer contested and modified. A culture that is merely preserved is no culture at all. The fate of Picasso’s Geurnica – once a howl of anguish and outrage against Fascist atrocities, now a wall-hanging – is exemplary. Like its Battersea hanging space in the film, the painting is accorded ‘iconic’ status only when it is deprived of any possible function or context.
A culture which takes place only in museums is already exhausted. A culture of commemoration is a cemetry. No cultural object can retain its power when there are no longer new eyes to see it.
(Found an old txt from 2010(?) in which i noted a few words by Cioran…)
J’aurais mené à bien un dixième de mes projets que je serais de loin l’auteur le plus fécond qui fut jamais. Pour mon malheur, ou pour mon bonheur, je me suis toujours beaucoup plus attaché au possible qu’à la réalité, et rien n’est plus étranger à ma nature que l’accomplissement. J’ai approfondi dans le moindre détail tout ce que je n’aurai jamais fait. Je suis allé jusqu’au bout du virtuel.
— Cioran, 1957
Parfois je sens au plus profond de moi des forces infinies. Hélas ! je ne sais à quoi les employer ; je ne crois à rien, et pour agir, il faut croire, croire, croire… Je me perds tous les jours, puisque je laisse mourrir le monde qui m’habite. Avec un orgueil de fou, sombrer pourtant dans l’indignité, dans une tristesse stérile, dans l’impuissance et le mutisme.
— Cioran, 1958
E. M. Cioran
Portions of this interview were first published in the Los Angeles Times (October 5, 1984)
Was it philosophy you were first interested in?
I studied philosophy almost exclusively from the age of seventeen to twenty-one, and only the great philosophical systems. I disregarded most poetry and other literature. But I broke happily very soon with the university, which I consider a great intellectual misfortune, and even a danger.
Were you reading Nietzsche then?
When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.
You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”
That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.
The ubiquitous still shots of a nude Lain in fetal position surrounded by computer wires and components suggest her total takeover by the machine (Figure 6.2). Of course if Lain is only “software,” then it doesn’t matter whether she ever existed. This may be the reason why her father tells her that she needn’t wear the bear suit anymore, a cute signifier of contemporary Japanese girlhood. The “machine” (program) of the Wired has finally stopped for her, and she is now liberated to take tea in an imaginary space, without any pretense of reality at all.
Mention of tea may evoke memories of the Mad Hatter’s tea party, since Japanese viewers are also familiar with Alice’s Adventures in Wonder- land (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass (1871). Indeed, in many ways Lain can be seen as a retelling or even a reversal of the Alice stories. Like Alice, Lain—and Shinji as well, to a lesser extent—descends into a world in which nothing is what it seems and in which identity constantly fluc- tuates. As with Alice, she has godlike powers, since she is the “software” hat creates her own world, the Wired, just as Alice dreams up Wonder- land and Looking Glass Country. Also like Alice, she ultimately confronts the reigning deity within her made-up world and triumphs over it. Here we have a reversal, however. In Alice’s case she recognizes the Red Queen’s and the others’ true forms as simply “a pack of cards” (trite, material ob- jects) while Lain recognizes that it is the immaterial that is the Achilles’ heel of her enemy, since without a body, he simply disappears.
Both Lain and Shinji are desperately concerned about their own in- cipient immateriality, the fact that their subjectivity is verging on “termi- nal identity” because of their dependence on the machine. Lain fears to be left alone in the world of the Wired but knows that she has nowhere else to go, while Shinji fears that without the EVA he is nothing. The fact that these are children makes their vulnerability particularly disturbing, suggesting extratextual aspects of a social malaise in which young people seem less and less connected, not only with other people but also with themselves.30 In many ways the emotionally empty Lain seems spiritually linked with Rei who, while a clone of Shinji’s mother, is visually presented as a young girl who wants only to “return to nothing.” The fact that Lain begins with the suicide of a young girl is even more disturbing, suggesting “terminal identity” in its most concrete form. In today’s Japanese anime, in contrast to the elderly ghosts who haunt the Yamato, it is the children— the future—who seem to have become “phantasmagoria,” unhappy ghosts or stick figures lingering on the edges of consciousness.
Lewis Carroll’s Alice, who may be considered a nineteenth-century form of sh ̄ojo, is also afraid of losing her identity, as her tearful insistence that “I am real” attests. As it turns out, however, she has no need to worry. Alice is the dreamer and the Red King is simply a figment of her dream, although she is astute enough to wonder, on waking, whose dream/reality it really is. After all, “he was a part of my dream of course but then I was a part of his dream too.”31 For Alice, this is an amusing conundrum. For the children in Evangelion and Lain, bound to a world in which technol- ogy rather than the human imagination increasingly seems to dominate, the question is one with terrifying implications.
Carroll’s nineteenth-century text privileges the imagination. Forster’s modernist work highlights the need for “real” human intercourse unmedi- ated by technology. The two late-twentieth-century anime works suggest that the imagination, the real, and technology are bound together in in- creasingly complex ways, and they hint that reality may ultimately be simply a creation of the mind. While this is a powerful, even liberating notion, it is also one that, for many of these narratives at least, can lead to alienation and despair. At the turn of the twenty-first century, when the machines stop, can the human imagination transcend the ruins and cre- ate a new reality no longer tied to technology? Both Evangelion and Lain explore this question, but, given the enigmatic quality of their conclusions, it is hard to say whether the answers they offer are positive or negative.
— Robot ghosts and wired dreams, 6. When The Machine Stops: Fantasy, reality and terminal identity in Neon Genesis Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain. // Susan J. Napier
« A fragment of Japan’s ‘Ghosts’ washed up 14 years later, on Tricky’s first single, ‘Aftermath’. Here it wasn’t sampled, but cited, by Tricky’s mentor, fellow Bristolian Mark Stewart. In the background of the track’s loping-shanty rhythms, you can hear Stewart speak-sing the lines ‘just when I thought I was winning, just when I thought I could not be stopped…‘ The use of the Japan reference and the presence of Stewart – a major figure in Bristol postpunk since his time with The Pop Group in the 1970s – were already powerful clues that Tricky’s positioning as a ‘trip-hop’ artist was reductive and misleading. Too often, the label trip-hop would be applied to what was in effect a black music with the ‘blackness’ muted or excised (hip-hop without rap). »
« On the face of it, Tricky’s ra(s)p could be heard as the British answer to hip-hop, but, on a more subterranean level, what he was also taking up and renewing were strands in postpunk and art pop. Tricky counts postpunk acts like Blondie, The Banshees, The Cure (‘the last great pop band, I think’, he says) as his precursors. It’s not as simple as opposing this lineage to the soul, funk and dub references which were so obvious in Tricky’s earliest music. Postpunk and art pop had already drawn substantially upon funk and dub. ‘I grew up in a white ghetto,’ Tricky said when I interviewed him in 2008. ‘My Dad’s Jamaican, my grandmother is white. When I was growing up, till I was about 16, everything was normal. When I moved to an ethnic ghetto, I had friends there and my friends would say, “Why do you hang out with those skinhead guys, the white guys?” and my skinhead friends were like, “Why you hanging out with those black guys?” I couldn’t get it, I couldn’t understand it. I could always go to both worlds, I could go to a reggae club and then a white club and not even notice it because my family is all different colours, different shades. So at Christmas, you got a white person, black person, African looking person, Asian looking person…we didn’t notice it, my family are colour blind. But all of a sudden things started moving around, learning bad habits, people whispering to you, like, “Why you hanging around with those white guys?” These are kids I grew up with since five years old, the guys I grew up with saying “why you hanging out with those black guys?” Then I see The Specials on TV, these white and black guys getting together.»
« When Maxinquaye was released in 1995, Tricky was immediately anointed as the voice of a mute, depoliticised generation, the wounded prophet who absorbed and transmitted a decade’s psychic pollution. The extent of this adulation can be gauged by the origin of the name Nearly God: a German journalist had asked him ‘what’s it like to be God? Well, nearly God?’ Instead of taking up his assigned role as the imp of the perverse in 90s mainstream pop, though, Tricky sidled off into the sidelines, a half-forgotten figure. »
« On Maxinquaye,’ Ian Penman wrote in his landmark March 1995 essay for The Wire magazine, ‘Tricky sounds like ghosts from another solar system’. The spectrality of Tricky’s music, the way it refused to step up or represent, the way it slurred between lucidity and inarticulacy, made for a sharp contrast with the multicoloured brashness of what Penman called ‘the Face- cover/Talkin Loud/Jazzie B nexus of groovy One World vibery’. What’s so significant about the version of multiculturalism that Tricky and Goldie proffered was its refusal of earnestness and worthiness. Theirs was not a music that petitioned for inclusion in any kind of ordinariness. Instead, it revelled in its otherworld- liness, its science-fictional glamour. Like art pop’s first pioneer, Bowie, it was about identification with the alien, where the alien stood in for the technologically new and the cognitively strange – and ultimately for forms of social relations that were as yet only faintly imaginable. Bowie was by no means the first to make this identification: loving the alien was a gesture that self-mytholo-gizing black magi – Kodwo Eshun’s ‘sonic fictional’ canon of Lee Perry, George Clinton, Sun Ra – had made long before Bowie first did it. Identifying with the alien – not so much speaking for the alien as letting the alien speak through you – was what gave 20th century popular music much of its political charge. Identification with the alien meant the possibility of an escape from identity, into other subjectivities, other worlds.
There was also identification with the android. ‘Aftermath’ includes a sample of dialogue from Blade Runner: ‘I’ll tell you about my mother’, the anti-Oedipal taunt that the replicant Leon throws at his interrogator-tormentor before killing him. ‘Is it merely coincidence that the Sylvian quote and the Blade Runner lift converge in the same song?’, Penman asks. »
« Ghosts’…Replicants? Electricity has made us all angels. Technology (from psycho-analysis to surveillance) has made us all ghosts. The replicant (‘YOUR EYES RESEMBLE MINE…‘) is a speaking void. The scary thing about ‘Aftermath’ is that it suggests that nowadays WE ALL ARE. Speaking voids, made up only of scraps and citations… contaminated by other people’s memories…adrift… »
« When I met Tricky in 2008, he referred unbidden to the line from ‘Aftermath’ that Penman picks up on here. ’My first lyric ever on a song was ‘your eyes resemble mine, you’ll see as no others can’. I never had any kids then, so what am I talking about? Who am I talking about? [My daughter] Maisie wasn’t born. My mother used to write poetry but in her time she couldn’t have done anything with that, there wasn’t any opportunity. It’s almost like she killed herself to give me the opportunity, my lyrics, I can never understand why I write as a female; I think I’ve got my Mum’s talent, I’m her vehicle. So I need a woman to sing that. »
« When I first heard Burial a decade later, I would immediately reach for Tricky’s first album Maxinquaye as a point of comparison. It wasn’t only the use of vinyl crackle, so much a signature of both Maxinquaye and Burial, that suggested the affinity. It was also the prevailing mood, the way suffocating sadness and mumbling melancholy bled into lovelorn eroticism and dreamspeech. Both records feel like emotional states transformed into landscapes, but where Burial’s music conjures urban scenes under Blade Runner perma-drizzle, Maxinquaye feels as if it is taking place in a desert as delirial and Daliesque as the initiatory space that the characters pass through in Nic Roeg’s Walkabout: the land is scorched, cracked and barren, but there are occasional bursts of verdant lushness (on the queasily erotic ‘Abbaon Fat Tracks’, for instance, we could have strayed into the ruined pastoral of Talk Talk’s Spirit of Eden). »
« Your eyes resemble mine…’ From the very beginning, speaking in his dead mother’s voice, a semi-benign Norman Bates, Tricky was conscious of his (dis)possession by female spectres. With his predilection for cosmetics and cross-dressing, he looked like one of the last vestiges of the glam impulse in British pop: his gender ambivalence a welcome antidote to Britpop’s lumpen laddishness. It’s clear that gender indeterminacy is no pantomime mummery for him, but something that goes right to the core of his music. Saying that Tricky ‘writes from a female point of view’ fails to capture the uncanniness of what he does, since he also induces women to sing from what seems to be a male perspective. »
« I like putting women in a male role, to have the woman play the strength and the man be the weak. I was brought up, one of my uncles was in jail for 30 years and the other for 15 years. I didn’t see my dad, I was brought up by my grandmother and my auntie so I’ve seen my grandmother fight in the street. I’ve seen my auntie and my grandmother have fistfights, I’ve seen my grandmother grab my auntie’s arm and close it in the door and break her arm fighting over meat. So I see women as tough. They fed me, they clothed me, my grandmother taught me to steal, my auntie taught me to fight, she sent me to boxing when I was 15. If men go to war, you stand in one field, I stand in another, we shoot each other, but what’s the hardest is when you are at home and you gotta listen to kids cry and you gotta feed ‘em. That’s tough, I’ve seen no men around, I’ve seen my uncle go jail for seven years, then ten years, my other uncle; my Dad never rang. Women keep it together, keep the food on the table, defend us, defend the children, like if anyone fucked with us they would be down the school. I’ve never seen men do that for me, I’ve never seen men there for me like that. All I know is women. »
« Gender doesn’t dissolve here into some bland unisex mush; instead it resolves into an unstable space in which subjectivity is continually sliding from male to female voice. It is an art of splitting which is also an art of doubling. Through the women who sing for/as him, Tricky becomes less than one, a split subject that can never be restored to wholeness. Yet their voicing of his incompleteness also makes him more than one, a double in search of a lost other half it will never recover. Either way, what Tricky unsettles – both as a vocalist and as a writer/ producer who coaxes singing from an Other – is the idea of the voice as a rock solid guarantor of presence and identity. His own weakened, recessed voice, all those croaks, mumbles and murmurs, has always suggested a presence that was barely there, something supplementary rather than centred. But the main – usually female – voice on his songs also sounds absented and abstracted. What the voices of his female singers – flat, drained, destitute of ordinary affective cadences – most resemble is the sound of a medium, a voice being spoken by something else. »
[My gawd, i’m almost quoting the whole chapter (not nearly), stopping there…]
— Fisher, Mark. « Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. »
« The term music culture is crucial here, because it is the culture constellated around music (fashion, discourse, cover art) that has been as important as the music itself in conjuring seductively unfamiliar worlds. The destranging of music culture in the 21st century – the ghastly return of industry moguls and boys next door to mainstream pop; the premium put on ‘reality’ in popular entertainment; the increased tendency of those in music culture to dress and look like digitally and surgically enhanced versions of regular folk; the emphasis placed on gymnastic emoting in singing – has played a major role in conditioning us to accept consumer capitalism’s model of ordinariness. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri are right when they say that the revolutionary take on race, gender and sexuality struggles goes far beyond the demand that different identities be recognised. Ultimately, it is about the dismantling of identity. The ‘revolutionary process of the abolition of identity, we should keep in mind, is monstrous, violent, and traumatic. Don’t try to save yourself—in fact, your self has, to be sacrificed! This does not mean that liberation casts us into an indifferent sea with no objects of identification, but rather the existing identities will no longer serve as anchors.’ (Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Commonwealth, Harvard University Press, 2011, p339)
Extrait de: Fisher, Mark. « Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. »
[Too lazy to quote several pages for now… / might be updated later.]
« But perhaps it was only with the arrival of digital communicative capitalism that this reached terminal crisis point. Naturally, the besieging of attention described by Berardi applies to producers as much as consumers. Producing the new depends upon certain kinds of withdrawal – from, for instance, sociality as much as from pre-existing cultural forms – but the currently dominant form of socially networked cyberspace, with its endless opportunities for micro-contact and its deluge of YouTube links, has made withdrawal more difficult than ever before. Or, as Simon Reynolds so pithily put it, in recent years, everyday life has sped up, but culture has slowed down.
No matter what the causes for this temporal pathology are, it is clear that no area of Western culture is immune from them. The former redoubts of futurism, such as electronic music, no longer offer escape from formal nostalgia. Music culture is in many ways paradigmatic of the fate of culture under post-Fordist capitalism. At the level of form, music is locked into pastiche and repetition. »
Fisher, Mark. « Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. » / 00: Lost Futures / “The Slow Cancellation of the Future”
« A cette époque, lorsqu’il s’asseyait à l’arrière de la Pontiac, Travis était préoccupé par la distance qui le séparait des manifestations de l’existence qu’il avait acceptée depuis longtemps. Sa femme, les malades de l’hôpital (agents de la résistance au cours d’une Guerre Mondiale qu’il espérait bien parvenir à déclencher), sa liaison encore embryonnaire avec Catherine Austin — tout cela devenait aussi fragmentaire que les images d’Elizabeth Taylor et de Sigmund Freud sur les panneaux publicitaires, tout aussi irréel que la guerre que les compagnies cinématographiques ont recommencée au Viêtnam. A mesure qu’il s’enfonçait dans sa psychose, découverte au cours de l’année passée à l’hôpital, il accueillait complaisamment ce voyage en terre familière dans des zones crépusculaires. /A l’aube, ayant roulé toute la nuit, ils atteignirent les faubourgs de l’Enfer. Les pâles torchères des usines pétrochimiques illuminaient les pavés mouillés. Personne ne les trouverait là./ Ses deux compagnons, le pilote du bombardier qui avait pris le volant, vêtu d’une combinaison de vol délavée, et la belle jeune femme brûlée par les radiations atomiques ne lui parlaient jamais. Par intermittence, la jeune femme lui souriait faiblement de sa bouche déformée. Délibérement, Travis ne répondait pas à ses avances, il hésitait à se soumettre à elle. Qui étaient donc ces étranges jumeaux, hérauts de son propre inconscient? Durant des heures ils roulèrent à travers les faubourgs de cette ville interminable. Les panneaux d’affichage se multipliaient autour d’eux, reproduisant les images géantes de bombardement au Viêtnam, les morts répétées d’Elizabeth Taylor et Marilyn Monroe reproduites en dégradés sur toile de fond de Dien Bien Phu et de Delta du Mekong. »
(J.G. Ballard, La foire aux atrocités / 1. La foire aux atrocités, “Morts en série.”)