/lit/ - Literature

>>16592504

I have been trying to get more into Marxist ideas, and I read this, and I don't understand why it's so big. At best, you can turn a blind eye to the clear methodological flaws, and then just enjoy the kooky impishness of his outlandish theories. But you can't defend the actual ideas. It's just full of these bizarre, unsubstantiated, provocative claims. Things like how Kurt Cobain killed himself because he realised he was feeding into MTV's problem (no mention of his failed marriage, heroin addiction, and stomach problems) or how the movie Heat somehow reflects 90s capitalist markets (even it's a remake of LA Takedown from decades earlier) or how he can tell students are depressed just by looking at his own students, who slouch and sometimes wear headphones (oh, yes, because students never slouched and goofed off before 2008). His other work seems full of this kind of stuff, like his Hauntology nonsense. The idea that art has only recently started co-opting the aesthetic of previous generations is nuts, just completely nuts. At best, his stuff is - I don't know - fun or clever, and it gives the same intellectual roller coaster ride of listening to a well thought out conspiracy theory about 9/11 or something, but that's it. If you tried to explain his ideas, in simple and clear language, to someone who isn't already loyal to the material, you wouldn't be able to substantiate the claims, and they'd think you're crazy.

I have been trying to get more into Marxist ideas, and I read this, and I don't understand why it's so big. At best, you can turn a blind eye to the clear methodological flaws, and then just enjoy the kooky impishness of his outlandish theories. But you can't defend the actual ideas. It's just full of these bizarre, unsubstantiated, provocative claims. Things like how Kurt Cobain killed himself because he realised he was feeding into MTV's problem (no mention of his failed marriage, heroin addiction, and stomach problems) or how the movie Heat somehow reflects 90s capitalist markets (even it's a remake of LA Takedown from decades earlier) or how he can tell students are depressed just by looking at his own students, who slouch and sometimes wear headphones (oh, yes, because students never slouched and goofed off before 2008). His other work seems full of this kind of stuff, like his Hauntology nonsense. The idea that art has only recently started co-opting the aesthetic of previous generations is nuts, just completely nuts. At best, his stuff is - I don't know - fun or clever, and it gives the same intellectual roller coaster ride of listening to a well thought out conspiracy theory about 9/11 or something, but that's it. If you tried to explain his ideas, in simple and clear language, to someone who isn't already loyal to the material, you wouldn't be able to substantiate the claims, and they'd think you're crazy.