/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5222719]

Has the 1st World achieved hyper-reality?

[Anonymous No.5222745]

Bumping, this is the first I've heard of this concept myself.

[Anonymous No.5222751]

Baudrillard said we were in the post modern turn (not quite there yet) and I think that's still accurate.

[Anonymous No.5222754]

>tfw the 1st World will never achieve hypno-reality

[Anonymous No.5222755]

Yes, but only when you are extremely focused.

I've literally thought of nothing but the game world for 6 hours at a time while playing Mount & Blade. Like, my ego died, it was basically a dream. I didn't differentiate between my attention, and my identity or my "ego".

A more intense escapism than I've experienced from alcohol, marijuana, sex, etc.

[Anonymous No.5222764]

>>5222751
atari, baudrillard

[Anonymous No.5222769]

>>5222764
what's the image about m8

[Anonymous No.5222770]

>>5222769
I think it is saying the gulf war was a slaughter, not a war

[Anonymous No.5222772]

>>5222770
ah, ok

[Anonymous No.5222773]

Hyperreality replaced reality over 30 years ago, OP.

[Anonymous No.5222782]

>>5222769
The gulf war did not take place.

It was a statement Baudrillard made in an essay of the same title.

"Baudrillard argued the Gulf War was not really a war, but rather an atrocity which masqueraded as a war. Using overwhelming airpower, the American military for the most part did not directly engage in combat with the Iraqi army, and suffered few casualties. Almost nothing was made known about Iraqi deaths. Thus, the fighting 'did not really take place' from the point of view of the west. Moreover, all that spectators got to know about the war was in the form of propaganda imagery. The closely watched media presentations made it impossible to distinguish between the experience of what truly happened in the conflict, and its stylized, selective misrepresentation through simulacra."

[Anonymous No.5222788]

>hyper-reality

hyperreality*

>>5222719
>>5222745
samefag

[Anonymous No.5222795]

>>5222788
solid post mate

[Anonymous No.5222798]

>>5222795
don't samefag then faggot

[Anonymous No.5222802]

>>5222788
I've dreamt of this moment, implicating an anonymous in the samefag accusation of another.

[Anonymous No.5222805]

>>5222798
naw man. I was just lurking.

[Anonymous No.5222807]

yfw /lit/ is a hyperreality

[Anonymous No.5222812]

>>5222782
Pretty much everything critical of the First Gulf War was negated by what we learned from the Second Gulf War (Iraq War). He was obviously just trying to make a name for himself. The First Gulf War was an overwhelming success and a textbook example, maybe the only modern example, of war being constructive. This was a modern day "good vs. evil" "punch a nazi in the face at normandy" type war. The downside is that it last three weeks and has been totally eclipsed by the shitstorm that followed.

The 90's ruled. Seriously, don't even try to argue that.

[Anonymous No.5222819]

>Has the 1st World achieved hyper-reality?

The internet is hyperealism. Every issue is exploded in a cesspool of exaggeration. On the internet, for example, the entire world is about to be taken over by an elite army of 13yo feminists from tumblr. In reality, a handful of campus missfits go on slutwalks and write angry letters.

[Anonymous No.5222833]

>>5222812
>Gulf War was an overwhelming success and a textbook example, maybe the only modern example, of war being constructive
>the shitstorm that followed

think about this for a moment

[Anonymous No.5222847]

>>5222745
The best way to wrap your head around the concept of hyperreality is by examining reality television as a representative example. "Reality" television often consists of scripted and staged events masqueraded as organic (i.e. "real"), yet these scripted events really do take place. In this way, reality television is both real and unreal; this is the nature of hyperreality.

The problem is that hyperreality has extended itself beyond its roots in the propaganda machine (i.e. the media) and now effects virtually all aspects of everyday life, and we don't even realize it because the real and unreal (which are supposed to be clearly differentiated) have become folded into complex imbrications.

[Anonymous No.5222850]

>>5222812
FUN FACT: Bill Clinton is the only president since Andrew Jackson that achieved a budget surplus in office. God damn the 90s were good

[Anonymous No.5222851]

>>5222805
Implying that ss proves anything at all you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.5222861]

>>5222847
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI

[Anonymous No.5222863]

>>5222833
I was talking from the west's point of view. The only thing we could have possibly done better was taken out Saddam, which we did a decade later and that's when we things went to shit and got sticky. We ended on a high note, as we should have, and honestly, had we never gone to war in Iraq and concentrated stomping ass in Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan, the whole damn globe would be way better off. Bin Laden dead sooner, no controversy or propaganda victory for the anti-Americans/anti-west/Islamists. The whole damn world was behind the U.S. in Afghanistan, even France, but Iraq set us back at least ten years and many lives.

[Anonymous No.5222875]

>>5222812
>This was a modern day "good vs. evil" "punch a nazi in the face at normandy" type war
>The US supplied Saddam with the weapons that he used against the Kurds, which predicated the subsequent US invasion

[Anonymous No.5222877]

>>5222851
don't call samefag if you don't want to get called out?

[Anonymous No.5222881]

>>5222850
To be fair, anything that happens DURING a president's term in office is always a direct result of both luck and the actions of his predecessors. Shit takes time to pan out. Example: we really won't see the effects of Obamacare and the bail out until after Obama is out of office. Bill Clinton doesn't deserve all the credit for the
90's.

[Anonymous No.5222889]

>>5222881
Yeah but neither does fucking Reagan

We give too much credit to Presidents in general, really, whether for good or for ill.

[Anonymous No.5222890]

>>5222863
saddam was our friend, ally against iran, and one of the only leaders of a secular state in the middle east

i cannot wrap my head around how anyone could consider the situation better now than it was before the gulf war, a success in other words, even from a moral point of view when you consider the bloodshed that is now being unleashed

>had we never gone to war in Iraq and concentrated stomping ass in Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan, the whole damn globe would be way better off
true but there was absolutely no need to go to war in iraq

[Anonymous No.5222892]

>>5222875
We supplied him with weapons DECADES before the Gulf War, because he was embroiled in conflict with Revolutionary Iran that was all kinds of ways against us. No one provoked the Gulf War except him and his craziness.

Seriously, you edgy teens can argue the fine points of alot of shit, but you should really accept that Saddam was a terrible, Hitler-level cartoon villiam and then just move on.

[Anonymous No.5222893]

>>5222812
>thinks WWII was a just war

Oh, child..

[Anonymous No.5222901]

>>5222847
>Reality" television often consists of scripted and staged events masqueraded as organic (i.e. "real"), yet these scripted events really do take place. In this way, reality television is both real and unreal; this is the nature of hyperreality.

Reality television is not an example of 'hyperrealism', and neither is "a mix of real and unreal."

Hyperrealism was created by artists, like Tom Wolfe in the book Bonfire of the vanities, as another modernist reaction to rival surrealism, magical realism, and the subjectivity of post-enlightenment realism. The characteristic (as contrasted to surrealism) is mainly an intricate scrutiny of reality. It's just small details exaggerated through a microscope until every conceivable angle has been considered. In this regard, the internet has hyperrealistic attributes, but reality itself can't have; only critique of reality can be hyperrealistic.

[Anonymous No.5222905]

>>5222881
I agree. The 90s were a time of economic prosperity that I doubt America will see again the foreseeable future. But Clinton's pruning of excess social programs while diplomatically maintaining the tax rates of the 80s is something to be admired.

IDK man I just think Clinton is seriously underappreciated

[Anonymous No.5222907]

>>5222890
Lol nigger you TOTALLY misunderstood my post. I don't consider our situation better now (2014) than in 1995. I consider 1995 better than 1990 because of the Gulf War.

Seriously my whole goddam point was that the First Gulf War=Good for the world, and Gulf War Two: The Search For Curly's Gold was a total fucking mistake.

[Anonymous No.5222909]

>>5222892
>Revolutionary Iran that was all kinds of ways against us

Yeah, because we organized a fucking coup of their country after they nationalized the Anglo-American Oil Company (which Britain controlled).

Learn your history, prole.

[Anonymous No.5222913]

>>5222907
oh ok my bad

[Anonymous No.5222914]

>>5222847
> the real and unreal (which are supposed to be clearly differentiated)
I want to contest this point but don't know how.

[Anonymous No.5222916]

>>5222901
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Go read Baudrillard's work on hyperreality and reality television.

[Anonymous No.5222919]

where can i download monsieur baudrillard's gulf war book?

[Anonymous No.5222921]

>>5222812
Baudrillard was right about the war, you are wrong.

Source: I was actually alive then.

[Anonymous No.5222922]

>>5222905
Don't get me wrong, Clinton really didn't make any big mistakes like Bush or potentially Obama. He didn't really take any risks either. Basically, his big claim to fame was inheriting a favorable economic climate and not doing anything to fuck it up, which is fairly notable. That said, I don't think he's underappreciated? I lived in the single most conservative region of the nation (Texas panhandle) and he spoke at my university and everyone loved him. Pretty much everyone, even alot of GOPers, will say they miss his presidency.

[Anonymous No.5222924]

>>5222901
>>5222916
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://www.cerebration.org/chungchinyi.html

[Anonymous No.5222927]

>>5222916
>Doesn't understand the literary movement called "hyperrealism"
>On a literature forum.

[Anonymous No.5222930]

>>5222922
A lot of that is just, you know, things look better from further away. GOP motherfuckers certainly hated his ass when he was in power. Revisionist motherfuckers.

It also helps that he's an extraordinarily charismatic dude, if we're talking about lecture circuit stuff.

[Anonymous No.5222931]

>>5222802
That was the most poorly structured sentence I've seen this past fifty hours.

[Anonymous No.5222938]

>>5222909
I know my history you douchecanoe. I didn't say the U.S. didn't do anything to deserve the hate, but seriously, the coup you're referencing happened in the early 1950's, a pretty different goddam world than 1990.

>>5222921
I was alive then too. I'm not saying the war wasn't brutal, like all wars are, or that the war wasn't overly-glorified by the media. I'm just saying, as far as wars go, it was pretty fuckin justified and well-executed.

[Anonymous No.5222948]

>>5222930
>he's an extraordinarily charismatic dude
agree 110%
He's the ultimate laidback dude. The Big Lebowski of presidents. Like I say- had a good thing going, didn't fuck it up. I'd vote for him again, but honestly who knows how things would have shaked out if 9/11 had happened under his watch.

[Anonymous No.5222949]

>>5222924
Here, I'll make it easy for you.

[Anonymous No.5222954]

>>5222927
Again, go read Baudrillard's work on hyperreality and reality television. Or you can read Spectacular Capitalism by Richard Gilman-Opalsky, which has an entire chapter on Baudrillard and this very subject. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.5222962]

>>5222949
>Frederic Beigbeder

[Anonymous No.5222995]

>>5222938
>pretty fuckin justified
But that's where you're wrong.

Food for thought:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102--02.htm

[Anonymous No.5222996]

>>5222954
Go read some work on hyperrealism; Versluys, Labrande, Kruger, Sándorfi, Wolfe, Creshevsky. Or even look at a dictionary. Your ignorance is profound.

Hyperrealism. Noun.

a. A genre and movement characterized by highly realistic representation.
b. A style in art that attempts to reproduce highly realistic graphic representations

[Anonymous No.5223005]

>>5222996
The OP was clearly referencing Baudrillard's hyperreality as it pertains to class society, not literary hyperealism. Your autism is profound.

[Anonymous No.5223026]

>>5223005
>/lit/ - literature
>I don't think the OP is making a thread about literature (or visual arts, music, or anywhere else the term is primarily used), but class society.

[Anonymous No.5223048]

>>5223026
Philosophy is not exactly literature, and yet philosophical discussion takes place on this board all the time. This thread is one example of said discussion.

Stop being obtuse. It's quite clear what the OP was referencing, and it was not literary hyperrealism (which, by the way, is not where the term is "primarily used").

[Anonymous No.5223922]

>>5222795
For some reason this made me lol.

[Anonymous No.5223945]

>>5222921
Nice fallacy, m8

[Anonymous No.5223950]

>>5223048
>2014
>getting buttblasted over a hack like baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.5223992]

>>5222719

Me and a friend were talking yesterday about how I hadn't really been interested in visiting New York because I felt as though I had seen it before, but then when I got there I was much more surprised by the scale of all of the buildings and how the city was different from mine.

I was so assured of the massive amounts of representation of New York I had experienced elsewhere that I felt I actually knew the place.

[Anonymous No.5224757]

>>5222889
I don't think anyone is giving Reagan credit, that nigga spent more than President before him.

[Anonymous No.5224767]

>>5222922
He did nothing about the Bosnian genocide. I don't know, I felt like we could have done something.

[Anonymous No.5224787]

>>5224767
The U.S. helped out in Bosnia along with the rest of NATO. Maybe you thought we should have done more, but everytime we do everyone goes apeshit "hurrr World Police! World Police!" We did enough in Bosnia to effect change but didn't fuck ourselves over. Just like we did in Grenada and Panama and the Gulf War.

[Anonymous No.5224797]

>>5224767
He bombed Serbia to shit. He did what every American president does at least once during his presidency: commit war crimes.

[Anonymous No.5224808]

>>5224797
People throw the phrase "war crime" around far too often these days.

[Anonymous No.5224816]

>>5224808
Bombing the Chinese Embassy certainly fits the bill.

[Anonymous No.5224822]

>>5224808
Thats the price we pay for being lucky enough to have smarter people than anyone else tell us how to deal with genocides twenty years ago. Freedom isn't free, and neither is edginess.

[Anonymous No.5224830]

>>5224816
It was an accident. Hardly a war crime. If the ching chongs got over it so can you.

[Anonymous No.5224832]

>>5224808
All acts of violence are criminal.

[Anonymous No.5224835]

>>5224822
>I am a useful idiot for neoliberal globalization who loves cheap clichés instead of thought.

Ok.

[Anonymous No.5224842]

>>5224830
Yes bombing the legal territory of your biggest economic competitor with the most sophisticated weapons on earth is an accident. What other laughably naive views do you hold?

[Anonymous No.5224843]

>>5224832
Not self-defense.

[Anonymous No.5224849]

>>5224832
I don't disagree.

[Anonymous No.5224857]

>>5224842
How old are you kid, 14? I'm sure your contrarian attitudes really piss off mom and pop, but lay off the wikipedia. Nothing you're saying makes sense so don't expect a response.

[Anonymous No.5224862]

>>5224843
The Serbs would probably claim they were acting in self defense.

[Anonymous No.5224876]

>>5224857
What a well reasoned and thought out argument. Clearly you posses the superior intellect here.

[Anonymous No.5224896]

pic related is a great little novella that deals with this very subject. The writing is a tad clunky at times, but conceptually it's one of the more interesting books I've read in a long time. Definitely worth the read.

[Anonymous No.5224897]

>>5222892
>DECADES before
the gulf war was in 1990, the iran iraq war was 1980-88, please stop talking

[Anonymous No.5224901]

>>5224896
I remember this, found it a bit ridiculous honestly.

[Anonymous No.5224902]

>>5224862

Go home Zdravko. Your comment is doesn't even begin to negate his statement.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5224905]

>>5222805
Hello Kyle Hoffman, you LoL-playing redditor.

[Anonymous No.5224911]

>>5224901

Yeah, I mean it does deal a lot more with the so-called "death jockeying" than I would've preferred, and the end seem a bit frazzled. But the set-up idea I think was done well, what with the AI manipulating its own source-code to in turn fiddle with physics and become what some might call God (because let's be honest, God is just the totality of physical laws and nothing else). Anyway, despite it being an imperfect book, I felt it was relevant to the thread so I brought it up for those who might be interested.

[Anonymous No.5224930]

>>5222938
But you forget that the war started because Saddam thought he got a go-ahead from the U.S. to invade Kuwait.

[Anonymous No.5224939]

>>5224842
>>5224930
conspiracyfags go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.5224946]

>>5224911
No yeah it definitely fits the thread, and the writing wasn't bad either; I just couldn't take it that seriously. It's like it was too horrifying, it overshot it and just became bizarre. Just a personal reaction though

[Anonymous No.5224960]

>>5224930
Also, the fact that you call Saddam a villain is you falling for the media glorification that anon mentioned before. While generally, Saddam committed atrocities and sowed sectarian hatred, he was moderately successful in creating an Iraqi identity. I recall reading a survey (no source, sorry) taken after the second American invasion saying that the Iraqis preferred a unified state.

Plus, Saddam and his Baathists, which promoted secularism, were infinitely better than ISIS today, which has just destroyed dozens of priceless monuments over the last few weeks in Mosul.

[Anonymous No.5224986]

>>5224939
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
Though after reading the wiki I think Saddam knew what he was getting into.

[Anonymous No.5224992]

>>5224960
He was pretty damn bad. Were Iraqis better off under Saddam than they were in early 2005? You betcha. But they fucking hated that guy and his regime stayed in power for no other reason than the fear they instilled throughout Iraq. There's a reason why after he was taken out, of all the insurgent groups, from Shiite to Sunni factions to the Awakening Council to other players, zero were neo-Baathists. No tears were shed anywhere when Saddam did the 3 feet tapdance.

That said, yeah the second Iraq war was a mistake. He was their problem and would have been dealt with eventually. ISIS is worse than Saddam because of their destabilizing effect on the region.

Also, Saddam and the Baathists did not always promote secularism. Towards the end of the regime he really started to get into and preach radical Islam. In retrospect, its pretty clear that he was just riding on the curtails of the movement in order to keep up his influence, but at the time it helped make the fallacy that he was associated with Al Quaeda more believable.

[Anonymous No.5224999]

>>5224986
Here's the thing about the First Gulf War. Despite his saber-rattling, Saddam knew he stood no chance against the U.S. and the coalition forces. His entire plan was based on firing rockets into Israel and drawing the Jews into the conflict, then the he assumed the surrounding Arab states would get behind him because of Israel's involvement. But Israel didn't take the bait, Saddam's bluff was called, and the rest is history.

[Anonymous No.5225033]

Here's another fun fact that everyone should know: 9/11 happened because of events directly related to the Gulf War. It shocks me how many people think Al Qaeda wanted to attack the U.S. because someone built a McDonalds in Cairo. Bin Laden actually had two very specific fatwas (Islamic calls/justification for holy war) that he issued against the U.S. in the 90's. The first was because of America's continued support for Israel. The second was because during and after the Gulf War, U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia and launched their attacks from there. Bin Laden's sect of Islam viewed the entire Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as Islamic holy ground, and the presence of non-muslims there to be a grave offence.

[Anonymous No.5225085]

>>5224992
Ok, I concede on most points, mostly cause you seem to know more than I do. But I believe the reason that there was no Baathist resistance was because the Americans purged or arrested Baathists from Saddam's government. The remaining Baathists kept a low profile afterwards because they knew they'd be a high priority for the American forces. Only after the whole ISIS has the only lead Baathist to avoid capture by the U.S. come out into the open. Though to be fair, hes probably cashing in on Saddam nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.5225106]

>>5225085
You're not wrong, I hadn't heard about the Baathist coming out from hiding but I'll check it out. I think the Baathist appeal is simply the same as that of fascism, which will always be somewhat popular.

[Anonymous No.5225136]

>>5225106
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzat_Ibrahim_al-Douri