Regarding the show’s supposed “shallowness”—I actually think this is a strength: according to (maybe one of your favourite writers?) Elfriede Jelenik “characters should appear flat; they should appear without psychological depth” (its a paraphrase but you can find her essay on theatre somewhere)
The show does a great job of rendering the characters as flat as possible (it can’t escape them having *some* depth b/c its TV not theatre)
If you read a lot into Russ’s vague pseudo-philosophical musings—then the joke is really on you (comparing it to Nietzsche is obvious and cheap; I think the real allusion is to Vico)
Most of Russ’s “weird philosophy” was a ruse to deflect the detectives interviewing him…they didn’t fall for it
TD represents a narrative of pure surfaces to depict a modern mythology of Man (Marty / Russ / Errol); the triumvirate represents the darkest of mankind’s desires and prides (which is present in all 3) but also what can maybe be described as the “dream that has starred man’s forehead for all the ages”—that is: to discover truth (in this case the truth about Marie Fontineau)
I can agree that women are somewhat mute/muted in the show—and yet all the men’s (Marty/Russ) energy is directed toward the end of uncovering the mystery of their disappearance (to give voice to their untimely deaths)
I can also agree that the representation of women is “unrealistic”—but if you can’t get over the fact that TV is highly stylized and not always an accurate representation of “reality” (that “the map can never be the territory” unless you’re in a Borges’ fable…) then you should maybe quit TV fiction and only cover news media and “reality TV”
You can read her piece on the finale here
i think this is like kinda new … the video that is. the song is classic.
eleanor friedberger of the fiery furnaces will be performing in toronto on
may 4, 2013 at Garrison. whoops! the date is actually June 5 at the Horseshoe. she’s a pretty rad chick.
Through a thick filter of pathetic romance, the image of Rage is degraded by the culture industry. Rage is seen wearing reality’s blood-stained rags, clothed in the tattered uniformity of boredom, the wretched indifference of perpetual novelty. The subtraction of romance would help to demystify the essential nature of Rage and free it from any hope of a “better future” or a “world to come.” The harm done to Rage by “the rhetoric of reality” (i.e. representation of individual, insignificant, and / or local Rage events), is a problem “of which nothing can be said, so one must remain silent.” A problem whose solution is of the highest importance: to disassociate Rage from its manifestations, to subtract all particular details from Rage itself, to determine the minimal conditions for Rage to appear.
Rage is not infinite. It cannot be exhausted, though it can fall unconscious. It cannot be counted, though it can be held to account. Desire is infinite but exhausts itself by circling around what satisfies; or obliterates itself by getting the Thing. Not only can Desire be counted, it is “the map of what is effortless.”
The body around which Rage circulates is recognition. All is to be dared in order to be recognized (“even for a person of poverty”). Eros is merely the desire for fusion, which includes the kind of fusion to be found when practicing the Erotics of Hate (violence) or Love (sexuality).
Posted in Boredom contra Rage
Tagged circulates, desire, eros, erotics, erotics of hate, erotics of love, fusion, rage, recognition, sexuality, violence
Cruelty, the vice of triumph.
Paranoia, the negativity of cowardice.
Belief, the mark of the uncertain.