🪱

“one piece is mid” okay tell me what other media manages to cover dictatorship, racism, slavery, genocide, sexism, trauma, ptsd, oppression, tyranny, corrupted governments, revolution, all while showing that it’s important to keep chasing your dreams with your friends

Finally managed (or forced myself) to read this famous book cover to cover—and it’s even worse than I expected. From the very first page, it’s an endless stream of—there’s no polite way to say this—verbal diarrhea: aggressively pretentious, deliberately obscure, almost totally incoherent. And when it is more or less intelligible, it’s tedious and predictable: ➡️capitalism / bourgeois / modernity / family = BAD ➡️disruption / revolution / deterritorialization = GOOD Even Michel Foucault’s fawning introduction comes across as lucid and almost reasonable by comparison. And while Gilles Deleuze struck his “radical chic” pose, he himself lived a thoroughly bourgeois life in Paris and barely ventured beyond his own doorstep. I mentioned this to a friend of mine, a philosophy professor and renegade psychoanalyst who was knee-deep into this shit early in his career. His reaction: “You actually READ that book? Even I couldn’t stomach it back then.” It’s astonishing that this kind of drivel was ever taken seriously—and still is, in some quarters. (Anti-Oedipus by Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari)

Finally managed (or forced myself) to read this famous book cover to cover—and it’s even worse than I expected. From the very first page, it’s an endless stream of—there’s no polite way to say this—verbal diarrhea: aggressively pretentious, deliberately obscure, almost totally incoherent. And when it is more or less intelligible, it’s tedious and predictable: ➡️capitalism / bourgeois / modernity / family = BAD ➡️disruption / revolution / deterritorialization = GOOD Even Michel Foucault’s fawning introduction comes across as lucid and almost reasonable by comparison. And while Gilles Deleuze struck his “radical chic” pose, he himself lived a thoroughly bourgeois life in Paris and barely ventured beyond his own doorstep. I mentioned this to a friend of mine, a philosophy professor and renegade psychoanalyst who was knee-deep into this shit early in his career. His reaction: “You actually READ that book? Even I couldn’t stomach it back then.” It’s astonishing that this kind of drivel was ever taken seriously—and still is, in some quarters. (Anti-Oedipus by Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari)

Peter Falk and director John Cassavetes on the set of A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE [1974]

cara mais engraçado do mundo queria ser assim

The symbolic function is presence in absence and absence in presence.