internal ideologies.
The examination for which I was not prepared, and to which I went to try, went well: 30.
If someone wants to report the inconsistency between "I was not prepared" and "30", remember first that there is a "30 cum laude - and I was not really prepared. I'd finished fucking the authors summarize antologizzati of Part II the night before and then re-read the notes for the first time I and III of the form in about 6-7 hours. See who never lies, critters?
It was a stressful exam, because I had to calibrate every single word to hide the flaws that I carry around. They also succeeded in ensuring that the teacher will respond to only a application. But the most important thing is that I could not argue with the teacher, and with this because I did not take those smiles and embarrassed detractors who loves to the next dispense. In fact, to avoid the anxiety (it goes against my principles to be anxious during an exam: it's only counter-productive - better to sit as if you were chatting about this and that with a guy at the bar), I took the piss atmosphere interrogation establish that certain teachers, that teacher fucking with her smiles, and nodded to the students who subdued his humiliation. I've always said you have a problem with authority - and as Foucault teaches the power is not a structure or one of the two parties, but a relationship, and so the teacher who uses his pedestal and to mock the student who is happy to lead me in the exact same reaction.
But anyway. Mr. Annoying Smile
concluded his talk with me, he picked up the book and told me
"Well ... So, 18?"
"If I get 18 not do what I brought for her."
And so, as I wrote 30 in the booklet, I put up the flyer on Testori shows that there is a Villa Manzoni. The show is nice, I recommend it. He has a personal passion for Testori, and thanked me, and I reflected that even now I have a kind of personal, as fought, passion for the "Queer CL, in spite of myself. My Testori is despite an appreciation of Tanzio da Varallo (and I know exactly why, and I can not explain better than I could explain why the San Sebastian is a gay icon), like me, in spite of myself I understand the 'latent homosexuality of his quarrelsome character and sense of tardone that they chase each other.
There are other things that, in spite of myself, this course has left me inside. He gave me a good repertoire of historical explanations of the current state of Italian literature - the writers, publishers and the public. I put together with dowels, and would have preferred that the puzzle had to be carried out in three dimensions, while merely be superficial - and I mean: is Bourdieu the author, including the ones I picked, which is most stuck in his mind between the analysis of power structures and all that is first real dynamics, and the committee had prepared a critique " naive superficiality "of Bourdieu (which pretty pedantic tone, not it?).
But anyway.
I have already re-opened the manual comparative constitutional law, as well as the examination will be prepared with great stress. All Quiet on the Western Front - apart from the book bearing this title, which I advise you to death. Not for me to read "the most important book ever written about the German resistance to Nazism" (Levi), but a good book goes beyond the space-time coordinates in which it is set, and petty opportunism shown here - which results in grotesquely Kafkaesque absurdity - is to dot the "banality of evil" with which you are so piss.
To balance things, then you could read German Porco Knud Romer, who speaks of harassment that a German - as a German post-Hitler Germany - must endure in Denmark. And that is another little gem.
I reflect on the very principle show, do not tell "- I had to think again because of the fucking question, I did fish out of the closet narratology that I had studied in Germany (its my free initiative - see why are never ready for a test?), concluding that I do not agree with the principle, or, rather, that it makes no sense from the time the third person identification (internal focus, according to Genette - "free indirect discourse," and I over the ways in which to call it) takes the role and substance, as happened some time in the Western narrative, and that above is my favorite. The show
, in fiction, will be equal to show facts and dialogue without interference by the narrator - no explanations, no comments, no moralizing Manzoni. But if you show a world from the point of view (first or third person) of a character, what is the net difference between the observation the world - that is, the reception the world - and the computation of that world through the ideological baggage / culture that makes such an individual? There is a difference between perceiving the world and build it with your own eyes? Genet
I was quoted by Bourdieu in the negative (more reasons to hate Bourdieu), as Genet constantly put into practice what we call the "unveiling referential illusion." When we look at
Inception we do not spend all their time trying to explain to our neighbors how the film is actually represented by unreal, because the film is by definition unreal (it's a movie, and not a movie is the reality but his performance - it's what Magritte painting means in Ceci n'est pas une pipe , and in fact you can not fumarvela), plus it is also unlikely (it is unlikely that you can enter in someone's dream). As viewers, we do what is often quoted, suspend disbelief and take the prerequisites for good dates from the movie - merely criticize only if there are inconsistencies to 'internal world postulated by Inception (but Mal, Cobb before committing suicide in order to convince the fact that they lived in a dream, it could try to prove it by showing a gnu and found it to be wrong? - Observation kindly portatami by James).
Crash, however, is a film likely - namely, his references to the real world mean that the public might think that the world represented there (with everything in it) is the real one, while you have the representation and therefore it is undeniably part (the show pure does not exist, with great regret Verga), although the fact that a film is the fitting of certain scenes and not others, selected by someone (and not by God or whoever for him). Genet
not about elves and vampires, but prisoners and thieves, and so he represents the world - especially in an autobiographical work as a thief Diary - might keep alive the illusion that the player is the real world.
But Genet is genetic, and reaffirms the time, with some enjoyment, that praises the Nazi French paper is not the Nazi lover and France which was inspired by that, but it is primarily the representation Genet himself of it. Genet, in short, constantly reminds you of being a liar authorize it - and you, the readers, could you tell me that course it is, you do not need me remind you that you are not morons, and I will if I would agree I did not live in a world where the public believes that all news media are represented by real and therefore is indignant in fact a case Ruby - the same, naive way, when the public was outraged in fact looking for Blood Diamonds "is a true story." A
Bourdieu is this tendency on the balls of Genet, the reputation snob - and I stand on the balls Bourdieu and his unresolved resentment that permeates his reasoning for the ruling class.
There is a version of the show, do not tell that promotes, namely asking the writer to do a critical analysis of its ideology before writing. Because they express what we believe to be the 'objectivity' of the facts reveals that our ideology is, and that is why the essays reveal a scientific positivist racist conception of the world using the word "race" to the side of moral analysis. Similarly, the writer "naive" (which naively experiences himself) who writes on the principle show, do not tell fails to the extent that you do not realize how many things for granted to be "objective." Examples there are hoards, and can be well summarized by a constant that occurs from time immemorial in European literature: the introduction of a character in a place indefinitely, and which is not specified, the phenotype tends to be a white . If white is not specified, but I doubt you could find descriptions often things like "the Caucasian entered the hotel." Saying "the man entered the hotel "more than enough, because the dominant public, like the writer, in that 'man' sees an automatic Caucasian.
But my favorites are those who assume that God does not exist - and therefore confine their works in space-time in which they were written. I do not know if God exists, critters, and did not even know you (ie you can not prove it - and what can not be demonstrated is not established as "target" - is the your assumption, the bases of the same ideology that asserts that God does not exist). It could not be shown five hundred years ago (if not pure logic - but not true), and never will be, because every time considered apply different conditions to determine the existence or nonexistence of something, and then - until we get to live in a dystopia in which the entire human race feels the same way - there will always be someone ready to break my balls with his doubts.
It was Bentham coined the term "cacotopia" precursor "dystopia" - that son of a bitch is still among the balls.
0 comments:
Post a Comment