For at least a season and a half Gossip Girl has been less a TV show than an experiment in FULL TROLLGAZE, which the internet response to the finale suggests has finally achieved its goal of trolling every single viewer (admittedly, that’s not very many people by this point). The series finale took a slightly surprising turn into self-referentiality: turns out it’s all been a story written by Dan! (which at least explains why it doesn’t make any sense). The ridiculous fight between Chuck and his dad reminded me of the bit in Adaptation when they decide to start writing an action film and immediately get into a car/horse chase. I was sort of hoping, though, that the show would end with Taylor Momsen coming back and murdering everyone. Well, really, I just want there to be a TV show where T-Moms kills people; it could be an ethical serial killer show like Dexter, except where Dexter only kills other serial killers, Taylor Momsen’s strict code would lead her to murder people who are irremediably #dads.
sext is actually short for semiotext(e) is case yall didnt know
thats why parents are so worried about teens doing it
they have a lot at stake in the current system of power relations, after all
So I found a copy of the Semiotext(e) Autonomia: Post-political Politics issue for $12 and I thought of this.
The dogged, defensive narrative stiffness of a paranoid temporality, after all, in which yesterday can’t be allowed to have differed from today and tomorrow must be even more so, takes its shape from a generational narrative that’s characterized by a distinctly Oedipal regularity and repetitiveness: it happened to my father’s father, it happened to my father, it is happening to me, it will happen to my son, and it will happen to my son’s son. But isn’t it a feature of queer possibility—only a contingent feature, but a real one, and one that in turn strengthens the force of contingency itself—that our generational relations don’t always proceed in this lockstep?
― Eve Kosofksy Sedgwick, ”Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading”
Wow, Armageddon is a hella #dads movie. The fact that the dad dying at the end makes it more, not less, dads, might say something interesting about the relationship between dialectic and #nodads (tentatively: Bruce Willis fulfills his role as a dad, and so the negation that is his death maintains his place in the restricted dad economy; if there is a #nodads dialectic, it would have to be of the sort discussed by Derrida in “From a Restricted to a General Economy”). Also, what’s with the repeated trope in the film in which one character orders another to say certain words? Some kind of insistence on the nom du père over the non du père? Anyway, watching Armageddon yesterday reminded me of the episode of Wizards of Waverly Place based on the movie, in which Selena Gomez plays the role of Bruce Willis.
His relationship to his father and his guilt at not having fought in the Second World War have long been themes in Spielberg’s films, but they combine in a particularly creepy way in War of the Worlds. With the idea of a redemptive war for the natural/natal/familial community, Spielberg becomes something like a boomer Ernst Jünger.