Entertainment For Lively Minds
Fame - of a sort
Posted by Vernier Caliper on 10 June 2009 - 11:46am.
Depending on your point of view, congratulations or commiserations are due to Roy Wilkinson whose Iggular interview extract from The Word (below) makes Pseud's Corner in today's Private Eye. Deserved - or undeserved?
"While conducting The Word around his beguiling Florida property, Iggy stops to have a nice big slash on the lawn. It's a gorgeous sun-flushed afternoon. Bare-chested and freshly showered, he makes no effort to step away from his guests as he unzips his jeans and decants onto the grass. Iggy's comfort break is undertaken unselfconsciously, without the slightest desire to shock and amaze. Rather, it's oddly charming, reprising the easy nonchalance with which he's long addresed the corporeal."
- More from Vernier Caliper.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Undeserved... it reads well to me.
Pseud's Corner should instead concentrate on reevaluating the collected works of one Paul Morley, a writer whose confidence in his own intellect and opinions is matched by the ease with which others can pinpoint the utter drivel that lies just beneath the intellectual sheen.
Ian Penman
Still have fond memories of the above writing about Kid Creole and Wham with references to Lacan and Barthes and Derrida - I had no idea what he was talking about - but as a 13 year old I was terribly impressed
Dollar's "Hand Held in Black & White" and The Vertigo of Displacement
That sort of thing
Then I actually read some of the above writers at University and discovered that they didn't know what they were talking about either
Whilst at university I had to write an essay on Derrida...
and by the time I had finished it I had just about lost the will to live. Jacques, old boy, you should have got laid more.
Deconstruction my arse...
Getting laid more
is probably the cure to many of the world's ills
had mixed results
for his mate Michel Foucault.
or as their mate Big Jackie Lacan put it
"What is implied, in any case, by the demonstrable finity of the open spaces that can cover the space that is bounded and closed in the case of sexual jouissance. [...] That is the case in the space of sexual jouissance, which thereby proves to be compact."
er, so there
And Private Eye think
the right honourable member of Iggy Pop should go in Pseud's Corner?
Eng Lit Hell
This thread brings back disturbing memories of Eng. Lit degree essays, particularly the time I wrote 3,000 words on how language/identity was arbitrary (hello, Derrida!). About 2,700 words in, it occurred to me that all I'd done was take the sentence "Shakespeare's sonnets could mean one thing...or they could mean another," and spun it out over several awful pages.
Wasn't Jackie Lacan the singer with Doll By Doll?
(gets coat)
Stimpy : I have a suspiscion that there's
a french deconstructivist some where who can proof just that! there's a reason that this sort of philosophy never really caught on this side of the channel :)
in the sense of yes
if not no then the other becomes its refracted otherness or by means of diminution to a point of non-affirmity which is un-definite undefined but stands as its own contradiction
kno' wot I mean
You also have remember
That Private eye is written by a bunch of conservative anarchists and if they think something is wrong or a bit rum it must be by extension universally true. I'm not saying they are not at times wrong but there's a strong whiff of anti intellectualism and good old fashioned reactionism about the 'Eye at times.
And so there should be....
as that's exactly why I buy it :-)
It is delightful writing, right enough
but out of context and, more than likely, when read with little knowledge of Iggy, it is otherwise and counter-intuitive to the counter-intuition that only the knowledge of Iggy allows, and that only therewith can make it a perfectly rational and reasonable description.
(Phew, me next?)
Yep
Not one of his worst examples…
I must admit my heart sinks whenever I see a review by RW - sometimes I just don't have the patience to try to discern a coherent line of thought within.
But maybe I'm just too… linear.
Conservative anarchists?
What they, Chris?
I always explain it thus
1. They (Hislop,Ingrams et al)don't really want anything to change.
2. They also don't want anyone telling themselves or other people what to do because well if they are honest that's their job.
3. They don't like anything to do with health and safety or football.
George Orwell was one of the first to claim the title, it's not without honour (as it acts as brake on giddy futurists , Tony Blair etc) but it does mean that if something new that they don't like comes up they usually dismiss out of hand because it represents change.
This is spooky, CG...
You're describing me to a T.
I wonder if that's why I've been an Eye subscriber since 1969 OR has reading the Eye for 40 years made me that way? :-)
Crap...
... I appear to be one as well.
*lights pipe*
It's the last line...
... of the quote that goes too far and sends it off into Pseud's Corner. It just seems like he's trying just a little too hard to impress.
I wonder if the miscreant who sent the clipping to Private Eye posts on this board? I prey for his sake it isn't Andrew Collins... ;-)
Maybe they will
put their 30 pieces of silver (sorry £10 measly quid) towards their subscription : )
Exactly
It goes too far because it's completely unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't know of Iggy's history of addressing the corporeal - the Ponceglish equivalent of "whipping it out" - is most unlikely to be reading the piece.