I know what you mean. But I don't imagine that many people are that desperate to be popular. Being seen as that important could be thrilling at first even if it was terrifying. But eventually I think one of the worst things about his position was that he was inexorably turned into a symbol, that is, an object. A object-symbol of evil to be hated by some people and an object-symbol of freedom to be idolized and eventually waved around like a flag by others. Impossible to just be a person under those circumstances. Maybe Rushdie could cope with that better than other people might. But it seems horrible to me and it's gone on for decades even before some asshole almost murdered him.
Sorry, that's an excellent point. I think I meant to say 'this will have the opposite effect of silencing him' and not 'he should be happy because he will be more popular'. At this point, I agree, he probably mostly wants to be able to get groceries without worrying about being knifed.
It's less a criticism of him from my purview and more about how much I recognize something of me in him. I felt I had to get rid of my social networking accounts around 2010ish because I was too fixated on finding a way to peoples lives through social network. It wasn't like it was becoming anything offline. It would kind of rattle around the website like a pinball machine. An occasional buzz but other than that the feeling of floating and being bounced from one side of the machine to the other. Absolutely zero autonomy except vaguely here and there, like I said, a buzz.
Are you describing feeling connected to people online but then it turning into nothing? I haven't been socially online before now but I can see how it could turn into that.
There's actually a term, 'parasocial relationships', for people feeling like they're friends with a media 'persona' such as a celebrity or sports team, but the relationship is obviously one-sided. It was described with TV and film but can occur with social media such as Twitter (and may be slightly less parasocial as the celebrity may reply on occasion).
Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I wonder if those people prone to PR actually don't want to have relationships at all but want to have some of the feels.
I'm still thinking about your Darwinism comment. Keep thinking of the way animals in the wild combine deadly aggression and predation with remarkable tolerance and (sometimes) restraint. All in the service of survival, I suppose.
here is parts 1/2; he's not dangerous or anything but he kind of gets off on how amoral and conscienceless he can be. I don't have a problem with that but it seems like the opposite of what a politics is supposed to be about? https://youtu.be/iggVHtOwq64/https://youtu.be/34hgMPlG3NU
You should watch this documentary on Jacob Wahl. A young politician man. He says, I'm not happy unless I'm trending on twitter and it's absolutely not a joke. Just as long as people are talking about him. Doesn't even have to be good. And he staged these really weird press briefings outside of his office I think it was. Right out of Bret Easton Ellis.
I looked him up, if its the right J Wahl he sounds like a piece of work. It's a state of mind I don't understand, its not seductive to me to be talked about all the time, it feels weird to me--or it would if it were happening. First book published, I enjoyed the level of attention I got, it was fascinating and felt like a positive way to enter the world because I'd been so reclusive before. But it was really pretty low-key and not like most people even knew who I was. I prefer to move through the world that way. I don't like people thinking they know me when they don't. I don't think it means I'm better morally, its just a different type, maybe an insecure/avoidant type to lazily quote one of those articles about "types" that I looked at today. But I think most people who think they want to be famous would not actually like it if it happened to them.
Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses in 1988, though. This was well before Twitter or even the web in general, though there was definitely a media culture centered around appearing in newspapers and magazines and on TV, and people at the time thought it was over-the-top, too fast, and hypersaturated! I saw the guy as trying to write interesting and powerful literature and getting in the way of (lethally) intolerant people as a result. There was much more of an idea that artists were supposed to be provocative and challenging back then, and if you hurt some people's feelings that was OK--they didn't have to read your book/watch your movie etc. So everyone was really shocked when the fatwa happened and he was attacked the first time. I do agree there is always some degree of self-promotion in the arts--how else do you get people to see your stuff--but from what I remember the intensity of the response was a bit of a surprise at the time.
Yes, I remember all that too, the jealous judgement and bitching that people would do if someone was perceived as being a media hound, I remember how crazy and hyper-saturated it seemed! And yeah, I'm embarrassed to say that at the time the idea of somebody being marked for death because they wrote a piece of fiction was so bewildering to me it was hard to even react to. Just more lunacy from a world I'd decided was crazy a long time ago. Childish. Of me.
He also wrote a terrific piece for The New York Times entitled "Ask Yourself Which Books You Truly Love" and the essay is worth a search if you missed it or don't subscribe. I'm not sure the link will post, but here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/opinion/sunday/salman-rushdie-world-literature.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage xo Mary
If it's any comfort, trying to kill a writer usually has the effect of making them more popular.
(I would imagine Rushdie would rather not be stabbed in the neck though! Awful!)
I know what you mean. But I don't imagine that many people are that desperate to be popular. Being seen as that important could be thrilling at first even if it was terrifying. But eventually I think one of the worst things about his position was that he was inexorably turned into a symbol, that is, an object. A object-symbol of evil to be hated by some people and an object-symbol of freedom to be idolized and eventually waved around like a flag by others. Impossible to just be a person under those circumstances. Maybe Rushdie could cope with that better than other people might. But it seems horrible to me and it's gone on for decades even before some asshole almost murdered him.
Sorry, that's an excellent point. I think I meant to say 'this will have the opposite effect of silencing him' and not 'he should be happy because he will be more popular'. At this point, I agree, he probably mostly wants to be able to get groceries without worrying about being knifed.
Hi I didn't mean to be super-critical. I mostly wanted to say that thing about him being turned into an object!
It's less a criticism of him from my purview and more about how much I recognize something of me in him. I felt I had to get rid of my social networking accounts around 2010ish because I was too fixated on finding a way to peoples lives through social network. It wasn't like it was becoming anything offline. It would kind of rattle around the website like a pinball machine. An occasional buzz but other than that the feeling of floating and being bounced from one side of the machine to the other. Absolutely zero autonomy except vaguely here and there, like I said, a buzz.
Are you describing feeling connected to people online but then it turning into nothing? I haven't been socially online before now but I can see how it could turn into that.
There's actually a term, 'parasocial relationships', for people feeling like they're friends with a media 'persona' such as a celebrity or sports team, but the relationship is obviously one-sided. It was described with TV and film but can occur with social media such as Twitter (and may be slightly less parasocial as the celebrity may reply on occasion).
Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I wonder if those people prone to PR actually don't want to have relationships at all but want to have some of the feels.
I'm still thinking about your Darwinism comment. Keep thinking of the way animals in the wild combine deadly aggression and predation with remarkable tolerance and (sometimes) restraint. All in the service of survival, I suppose.
here is parts 1/2; he's not dangerous or anything but he kind of gets off on how amoral and conscienceless he can be. I don't have a problem with that but it seems like the opposite of what a politics is supposed to be about? https://youtu.be/iggVHtOwq64/https://youtu.be/34hgMPlG3NU
You should watch this documentary on Jacob Wahl. A young politician man. He says, I'm not happy unless I'm trending on twitter and it's absolutely not a joke. Just as long as people are talking about him. Doesn't even have to be good. And he staged these really weird press briefings outside of his office I think it was. Right out of Bret Easton Ellis.
I looked him up, if its the right J Wahl he sounds like a piece of work. It's a state of mind I don't understand, its not seductive to me to be talked about all the time, it feels weird to me--or it would if it were happening. First book published, I enjoyed the level of attention I got, it was fascinating and felt like a positive way to enter the world because I'd been so reclusive before. But it was really pretty low-key and not like most people even knew who I was. I prefer to move through the world that way. I don't like people thinking they know me when they don't. I don't think it means I'm better morally, its just a different type, maybe an insecure/avoidant type to lazily quote one of those articles about "types" that I looked at today. But I think most people who think they want to be famous would not actually like it if it happened to them.
Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses in 1988, though. This was well before Twitter or even the web in general, though there was definitely a media culture centered around appearing in newspapers and magazines and on TV, and people at the time thought it was over-the-top, too fast, and hypersaturated! I saw the guy as trying to write interesting and powerful literature and getting in the way of (lethally) intolerant people as a result. There was much more of an idea that artists were supposed to be provocative and challenging back then, and if you hurt some people's feelings that was OK--they didn't have to read your book/watch your movie etc. So everyone was really shocked when the fatwa happened and he was attacked the first time. I do agree there is always some degree of self-promotion in the arts--how else do you get people to see your stuff--but from what I remember the intensity of the response was a bit of a surprise at the time.
Yes, I remember all that too, the jealous judgement and bitching that people would do if someone was perceived as being a media hound, I remember how crazy and hyper-saturated it seemed! And yeah, I'm embarrassed to say that at the time the idea of somebody being marked for death because they wrote a piece of fiction was so bewildering to me it was hard to even react to. Just more lunacy from a world I'd decided was crazy a long time ago. Childish. Of me.
Thank you for such a hearty response!
Wow.
Its wonderful isn't it? Fiery!
Trying to email you but I only have your old "secret " email address!