Reading DeLillo's Cosmopolis Through Ayn Rand

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is clear. No problem. Does hypocritical fit? Just askin'. Some are more equal than others around here.

OOPs on the decade. I am seeing myself first looking at this site in a certain place. The last time I was there was 03 so I guess the pics in my head are wrong. How awful to mistake having read this site by a few years! I mean that is a terrible thing and I apologize profusely for that dastardly error. Wow, to think I of all people could have erred by a few years. Gadzooks! How awfully sloppy of me not to know the exact history of this site down to the moth, week, and minute of its marvelous birth. Sorry sorry sorry.

Gee I hope I don't screw up on a Rand quote. God, if I got the page wrong. I tremble to think of it.

How many angels can daunce on the head of a pin? I know someone here knows, so please tell me. Oh and tell me on the Cosmopolis topic as no one has read the book, from one of our major writers of fiction. Oh my bad, just because he is highly admired means he's not worth anything here. OOOPs, there was a time Rand was not admired at all, but I guess that doesn't count, does it. Not a question.

Seymourblogger,

Is that what howling looks like?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rothbard said that Rand was furious when Barbara Branden was criticized in her writing group.

Where did you get that? In conversation the afternoon you mentioned (here) visiting his apartment? Sounds to me like either he or you got it backward. Barbara tells the story of Rand becoming furious with her, Barbara, when Barbara criticized an early story of Rand's which hadn't been identified as such.

Why does it have to be either/or. Why couldn't it have been both/and.

The way Rothbard told it to me was that Rand got furious when Barbara's writing was criticized saying, "Mrs. Branden is a professional!" I remember that adjective he used. He also told me, and the others in the room, some pretty serious stuff that went on among those people. At the time I didn't think much about it, but now after all these years I choke on some of it.

It could have been both/and, but I'm left doubting it was for several reasons:

If the incident you report Rothbard reporting really happened, I suspect I'd have heard about it before from Barbara or from some other attendee at the writing group. I trust nothing from Rothbard which isn't verified by others. I already distrust your reports, since there have been several inaccuracies in what you've said about contents of BB's bio, NB's pair of memoirs, and other details, e.g., your saying (#132) you've "been reading this site for over a decade." I'm thinking your memory is faily unreliable. No offense meant. Memories slip, especially as one gets on in years.

Ellen

[seymourblogger]

Rothbard said that Rand was furious when Barbara Branden was criticized in her writing group.

Where did you get that? In conversation the afternoon you mentioned (here) visiting his apartment? Sounds to me like either he or you got it backward. Barbara tells the story of Rand becoming furious with her, Barbara, when Barbara criticized an early story of Rand's which hadn't been identified as such.

Why does it have to be either/or. Why couldn't it have been both/and.

The way Rothbard told it to me was that Rand got furious when Barbara's writing was criticized saying, "Mrs. Branden is a professional!" I remember that adjective he used. He also told me, and the others in the room, some pretty serious stuff that went on among those people. At the time I didn't think much about it, but now after all these years I choke on some of it.

It could have been both/and, but I'm left doubting it was for several reasons:

If the incident you report Rothbard reporting really happened, I suspect I'd have heard about it before from Barbara or from some other attendee at the writing group. I trust nothing from Rothbard which isn't verified by others. I already distrust your reports, since there have been several inaccuracies in what you've said about contents of BB's bio, NB's pair of memoirs, and other details, e.g., your saying (#132) you've "been reading this site for over a decade." I'm thinking your memory is faily unreliable. No offense meant. Memories slip, especially as one gets on in years.

Ellen

Well Ellen that was a nice nasty caustic zap. Good work. You're getting better all the time. I'll have to try harder to keep up with you.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Janet, #152 wasn't meant caustically merely informatively. Why do you think it was meant caustically anyway? I'm curious. Was it the point about memory lapses and their tendency to increase with age? But I'd made a memory gaffe myself aways up the thread (post #126). Memory is tricky.

Ellen

[seymourblogger]

Janet, #152 wasn't meant caustically merely informatively. Why do you think it was meant caustically anyway? I'm curious. Was it the point about memory lapses and their tendency to increase with age? But I'd made a memory gaffe myself aways up the thread (post #126). Memory is tricky.

Ellen

Having been an analyst for many years I know an atack when one is delivered.

I think........I can't remember... I'm so old my me mory is lousy.W ho w as it told me that? Belle n fuddle was it? N o sellen twaddle , that's it. Isn't it? Wait, now I'm not sure . Keyboard is skipping can't remember what to do. Oh I remember now.......

Sucker me once, shame on you. Sucker me twice, shame on me.......I acted on good faith with you. You did not. That's where I am now.

No offense meant of course.

[Xray]

Thanks. I was working on a serious reply to you but it disappeared so I am redoing it on word and wil try again. I have been reading this site for over a decade - not new here really- and I do understand.

Janet cannot "have been reading this site for over a decade", for it did not yet exist over a decade ago.

She should have known, or at least have remembered.

Form this one can infer that putting facts before fiction is not her agenda.

[Selene]

Thanks. I was working on a serious reply to you but it disappeared so I am redoing it on word and wil try again. I have been reading this site for over a decade - not new here really- and I do understand.

Janet cannot "have been reading this site for over a decade", for it did not yet exist over a decade ago.

She should have known, or at least have remembered.

Form this one can infer that putting facts before fiction is not her agenda.

Angela:

I already pointed this out on another thread. 03 Dec 2005 - Michael was the second member - Kat was the first.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

one can infer that putting facts before fiction is not her agenda.

Yeah, well I said it first!

I’m already to the point of concluding that your attitude to facts vs. your own inventions merits a new verse to be supplied by the ghost of Cole Porter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJ3vqkXqRU

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I finally looked this damn thing up: Cosmopolis (Wikipedia article). I'm still trying to see what all the sturm und drang was about.

Cosmopolis is the story of Eric Packer, a 28 year old multi-billionaire asset manager who makes an odyssey across midtown Manhattan in order to get a haircut. The stretch limo which adorns the cover of the book is richly described as highly technical and very luxurious, filled with television screens and computer monitors, bulletproofed and floored with Carrara marble. It is also cork lined to eliminate (though unsuccessfully, as Packer notes) the intrusion of street noise.

Like James Joyce's Ulysses, Cosmopolis covers roughly one day of time and includes highly sexed women and the theme of father-son separation. Packer's voyage is obstructed by various traffic jams caused by a presidential visit to the city, a funeral procession for a Sufi rap star and a full-fledged riot. Along the way, the hero has several chance meetings with his wife, seeing her in a taxi, a bookstore, and lying naked in the street, taking part in a movie as an extra. Meanwhile, Packer is stalked by two men, a comical "pastry assassin" and an unstable "credible threat". Through the course of the day, the protagonist loses incredible amounts of money for his clients by betting against the rise of the yen, a loss that parallels his own fall. Packer seems to relish being unburdened by the loss of so much money, even stopping to make sure he loses his wife's fortune as well, to ensure his ruin is inevitable.

Let me get this straight. A guy goes to get a haircut and wrecks his finances on the way?

That's the story?

Dayaamm!

This is almost like something from Toohey's literary circle in The Fountainhead.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Let me get this straight. A guy goes to get a haircut and wrecks his finances on the way?

That's the story?

Yeah, I mentioned to someone off-list that I was tempted to read it because I sensed that Janet was being even more insulting than anyone realized. OTOH, just based on the synopsis, the book could be a critique of fiat money, by projecting it as a metaphor for the emptiness (or valuelessness) of the protagonist’s life. The book is very short, less than half the length of White Noise. I gather it’s very boring, however. Boring to people who normally like DeLillo.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Funny. From the way you describe it, fiat money seems to be the ONLY thing that gives this loser value and meaning.

Michael

[seymourblogger]

Dennis,

Funny. From the way you describe it, fiat money seems to be the ONLY thing that gives this loser value and meaning.

Michael

Suckered again. Me.

Eric Packer is a multi linguist, reads poems in German, wants a Rothko in fact the entire Huston Chapel, .... all in this youtube video interview.

And of course you could read my link to my blog http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com where I have over 60 different readings instead of the stupid one you quoted. When a novel takes place in one day all the stupid reviewers compare it to Ulysses. That's just one way of reading Cosmopolis.

Another arrogant comment from me. Yes indeed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Funny. From the way you describe it, fiat money seems to be the ONLY thing that gives this loser value and meaning.

Damned if I wasn't right. From the video above:

... details, ideas, themes: the idea of a kind of confluence of technology and money... cybercapital, which seemed to be dominant in a very recent period in our history. Essentially the 1990's. ...

My idea was to end this era not over a period of weeks and months as happened, but in one day.

Even with this theme, the main character doesn't seem believable to me. And I speak from having worked intimately (in Brazil) with privileged class crazies. Really privileged (like the loser Packer). And really crazy.

I haven't read anything about the protagonist so far that makes me care about him in the slightest. My motivation for looking at this stuff right now is to find out what all the noise was about, not to plumb the depths of weird ramblings. So I'll probably not read the book.

Actually I do care about something. I wonder if the guy ever got his haircut and if it was to his satisfaction.

But I can find that out one day in a bookstore by getting a copy of the book and flipping to the end.

Michael

[PDS]

At the risk of breathing life into what was supposed to be the death of the dominant discourse of this DeLillo-dominated thread (which, ironically, seems to have included Seymourblogger's birth from thin air, confusing parables, perplexing sermons, trial without due process from MSK, self-administered death/flouncing, and reemergence from her self-imposed tomb--she was gone for three days, I believe), I offer BR Meyer's nice little ditty about DeLillo's characters: "DeLillo's characters talk and act like the aliens in 3rd Rock From the Sun, which would be fine if we weren't supposed to accept them as dead-on satires of the way we live now."

Lots of good eating in The Reader's Manifesto.

[caroljane]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004.

My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year.

Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day.

Michael

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism.

--Brant

I still don't understand it

Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow.

Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types .

Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds.

I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets.

J. Baudrillard

[PDS]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004.

My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year.

Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day.

Michael

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism.

--Brant

I still don't understand it

Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow.

Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types .

Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds.

I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets.

J. Baudrillard

Speaking of "cuts"...

Can I withdraw my Maple Leaf comments before it is too late?

[Selene]

Speaking of "cuts"...

Can I withdraw my Maple Leaf comments before it is too late?

Nope...I fear it is not going to be pretty either.

Be afraid...very afraid.

[George H. Smith]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004. My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year. Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day. Michael

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism. --Brant I still don't understand it

Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow. Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types . Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds. I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets. J. Baudrillard

Baudrillard:

You do not understand the onion because you do not understand its archeology. A system of elements -- a definition of the segments (layers, if you will) by which the resemblances and differences of onions can be shown, the types of variation by which those segments can be affected, and, lastly, the threshold above which there is a difference and below which there is a similitiude -- is indispensable for the establishment of even the simplest form of onion. This makes manifest the modes of being of onions, a positivity anterior to words, perceptions, and gestures; more solid, more archaic, always more "true" than the onion in its explict form.

You are fool, Baudrillard.

M. Foucault

[Brant Gaede]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004. My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year. Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day. Michael

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism. --Brant I still don't understand it

Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow. Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types . Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds. I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets. J. Baudrillard

Baudrillard:

You do not understand the onion because you do not understand its archeology. A system of elements -- a definition of the segments (layers, if you will) by which the resemblances and differences of onions can be shown, the types of variation by which those segments can be affected, and, lastly, the threshold above which there is a difference and below which there is a similitiude -- is indispensable for the establishment of even the simplest form of onion. This makes manifest the modes of being of onions, a positivity anterior to words, perceptions, and gestures; more solid, more archaic, always more "true" than the onion in its explict form.

You are fool, Baudrillard.

M. Foucault

I now see the fog; I cannot tell if it's lifting or descending.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004. My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year. Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day. Michael

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism. --Brant I still don't understand it

Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow. Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types . Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds. I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets. J. Baudrillard

Baudrillard:

You do not understand the onion because you do not understand its archeology. A system of elements -- a definition of the segments (layers, if you will) by which the resemblances and differences of onions can be shown, the types of variation by which those segments can be affected, and, lastly, the threshold above which there is a difference and below which there is a similitiude -- is indispensable for the establishment of even the simplest form of onion. This makes manifest the modes of being of onions, a positivity anterior to words, perceptions, and gestures; more solid, more archaic, always more "true" than the onion in its explict form.

You are fool, Baudrillard.

M. Foucault

Cher maitre, with my deepest respect and honour, it is you who does not understand the onion, as I fully understand "achaeology" but do not "understand" it as there can be no understanding of a concept which old dead people "understood" in the way alive people old and young both perceive, and as to layers, with respect, Bah upon layers, their repetitive depths have been all peeled and as I pointed out in my latest essay in Cahiers du Cinema, in my review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3, chopped up beyond recognition.

Badrillard

[George H. Smith]

I now see the fog; I cannot tell if it's lifting or descending. --Brant

Let us remember what Burroughs said:

"There are many things in the jungle which men do not always see....There are the Nagas and the Yeacks....You may be glad that you did not see them....Only he who is about to be devoured sees them." (Jungle Girl, p. 44).

Ghs

[caroljane]

I now see the fog; I cannot tell if it's lifting or descending. --Brant

Let us remember what Burroughs said:

"There are many things in the jungle which men do not always see....There are the Nagas and the Yeacks....You may be glad that you did not see them....Only he who is about to be devoured sees them." (Jungle Girl, p. 44).

Ghs

How did one who had obviously not been devoured know that? Did he narrowly escape being devoured?Enquiring Edgar Rice fans want to know.

[George H. Smith]

I now see the fog; I cannot tell if it's lifting or descending. --Brant

Let us remember what Burroughs said:

"There are many things in the jungle which men do not always see....There are the Nagas and the Yeacks....You may be glad that you did not see them....Only he who is about to be devoured sees them." (Jungle Girl, p. 44).

Ghs

How did one who had obviously not been devoured know that? Did he narrowly escape being devoured?Enquiring Edgar Rice fans want to know.

From Foucault, The Order of Things, p. 307:

Faced with so many instances of ignorance, so many questions remaining in suspense, no doubt some decisions must be made. One must say: there is where the discourse ends....

Or as Thomas Mann might have said, if his writing had ever reached #11 on the American pop charts:

Is that all there is? is that all there is?

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing.

Let's break out the booze and have a ball.

If that's all there is.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Nihilists!

[caroljane]

I now see the fog; I cannot tell if it's lifting or descending. --Brant

Let us remember what Burroughs said:

"There are many things in the jungle which men do not always see....There are the Nagas and the Yeacks....You may be glad that you did not see them....Only he who is about to be devoured sees them." (Jungle Girl, p. 44).

Ghs

How did one who had obviously not been devoured know that? Did he narrowly escape being devoured?Enquiring Edgar Rice fans want to know.

From Foucault, The Order of Things, p. 307:

Faced with so many instances of ignorance, so many questions remaining in suspense, no doubt some decisions must be made. One must say: there is where the discourse ends....

[/quote

Ah yes, when he said that, I remember well, only I and Cocteau were there with him - the dinner had finally arrived, no onions avec the steaks frites.

Ghs