А вот и своевременное в Горьком о том самом отрывке из LitHub, который мне позавчера попался в рассылке. TL;DR: да-да, больше рефлексирующей культурной аппроприации богу рефлексирующей культурной аппроприации. «10. Американская поэтесса, писательница и преподавательница Пейсли Рекдал выпускает книгу о культурной апроприации. Отрывок из нее опубликован на Lithub. Это эссе в форме письма к белому студенту, который написал стихотворение о своей бабушке и ухаживавшей за ней чернокожей сиделке. Стихотворение написано от лица сиделки и вызвало беспокойство у соучеников: а мог ли этот студент писать такое стихотворение? «Могли ли вы… родившись в семье людей, сформированных, по вашему признанию, расистскими убеждениями, претендовать на этот голос, на какую-то с ним связь? Мы целый час обсуждали это в мастерской, не придя ни к какому выводу». Рекдал восхищена реакцией своего студента на критику: «Вы не огрызались и не огорчались, не пытались оправдаться или объясниться. Вы сидели и слушали — а это, может быть, самое сложное, когда незнакомые люди обсуждают, можно ли считать ваши слова и образы расистскими, а заодно и вас расистом». Цель эссе Рекдал — понять, что такое культурная апроприация. Литературное мастерство, напоминает она, достигается не только практикой, но и готовностью забыть уроки, советы, запреты и благие пожелания. В книгах не говорится, какая апроприация — правильная, а какая нет, и обсуждать эту тему дьявольски трудно [sic], потому что она напрямую касается идентичности и всего, что ее составляет». https://gorky.media/context/avstraliyu-zabanili-trampa-sozhgli-ssylki-nedeli/
thumb_up6thumb_downchat_bubble9

More from Elena Tchougounova-Paulson

‘Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup’ by John Carreyrou (2018) Shortly after I watched Alex Gibney’s “The Inventor: Out For Blood In Silicon Valley,”* I also finished Carreyrou’s ‘Bad Blood,’ a saga about the fallout of Elizabeth Holmes’s pseudo-pharmaceutical empire ‘Theranos.’ Funnily enough, everything I’m reading at the moment, is associated with horror (surprise, LOL), and Carreyrou’s book at some point was no exception: following a young, egotistical, highly functioning sociopath, who presumably fell into her own lies to some extent, is hypnotic. I’ve finally figured out what exactly Elizabeth’s interactions with people (venture capitalists, billionaires, her colleagues etc.) remind me of—the old meme (apparently, from Twitter), which I love dearly: “My son was so cute today, he asked me “Dad are clouds candy?” I told him they were water. Then he asked “Dad, what’s Earth’s defence system?” and then I remembered I don’t have a son and he asked again, his eyes now obsidian black, “what is the defence system father.” More fun facts about the whole ‘Theranos’ story and Carreyrou’s investigation: it turned out, when Carreyrou, a journalist in ‘The Wall Street Journal,’ started uncovering a lot of weirdness around ‘Theranos’ and digging into the company in early February 2015, the owner of WSJ Rupert Murdoch was month or three weeks away from investing into ‘Theranos,’ which he proceeded to do. Careerou had no idea that Murdoch was an investor; Murdoch had no idea that Carreyrou was working on an investigation of the company. First Carreyrou heard of a vague rumour that Murdoch might be an investor a couple of days before WSJ went to print with his beginning story. And then, a year after his first story was published, as Carreyrou went to book leave to write his book [Bad Blood], he was able to confirm with a source that not only was Murdoch an investor, but he was the single largest investor: he put $125 mln into the company. And Carreyrou also learned shortly after that Elizabeth Holmes had had several meetings with Murdoch, one at ‘Theranos’ headquartes at Palo Alto a couple of months before the story was published, in which she brought up his publication and said that he’d gathered a lot of damage and false information and it shouldn’t be released (TL;DR: she hoped Murdoch would kill it: he didn’t). And then again, just in two weeks in September 2015, before Carreyrou went to press with his final story: at that time it was in the WSJ headquarters building, on the eight floor, where Murdoch had his office, and Carreyrou was on the fifth floor, working on it, and he had no idea that Elizabeth Holmes was in the building. ...Astonishing. ________________________ * LOL! A simple rule: if the Guardian doesn’t like it, it might be something good then. Especially if it was made by brilliant Alex Gibney, whose “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief” was the best documentary ever made about Scientology, which, in fact, provoked a massive downfall of a cult afterwards: “Admittedly, Holmes is a rather laconic and reserved figure but it still would have been possible for Gibney to construct a more purposeful portrait of her. Instead of fatuous comparisons to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, he could have utilized more recent Silicon Valley schemes, such as the Juicero startup, as vital foils for Theranos. Instead, he combines fuzzy analysis with literal textual representation, and, as we see emails and articles read out to us over portentous music multiple times, the effect is more soporific than thrilling.”—Balderdash.
Представила сейчас экранизацию «Тени над Иннсмутом» в компилятивном духе, как если бы вдруг чудесным образом удалось соединить длинные планы из «Господина Оформителя», когда герой Авилова блуждает по Васильевскому острову и встречает прерафаэлитскую монашку, похожую на Анну Григорьевну Белецкую (красавицу и манекена), и сны главного героя из бергмановской «Земляничной поляны», сыгранного Шерстремом. Первая часть (где Авилов) — приезд главного героя на старом автобусе в Иннсмут и его блуждания по городу, мимо странной церкви к океану (звуки и курехинская музыка очень подойдут), и вторая, бергмановская — гостиничный кошмар главного героя, когда местные не совсем человеческие уже жители крадутся к нему в номер, а он убегает от них через окно; эта часть видится или черно-белой, как у Бергмана, или сепийной, как будто поврежденной от морской воды. ...Ну, пусть существует хотя бы в воображении.

There are three things one can watch forever: fire burning, water falling, and Guardian readers calling each other pejorative names (as they see it)

192 views · Feb 20th

More from Elena Tchougounova-Paulson

‘Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup’ by John Carreyrou (2018) Shortly after I watched Alex Gibney’s “The Inventor: Out For Blood In Silicon Valley,”* I also finished Carreyrou’s ‘Bad Blood,’ a saga about the fallout of Elizabeth Holmes’s pseudo-pharmaceutical empire ‘Theranos.’ Funnily enough, everything I’m reading at the moment, is associated with horror (surprise, LOL), and Carreyrou’s book at some point was no exception: following a young, egotistical, highly functioning sociopath, who presumably fell into her own lies to some extent, is hypnotic. I’ve finally figured out what exactly Elizabeth’s interactions with people (venture capitalists, billionaires, her colleagues etc.) remind me of—the old meme (apparently, from Twitter), which I love dearly: “My son was so cute today, he asked me “Dad are clouds candy?” I told him they were water. Then he asked “Dad, what’s Earth’s defence system?” and then I remembered I don’t have a son and he asked again, his eyes now obsidian black, “what is the defence system father.” More fun facts about the whole ‘Theranos’ story and Carreyrou’s investigation: it turned out, when Carreyrou, a journalist in ‘The Wall Street Journal,’ started uncovering a lot of weirdness around ‘Theranos’ and digging into the company in early February 2015, the owner of WSJ Rupert Murdoch was month or three weeks away from investing into ‘Theranos,’ which he proceeded to do. Careerou had no idea that Murdoch was an investor; Murdoch had no idea that Carreyrou was working on an investigation of the company. First Carreyrou heard of a vague rumour that Murdoch might be an investor a couple of days before WSJ went to print with his beginning story. And then, a year after his first story was published, as Carreyrou went to book leave to write his book [Bad Blood], he was able to confirm with a source that not only was Murdoch an investor, but he was the single largest investor: he put $125 mln into the company. And Carreyrou also learned shortly after that Elizabeth Holmes had had several meetings with Murdoch, one at ‘Theranos’ headquartes at Palo Alto a couple of months before the story was published, in which she brought up his publication and said that he’d gathered a lot of damage and false information and it shouldn’t be released (TL;DR: she hoped Murdoch would kill it: he didn’t). And then again, just in two weeks in September 2015, before Carreyrou went to press with his final story: at that time it was in the WSJ headquarters building, on the eight floor, where Murdoch had his office, and Carreyrou was on the fifth floor, working on it, and he had no idea that Elizabeth Holmes was in the building. ...Astonishing. ________________________ * LOL! A simple rule: if the Guardian doesn’t like it, it might be something good then. Especially if it was made by brilliant Alex Gibney, whose “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief” was the best documentary ever made about Scientology, which, in fact, provoked a massive downfall of a cult afterwards: “Admittedly, Holmes is a rather laconic and reserved figure but it still would have been possible for Gibney to construct a more purposeful portrait of her. Instead of fatuous comparisons to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, he could have utilized more recent Silicon Valley schemes, such as the Juicero startup, as vital foils for Theranos. Instead, he combines fuzzy analysis with literal textual representation, and, as we see emails and articles read out to us over portentous music multiple times, the effect is more soporific than thrilling.”—Balderdash.
Представила сейчас экранизацию «Тени над Иннсмутом» в компилятивном духе, как если бы вдруг чудесным образом удалось соединить длинные планы из «Господина Оформителя», когда герой Авилова блуждает по Васильевскому острову и встречает прерафаэлитскую монашку, похожую на Анну Григорьевну Белецкую (красавицу и манекена), и сны главного героя из бергмановской «Земляничной поляны», сыгранного Шерстремом. Первая часть (где Авилов) — приезд главного героя на старом автобусе в Иннсмут и его блуждания по городу, мимо странной церкви к океану (звуки и курехинская музыка очень подойдут), и вторая, бергмановская — гостиничный кошмар главного героя, когда местные не совсем человеческие уже жители крадутся к нему в номер, а он убегает от них через окно; эта часть видится или черно-белой, как у Бергмана, или сепийной, как будто поврежденной от морской воды. ...Ну, пусть существует хотя бы в воображении.

There are three things one can watch forever: fire burning, water falling, and Guardian readers calling each other pejorative names (as they see it)

192 views · Feb 20th