Eugene Thacker's "In the Dust of this Planet" and others
- Thread starter Speaking Mute
- Start date
Alarm Agent
Acolyte
I think Thacker touched upon this at the end of 'After Life' when he talked about W.H. Hodgson’s Night Land where the landscape of the dying universe seems to alive but not in any shape that makes sense to humans.
Greg Bear wrote something of a sequel or homage in City at the End of Time.
I think it wasn't that well received but I liked it, especially the idea with the books that contain every possible combination of signs, that is every text not only once written but all possible texts, novels that could be written, that would dwarf even Borges Library of Babel.
Greg Bear wrote something of a sequel or homage in City at the End of Time.
I think it wasn't that well received but I liked it, especially the idea with the books that contain every possible combination of signs, that is every text not only once written but all possible texts, novels that could be written, that would dwarf even Borges Library of Babel.
gveranon
Grimscribe
Another interview with Thacker:
Eugene Thacker on the Horrors of Being Human
At the end is a link to a playlist/soundtrack for the book Infinite Resignation. ("If listened straight through, it should take a bit less than 24 hours.")
Eugene Thacker playlist - Google Docs
I've been listening to some of it. Good late-night listening.
Eugene Thacker on the Horrors of Being Human
At the end is a link to a playlist/soundtrack for the book Infinite Resignation. ("If listened straight through, it should take a bit less than 24 hours.")
Eugene Thacker playlist - Google Docs
I've been listening to some of it. Good late-night listening.
Robert Adam Gilmour
Grimscribe
JR Hamantaschen reviewed In The Dust Of This Planet last year and had nothing good to say about it. 2 episodes.
http://www.nachonomics.com/search?q=dust%20planet
http://www.nachonomics.com/search?q=dust%20planet
ToALonelyPeace
Grimscribe
I listen to the first part. They rip "In the Dust[..]" a new hole alright 
They miss the point though, because Thacker doesn't seem to be a systematic thinker or a fan of empiricism.
And a system of horror? Is there something like that out there other than "CIA's Manual of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" ? Maybe someone can shed more light on this.
They miss the point though, because Thacker doesn't seem to be a systematic thinker or a fan of empiricism. And a system of horror? Is there something like that out there other than "CIA's Manual of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" ? Maybe someone can shed more light on this.
cannibal cop
Grimscribe
Of course. Have a look at The ISIS Field Guide to Making Friends and Influencing People Through the Use of Fire and Flesh-Shredding Explosive Devices, Torture, Summary Executions, Mass Rape, and Live Decapitation with Blunt Cutting Instruments, for starters.
Last edited:
cannibal cop
Grimscribe
This is probably the silliest question this interviewer asks in what amounts to a disappointingly frivolous interview. (I'm trying to be charitable here.)
"The world" only has meaning in terms of the beings that inhabit it. If we do indeed bring about the end of ourselves, or if it is eventually brought about for us by circumstances beyond our control (and both outcomes are strong possibilities; indeed, one of them is likely inevitable), it will mean the end of our world in no uncertain terms. What remains might be a world for the rats or the cockroaches or fungi or protozoa or some newly evolved, hardier lifeform. But the world most of us are concerned with and around which our existences revolve will be entirely defunct, no questions about it, even if there remains "a rock in space" that some creatures used to call Earth, once upon a time.
"Should we be psyched on that? Should that make us feel good?" Inanity upon inanity. But I do like Thacker's curt response.
S
Sad Marsh Ghost
Guest
It's stolen from a famous George Carlin routine that has aged very badly.
Stu
Grimscribe
Karnak: The Flaw in All Things, the Marvel superhero miniseries written by Warren Ellis, was influenced by the speculative realism of Eugene Thacker and Peter Sjöstedt-H. Although I'm not sure how accurately he depicts their philosophies and how much he molds it to suit his storytelling purposes.
Karnak: The Flaw in All Things, the Marvel superhero miniseries written by Warren Ellis, was influenced by the speculative realism of Eugene Thacker and Peter Sjöstedt-H. Although I'm not sure how accurately he depicts their philosophies and how much he molds it to suit his storytelling purposes.
Please mention the artist. Please credit the artist. A comic book without art is just a dead script.
Stu
Grimscribe
On the one hand, fair point. On the other hand, I was talking specifically about the philosophical points in the comic which came from the script which was written by Ellis.
I didn't mention the art and so didn't mention the artist. And although I posted images from the comic I did specify that Ellis was merely the writer, and so did not inadvertently give him credit for aspects of the comic for which he was not responsible. (Although depending on what kind of script format he used he may actually have had a say in various aspects of the art e.g. pacing; "camera" angles (wormview, birds-eye view, Dutch tilt, etc); when to use establishing shots, close-ups, midshots etc.)
And although I have to hold my hands up to not crediting artists enough when I discuss comics I should point out that the writer and artist are not the entire creative team. The letterer and colourist also important to comics stories.
Anyway, here's the full credits for Karnak: The Flaw in All Things:
Writer: Warren Ellis.
Artists: Gerardo Zaffino (Issues 1-2), Roland Boschi (Issues 3-6) with Antonio Fuso (Issue 2).
Colour Artist: Dan Brown (Taking time off from writing religious conspiracy thrillers.)
Letterers: Clayton Cowles with Joe Caramagna (Issue 2)
Cover art: David Aja
Karnak created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Gnosticangel
Grimscribe
"Please mention the artist. Please credit the artist."
Thanks for posting images of the great nihilist Karnak!
Thanks for posting images of the great nihilist Karnak!
On the other hand.
There is not really another hand, i'm sorry to say.
You posted a bunch of drawings, credit the artist, it's not difficult.
No need to go the extra mile and credit the entire team ( & even the highly dubious Lee whose own public image was probably the only thing he ever created ).
There's no need to apologetically dance around this, and drag the letterer and colorist in. Credit the artist.
The points you raise are insignificant, really. So what if the writer mentions pacing and camera angles? There is no pacing if there is no ink on the page. There isn't even a camera, but the artist can make the reader believe there's one.
And the philosphical points? How nihilistic would they have seemed if the artist had drawn the speaker with an ironic smile and a raised eyebrow & wearing gala dress. The artists makes the point.
There is no philosophy to it. Credit the artist.
Stu
Grimscribe
You asked me to credit the artist. Fair enough. I did so and explained the reasons why I didn't credit him/them in the first place. You may not be happy with those reasons but they're not "insignificant." This thread is about speculative realism, the comic's dialogue was about speculative realism. I posted the panels as I was too lazy to type out the dialogue. And there's no need to keep banging on about crediting the artist when I have now done so. In short, I'd appreciate it if you'd dial your tone back a bit.
Frankly all you had to do was say something along the lines of "You forgot to credit the artist" or "Great art. Who's it by?"
And while it may be true (if a little melodramatic) to refer to a comic without pictures as a dead script it is also true that without the writer's script the artist has nothing to draw. You're deliberately underselling the writer. And the letterer and colourist. Without the letterer there would be no words on the page. Without the colourist a lot of the atmosphere that you seem to think is the sole preserve of the artist would be lost.
Comics are a collaborative medium. I tend to focus on the writers. If you focus on the artists that's fine, but if you dismiss the rest of the creative team and disparage anyone who mentions them then you'd better check your GPS 'cos no matter what you think you're not actually on the moral high ground.
PS I apologise if this post comes across as snarky but you've caught me on a bad day.
To all the other people on this thread I apologise for this tangent and will now return you to your discussion of Eugene Thacker and speculative realism.
Frankly all you had to do was say something along the lines of "You forgot to credit the artist" or "Great art. Who's it by?"
And while it may be true (if a little melodramatic) to refer to a comic without pictures as a dead script it is also true that without the writer's script the artist has nothing to draw. You're deliberately underselling the writer. And the letterer and colourist. Without the letterer there would be no words on the page. Without the colourist a lot of the atmosphere that you seem to think is the sole preserve of the artist would be lost.
Comics are a collaborative medium. I tend to focus on the writers. If you focus on the artists that's fine, but if you dismiss the rest of the creative team and disparage anyone who mentions them then you'd better check your GPS 'cos no matter what you think you're not actually on the moral high ground.
PS I apologise if this post comes across as snarky but you've caught me on a bad day.
To all the other people on this thread I apologise for this tangent and will now return you to your discussion of Eugene Thacker and speculative realism.
Whenever people say something along the lines of “...watch your tone...” it almost always comes across as...well, as having a certain tone, doesn’t it?
Anyway, you admit as much yourself.
My own vehemence in this instance comes from seeing, time and again, the writer oversell himself. Or getting oversold. Writers getting awards, accolades, names in bigger print &c. Yes, writing is hard work. But script this: ‘the Roman legions marched over the hills.” Now draw it. See you in a week’s time.
I assume the Kirby/Lee story has not escaped you? That’s closer to the norm than the version where the poor writer is undersold by the artist.
The very fact that you needed to be reminded to credit the artist is testament to that dynamic.
I don’t dismiss the rest of the creative team just because you say i do. Again, my reasoning is simple: if there was no linework to colour, there would not even be lettered balloons, because the letterer places the balloons ( if the artist hasn’t done so ) where the artist allows room for it.
If i state that your car won’t drive without wheels, pointing out the importance of rearview mirrors is still not going to transport you anyplace.
& if you think that comics is a collaborative medium by defintion, i suggest you re-educate yourself. Or read wider than factory-assembled products aimed at kids.
Stu
Grimscribe
I asked you to dial back your tone and apologised if my own tone caused you any upset. You neither dialed back your tone nor apologised for failing to do so. I think I'll go find someone less objectionable to talk to. Bye.
Again, apologies to everyone else on the thread for the delrailment from the original topic.
Again, apologies to everyone else on the thread for the delrailment from the original topic.
Certainly. It remains a cause for wonder and sadness to me that people tend to arrogate culture to themselves in that way; one is not necessarily entitled to partake of what one has not done one jot to contribute to, either by Paying The Artist or crediting him ( note the original meaning of credit ).
Then again, being thought to exist beyond remuneration is not as bad as being thought to exist exactly within that remuneration. You’ve been paid, now shut up/ the continued stretching of the cause for remuneration to include having claims upon an artist’s time beyond the interaction between the work and the reader/viewer or client.
It’s a complicated relationship, and often an unfair one.
Making it more fair is quite possible.
The money one would receive is in no way reflective of the labor that actually went into the work itself. Of course, you know that already. I can't imagine how long it takes to complete a single page of drawings, much less an entire graphic/comic book. My own experience as a writer is that the amount of time and labor that goes into writing a book is hardly ever compensated. You have to find a different motive aside from making money. There's no way, with the cost of living, any author who frequents TLO pays the rent or mortgage with writing. They either have spouses who also work, supplemental income such as disability, or they have another job. If they have a family to support, I imagine their artistic pursuits can easily cause a great deal of stress on everyone involved, which is why a supportive mate is absolutely indispensable; NEVER take such people for granted. They deserve to be deeply loved and cherished until death. They play a critical role in producing good fiction and/or works of art. I recall that Christ's early ministry was essentially funded by women who were in possession of money.
The statistics show that only about 10% of writers make a "living" around $30,000 a year. But those are writers who produce "marketable" material that is of questionable quality. People like Stephen King and Clive Barker are rare exceptions. To be an artist is, more often than not, to embark on a path of self-destruction, financially speaking. Some of us self-destruct mentally if we're not careful.
I strongly uphold all of the above.
EDIT: Speculative realism is not inherently nihilistic. Ray Brassier, at least in his early work, is decidely nihilistic. But speculative realism itself simply refers to a post-Kantian approach to philosophy which believes it's possible to do metaphysics via thought, which is why there's been a rebirth of German Idealism in certain parts of academia. I'm not familiar with Thacker's work, but I don't believe I'd be impressed with anything he's written. I enjoy nihilism as an aesthetic phenomenon, but as a philosophy it is riddled with elementary problems I can't overlook. Ironically, I've found more truth in religion than in the writings of disillusioned philosophers who represent a small portion of humanity. I'm almost certain that their daily lives actively refute whatever "philosophy" they happen to write down in their books.
Last edited: