The Visceral Extends Its Domain: The Rules Of The Game Continues

[koganbot]

Here's the first ever Rules Of The Game Followup Column. Contains metal and morality, romance and longing. Quotes Martin. You're encouraged to comment here, there, everywhere.

EDIT, JUNE 8: Strangely, the link I'd posted in the previous paragraph didn't work after a few days, so I had to track down where the piece was and fix the link.

EDIT: Here are links to all but three of my other Rules Of The Game columns (LVW's search results for "Rules of the Game"). Links for the other three (which for some reason didn't get "Rules Of The Game" in their titles), are here: #4, #5, and #8.

UPDATE: I've got all the links here now:

http://koganbot.livejournal.com/179531.html

Comments

Re: *Kerplunk*

[(Anonymous)]

I read all Simon's and Mark k's popism/poptimism arguments with interest and good deal of scepticism but am forever irritated by their unwillingness to name a single name, i.e., person or specific clusters of people who they think are part of what they see as the problem. If they're talking about you guys in here, they should say so. (If they're talking about the original popist brigade, they should say so.) So that you guys in here (or whover it is they're referring to) can respond, or so that someone familiar with those being referred to can respond on their behalf, or argue it out somehow/somewhere. As it is, Simon and Mark K are assuming people know who they're talking about, and no one does seem to know--which makes people like myself think they're not really talking about ANYone.

Re: *Kerplunk*

[mooxyjoo.livejournal.com]

in a comments thread i just found at k-punk it seems in 2004 k-punk was naming PAUL MORLEY and NYLPM (with tom as the representative), which strikes me as a) pretty specific and b) good reason for tom to take mark's attacks personally! but this does not really mean it's a good thing to keep talking about isms as if they were determinate positions, anyway.

Re: *Kerplunk*

[(Anonymous)]

ok, well, maybe there was an instance--but in a comments thread in 2004? it doesn't really change my suspicions that they're referring to a figment of a person (and a figment of a person's ideas) rather than to a person or that person's ideas. anyway, in some of Simon Reynolds' more recent diatribes I've honestly not been aware of just who he's talking about.

(by the way, i forgot to name my own name, in the first post--this livejournal stuff still confuses me)
scott woods

Re: *Kerplunk*

[koganbot]

Scott Woods! The notorious Paris Hilton fan! Who has a column of his own in the Las Vegas Weekly.

Re: *Kerplunk*

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I think they were probably more on the mark in 2004 than now! Of course I don't expect someone who decided then I was a bad thinker to have kept up with me (especially as I'm quite foggy and inconsistent anyway).