Have you found the spot in Girard where he talks about, say, Davidson's -first- girlfriend? I've read a bit of Deceit, Desire as well as his talks with Cayley and me and a bud had a hard time finding how he explained the initial desire, ended up in a chicken/egg cyclone.
In other words, Pete's indifference to fame and/or women is what Kardashian cites as what spurred her to want him, as well as 'hearing about' him, more or less (probably testament to the notion of his being an 'object that others have had and that she would probably want')—but — but...
I guess I think about the death of his father a lot. And I think about this guy from Montana I knew who went to a bar and was in the worst of places and could care less about the world, and told me later he got more attention on that night than on any subsequent night, in the same setting.
Not setting out to disprove anything about Girard. I think his notions of mimesis are very interesting and highly applicable, but if we're out to dig up the core of Pete's undeniable magnetism, I'd wonder at those early days before he was moving from famous lady to famous lady too.
I have zero insight into Pete Davidson’s early encounters—but Max tells us all about Zuleika’s:
“It chanced that she came, at length, to be governess in a large family that had Gibbs for its name and Notting Hill for its background. Edward, the eldest son, was a clerk in the city, who spent his evenings in the practice of amateur conjuring. He was a freckled youth, with hair that bristled in places where it should have lain smooth, and he fell in love with Zuleika duly, at first sight, during high-tea. In the course of the evening, he sought to win her admiration by a display of all his tricks. These were familiar to this household, and the children had been sent to bed, the mother was dozing, long before the seance was at an end. But Miss Dobson, unaccustomed to any gaieties, sat fascinated by the young man’s sleight of hand, marvelling that a top-hat could hold so many goldfish, and a handkerchief turn so swiftly into a silver florin. All that night, she lay wide awake, haunted by the miracles he had wrought. Next evening, when she asked him to repeat them, ‘Nay,’ he whispered, ‘I cannot bear to deceive the girl I love. Permit me to explain the tricks.’ So he explained them. His eyes sought hers across the bowl of gold-fish, his fingers trembled as he taught her to manipulate the magic canister. One by one, she mastered the paltry secrets. Her respect for him waned with every revelation. He complimented her on her skill. ‘I could not do it more neatly myself!’ he said. ‘Oh, dear Miss Dobson, will you but accept my hand, all these things shall be yours—the cards, the canister, the goldfish, the demon egg-cup—all yours!’ Zuleika, with ravishing coyness, answered that if he would give her them now, she would ‘think it over.’ The swain consented, and at bed-time she retired with the gift under her arm. In the light of her bedroom candle Marguerite hung not in greater ecstasy over the jewel-casket than hung Zuleika over the box of tricks. She clasped her hands over the tremendous possibilities it held for her—manumission from her bondage, wealth, fame, power. Stealthily, so soon as the house slumbered, she packed her small outfit, embedding therein the precious gift. Noiselessly, she shut the lid of her trunk, corded it, shouldered it, stole down the stairs with it.”
You have chosen a silly purple example that has no desire element.
I see others imitating each other by wearing purple, there are others that do not have that desire to imitate- so what does mimetic theory say about that group ?
The scientific method.
Observation, measurement, modeling and making general statements - you have a theory and if you cases that do not fit the theory - you need refinement about your original hypothesis
Girard models on a class/group of people imitating each other - like in the social media space.
However he does not model or say anything about people that don't bother trying to imitate or lead an independent life.
So the theory is not complete and has for want of a better word has "holes in it" BECAUSE it does not explain everything
In science theories like that are aggressively critiqued until a better one is formulated and stands intense scrutiny
No arrogance or entitlement, using Logic, and the scientific method.
I preferred the twist to the rest of the writing; which did not make one ounce of sense to me.
what are you exactly saying ? you do not understand the appeal of Davidson and then invented a long winded narrative that goes nowhere.
However, you invented a new narrative form - Hilarious but amazing literary writing that reveals nothing for the reader. Encore !
Why don't you simply say that some people have extraordinary likeability -- but who really cares and why bother - see I am anti mimetic, which shoots holes in Girard theories
It is all but impossible to explain something to someone who is incentivized not to understand it (“see I am an anti-mimetic”)—and so I’ll just say, thanks for reading anyway!
And yeah, this is a silly comment. Being anti-mimetic does not shoot holes in any theory. "I do not wear purple clothes, therefore, see! Purple isn't real!"
False enthusiasm dotted with over-the-shoulder compliments smacks of entitlement and arrogance. Should've been written in a daily journal so more thinking could be done about whether it was worth airing or not.
Always enjoy a story with a good twist.
Same—even when I’m the butt of it
Love this. I will have to go find a copy of Zuleika Dobson now. Preferably a Modern Library edition, as I also covet them.
Amazing my work here is done!!
New to your stack. LOVE your writing.
Welcome & thank you!
I'd try Valmouth. If you have a Kindle, Amazon sells it for under 2 bucks (in Canadian $).
Have you found the spot in Girard where he talks about, say, Davidson's -first- girlfriend? I've read a bit of Deceit, Desire as well as his talks with Cayley and me and a bud had a hard time finding how he explained the initial desire, ended up in a chicken/egg cyclone.
In other words, Pete's indifference to fame and/or women is what Kardashian cites as what spurred her to want him, as well as 'hearing about' him, more or less (probably testament to the notion of his being an 'object that others have had and that she would probably want')—but — but...
I guess I think about the death of his father a lot. And I think about this guy from Montana I knew who went to a bar and was in the worst of places and could care less about the world, and told me later he got more attention on that night than on any subsequent night, in the same setting.
Not setting out to disprove anything about Girard. I think his notions of mimesis are very interesting and highly applicable, but if we're out to dig up the core of Pete's undeniable magnetism, I'd wonder at those early days before he was moving from famous lady to famous lady too.
I have zero insight into Pete Davidson’s early encounters—but Max tells us all about Zuleika’s:
“It chanced that she came, at length, to be governess in a large family that had Gibbs for its name and Notting Hill for its background. Edward, the eldest son, was a clerk in the city, who spent his evenings in the practice of amateur conjuring. He was a freckled youth, with hair that bristled in places where it should have lain smooth, and he fell in love with Zuleika duly, at first sight, during high-tea. In the course of the evening, he sought to win her admiration by a display of all his tricks. These were familiar to this household, and the children had been sent to bed, the mother was dozing, long before the seance was at an end. But Miss Dobson, unaccustomed to any gaieties, sat fascinated by the young man’s sleight of hand, marvelling that a top-hat could hold so many goldfish, and a handkerchief turn so swiftly into a silver florin. All that night, she lay wide awake, haunted by the miracles he had wrought. Next evening, when she asked him to repeat them, ‘Nay,’ he whispered, ‘I cannot bear to deceive the girl I love. Permit me to explain the tricks.’ So he explained them. His eyes sought hers across the bowl of gold-fish, his fingers trembled as he taught her to manipulate the magic canister. One by one, she mastered the paltry secrets. Her respect for him waned with every revelation. He complimented her on her skill. ‘I could not do it more neatly myself!’ he said. ‘Oh, dear Miss Dobson, will you but accept my hand, all these things shall be yours—the cards, the canister, the goldfish, the demon egg-cup—all yours!’ Zuleika, with ravishing coyness, answered that if he would give her them now, she would ‘think it over.’ The swain consented, and at bed-time she retired with the gift under her arm. In the light of her bedroom candle Marguerite hung not in greater ecstasy over the jewel-casket than hung Zuleika over the box of tricks. She clasped her hands over the tremendous possibilities it held for her—manumission from her bondage, wealth, fame, power. Stealthily, so soon as the house slumbered, she packed her small outfit, embedding therein the precious gift. Noiselessly, she shut the lid of her trunk, corded it, shouldered it, stole down the stairs with it.”
You have chosen a silly purple example that has no desire element.
I see others imitating each other by wearing purple, there are others that do not have that desire to imitate- so what does mimetic theory say about that group ?
The scientific method.
Observation, measurement, modeling and making general statements - you have a theory and if you cases that do not fit the theory - you need refinement about your original hypothesis
Girard models on a class/group of people imitating each other - like in the social media space.
However he does not model or say anything about people that don't bother trying to imitate or lead an independent life.
So the theory is not complete and has for want of a better word has "holes in it" BECAUSE it does not explain everything
In science theories like that are aggressively critiqued until a better one is formulated and stands intense scrutiny
No arrogance or entitlement, using Logic, and the scientific method.
If you liked Beerbohm, you might like Ronald Firbank too.
Thanks! Any specific recs?
I preferred the twist to the rest of the writing; which did not make one ounce of sense to me.
what are you exactly saying ? you do not understand the appeal of Davidson and then invented a long winded narrative that goes nowhere.
However, you invented a new narrative form - Hilarious but amazing literary writing that reveals nothing for the reader. Encore !
Why don't you simply say that some people have extraordinary likeability -- but who really cares and why bother - see I am anti mimetic, which shoots holes in Girard theories
It is all but impossible to explain something to someone who is incentivized not to understand it (“see I am an anti-mimetic”)—and so I’ll just say, thanks for reading anyway!
And yeah, this is a silly comment. Being anti-mimetic does not shoot holes in any theory. "I do not wear purple clothes, therefore, see! Purple isn't real!"
False enthusiasm dotted with over-the-shoulder compliments smacks of entitlement and arrogance. Should've been written in a daily journal so more thinking could be done about whether it was worth airing or not.
As it stands, it wasn't.
Glad to hear! Looking forward to reading