I can’t help but think of the high profile rats have gotten in Mayor Adams’s tenure. Meet the Rat Czar, who addresses herself to the manifestation of rattus rattus (Public Enemy #1)** as “becoming-rat”:

Mayor Adams Anoints Kathleen Corradi as NYC’s First-Ever ‘Rat Czar’

Mayor Adams Anoints Kathleen Corradi as NYC’s First-Ever ‘Rat Czar’

** Actually it might be billionaires who pay an average of 8.2% federal taxes, due to making a vast amount of their income from investments.

As fate would have it, the NYT served up a very Deleuze and Guattari-themed bit of culture today. [nope: not gonna rest until you get your free CUNY subscription].

The practices described unfold within what its 20 participants call a “polycule” based in the Boston area, in what seems to be a neologism that steals from D+Gs molecular/molar distinction. They are committed to sharing, yes, sex, but also dwelling space, intimacy, some possessions and money, in some cases legal marriage, and more, but very much within a subsuming meta-rule that refuses the kind of contracts, promises, and exclusions that characterize what D+G call “filiation,” the “arboreal,” rooted identity, and so on.

Look, I’m pretty boring (arborial, even) in my actual life, for better or for worse. But it is fascinating to see how these ideas from D+G from 1980 and from the rarified air of “theory” have percolated out (or rhizomatically propagated themselves) into culture in this form (and in many others).

I haven’t finished the study questions yet, but I highly recommend you read this brief but extremely helpful summary of the excerpt we’re reading from A Thousand Plateaus. It’s kind of unfair for me to drop this material on you, when we haven’t read at least the intro of the work (it’s in the Norton, for those who want to go the extra mile), but this piece gives us enough light to read by, glossing terms like “minor” and “minority,” “rhizomatic” and “arborescent,” “molecular” and “molar,” etc. in D/Gs work.

You would also do well to read the headnote to D and G in the Norton: it’s also pretty brief and gives a great overview.

Finally, and on a lighter note, here’s a link to a performance of “Ben,” the title cut from the soundtrack of the film Ben, which is the sequel (!) to the killer rat film, Willard (!!) that D/G mention. Michael Jackson, ladies and gentlemen, at fourteen. What an incandescent talent, whatever came afterwards. Also, I’m pretty sure I had that groovy wide-collar shirt.

No Title

CLICK TO SUBSCRIBE: http://bit.ly/1reuGJV Follow us on TWITTER: https://twitter.com/scream_factory Follow us on FACEBOOK: http://on.fb.me/1ojljJS Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison, Insidious: Chapter 4) is a young man with a big problem. He lives alone in a crumbling house with his ailing mother (Elsa Lanchester, Arnold, Bride of Frankenstein).

Someone (I can’t remember who) was asking to see the syllabus, etc. for my 252 that has a climate fiction theme. Here goes, and see you tomorrow:

https://engl252fa23.commons.gc.cuny.edu

I just wanted to share this gem from today’s NYT (free for CUNY folk: sign up via Library):

Opinion | Larry David, Philosopher King

Larry David’s long-running show was hilarious, but it also revolved around a complex view of modern philosophy.

Numerous authors and texts that we’ve read together are either name-checked (Freud, Nietzsche) or resonate with the analysis of Larry David’s humor (Althusser’s theory that “ideology has a material existence” is proved, time and time again, by the show’s display of unspoken, and highly ideological, norms that are conveyed through bodily behavior rather than words).

Pretty pretty pretty pretty good.

On another note, I’m so impressed by the quality of your recent posts on Freud’s fetishism, Lacan’s mirror stage, and Mulvey’s feminist theory of cinema. So many of you are moving beyond “getting it” (which is already a high bar) and thinking about applications (Irianna’s exploration of Shelley’s Frankenstein via Lacan; Emma’s arguments about the “cool girl trope” and Mulvey; Gabi and Leonee’s discussions of Marilyn Monroe and cinema; and Stevie’s comparison of mainstream cinematic fetishism/mirroring to Chantal Ackerman’s experimental feminist cinema ) and extensions or critical push-backs (Shounak’s and Roddy’s reading of “fetishism”).

I could easily have linked to 4 or 5 other excellent posts. I’m really happy to see you reading and writing and thinking at such a high level! Read each other’s stuff when you can!