sworg bracken at large situationist bookskellar scenewash kiosk

A Few Extra Remarks
on Guy Debord - Revolutionary


K I O S K

B O O K S K E L L A R

C H A I N T H I N K E R

S I T U A T I O N I S T

B R A C K E N ' S  O W N

Guy Debord: Revolutionary

A Few Extra Remarks on GDR

Extraphile

Other Writings

Reviews

Letters

M O R E  B R A C K E N  N O I S E

Persona non grata

3 .  l e n  b r a c k e n

ANYWAY, I ONCE SPOKE TO GREIL on the phone about the link between Bataille and Debord; he led me to Grard Berreby's Documents relatifs a la fondation de l'internationale situationniste for a copy of Potlatch (one of the fruits of my research was finding the relevant thesis in Society of the Spectacle related to Bataille's conception of waste). During our brief conversation, I picked up the vibe that Marcus didn't want to be bothered by the likes of me - he seemed to be afraid that I would try to break into his house to steal his books. This is reasonable enough given the times in which we live. I assured him that I live on the other coast and never called again. I thanked him in notes that went along with the first few issues of my zine Extraphile.

IN A STRATAGEM CALCULATED TO ELICIT a response to my book from Marcus, I wrote a long footnote in Guy Debord -Revolutionary on his use of the phrase"reversible connecting factor" in the context of my discussion of Debord's interpretation of history. Of course I could only pretend to have read all of Debord's work - I mention, for example, that I failed to find his message to the Portuguese revolutionaries. My statement "nowhere does Debord use the phrase 'reversible connecting factor' as Marcus claims" was a gambit. To use a boxing metaphor, I was ready to take a punch to pick a fight on the broader issue brought into the ring. Yet it turns out that I wasn't incorrect, as I will demonstrate below. Besides, "What fun?"I asked Marcus, "is it to write about Debord without polemicizing a little?" especially when there are fundamental issues at stake.

FIRST, THE QUESTION of the confusionist references in Lipstick Traces: although the index cites the "reversible connecting factor" as appearing first on page 237 (where one finds the outrageous photograph of cadavers at Buchenwald, April 24, 1945), Marcus actually first mentions the "reversible connecting factor" on page 141. At no point on page 141 does he give any indication that he made an end note on the phrase. How would a reader know to look for the note without a number or an asterisk or some other sign? I suppose it would be wrong to blame Marcus for the erroneous index, but the combined effects of the lack of any indication of an end note and the index error amount to hiding a needle in a proverbial pile of hay.

WHY DOES MARCUS COVER his tracks like this? Is it because he took a phrase from one of Debord's minor essays that, when properly translated, means nothing more or less than "revolution," although in Debord's case it could probably be better expressed as smashing the spectacle to bits in a revolutionary explosion of life. To my mind, Marcus used this poorly translated euphemism in a mystifying way. It surprises me that the supposedly informed readers of Lipstick Traces have failed to recognize the completely unacknowledged methodenstreit (the conflict of opposing ideologies) between Marcus' ahistorical work and that of Debord. What I'm saying is that if you believe what Marcus has to say about Debord and the "reversible connecting factor," you've been had because Debord's conception of history is based on the principle of historical change as being irreversible, not a "reversible connecting factor."

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 

Bracken At Large | Situationists | Bookskellar | Scenewash Kiosk | E-Mail


S C E N E W A S H  P R O J E C T  2 0 0 0 3
It is on along the sleepy Anacostia River in the District of Columbia, our nation's capital. You are viewing this page using and your IP Address is .

'XusNET is located in the Capitol Hill/Stadium Armory section of Washington, DC.