Capitalist discourse in the works of Neil Gaiman

[Zaune]

Elsewhere.Org

Capitalist discourse in the works of Gaiman
U. Paul Drucker
Department of English, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Linda K. Long
Department of Future Studies, Carnegie-Mellon University
1. Social realism and neotextual capitalist theory

The main theme of McElwaine’s[1] model of capitalist discourse is the absurdity, and therefore the rubicon, of subtextual class. In The Books of Magic, Gaiman reiterates social realism; in Death: The Time of Your Life, although, he deconstructs dialectic deappropriation.

“Sexual identity is part of the paradigm of narrativity,” says Lacan. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the role of the artist as writer. If neotextual capitalist theory holds, we have to choose between capitalist discourse and Foucaultist power relations.

Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a neotextual capitalist theory that includes art as a paradox. A number of materialisms concerning capitalist discourse exist.

However, Sontag promotes the use of social realism to deconstruct hierarchy. Foucault uses the term ‘capitalist discourse’ to denote the genre, and eventually the paradigm, of neoconstructive culture.

In a sense, the stasis, and thus the meaninglessness, of capitalist nationalism prevalent in Gaiman’s Death: The High Cost of Living is also evident in Death: The Time of Your Life, although in a more subtextual sense. Baudrillard uses the term ‘capitalist discourse’ to denote not discourse, as Derrida would have it, but postdiscourse.
2. Gaiman and social realism

The main theme of Brophy’s[2] critique of neotextual capitalist theory is the role of the observer as participant. However, the premise of capitalist discourse suggests that class has significance, but only if reality is equal to art; if that is not the case, we can assume that the media is capable of significance. The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is a self-supporting reality.

It could be said that an abundance of narratives concerning the role of the poet as participant may be discovered. Sontag’s essay on neotextual capitalist theory implies that discourse is created by communication.

In a sense, Dahmus[3] holds that we have to choose between capitalist discourse and dialectic Marxism. Foucault suggests the use of social realism to challenge and analyse reality.

However, Marx uses the term ‘Lyotardist narrative’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class. If neotextual capitalist theory holds, the works of Gaiman are empowering.
3. Capitalist discourse and predeconstructive construction

If one examines predeconstructive construction, one is faced with a choice: either accept capitalist discourse or conclude that narrativity may be used to exploit the Other. Thus, several discourses concerning social realism exist. The main theme of Prinn’s[4] critique of capitalist discourse is a mythopoetical totality.

The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the failure, and subsequent genre, of textual society. However, any number of materialisms concerning not, in fact, deconstruction, but neodeconstruction may be revealed. The creation/destruction distinction intrinsic to Gaiman’s Sandman emerges again in Neverwhere.

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of predialectic culture. But the primary theme of Reicher’s[5] model of capitalist socialism is the difference between sexual identity and class. The premise of predeconstructive construction suggests that sexual identity, perhaps ironically, has objective value, but only if Debord’s critique of social realism is valid; otherwise, Foucault’s model of subdialectic narrative is one of “Derridaist reading”, and therefore fundamentally meaningless.

“Class is a legal fiction,” says Sontag; however, according to von Junz[6] , it is not so much class that is a legal fiction, but rather the collapse, and eventually the failure, of class. Therefore, a number of deconstructivisms concerning predeconstructive construction exist. Postcultural discourse states that the goal of the writer is social comment.

If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist discourse or conclude that sexual identity has intrinsic meaning. Thus, Finnis[7] suggests that the works of Stone are reminiscent of Lynch. If Marxist capitalism holds, we have to choose between predeconstructive construction and the predeconstructivist paradigm of narrative.

The main theme of the works of Stone is not narrative as such, but postnarrative. In a sense, several deconstructions concerning a self-justifying paradox may be discovered. Baudrillard uses the term ‘capitalist narrative’ to denote the role of the artist as writer.

It could be said that in JFK, Stone denies social realism; in Platoon, however, he examines predeconstructive construction. Lyotard promotes the use of social realism to deconstruct class divisions.

However, an abundance of theories concerning precultural discourse exist. The subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes language as a reality.

Thus, Geoffrey[8] implies that we have to choose between textual narrative and postdialectic textual theory. Baudrillard uses the term ‘predeconstructive construction’ to denote the common ground between class and consciousness.

Therefore, the primary theme of Sargeant’s[9] analysis of capitalist discourse is not theory, but posttheory. A number of discourses concerning the bridge between class and sexual identity may be revealed.

Thus, Sontag’s model of predeconstructive construction states that the raison d’etre of the observer is significant form. If textual desituationism holds, the works of Stone are not postmodern.

Therefore, Pickett[10] implies that we have to choose between social realism and Foucaultist power relations. Lyotard uses the term ‘the preconstructivist paradigm of discourse’ to denote the role of the writer as reader.

In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a predeconstructive construction that includes language as a totality. Social realism holds that narrativity is intrinsically unattainable, given that art is interchangeable with truth.

However, in Mason & Dixon, Pynchon reiterates cultural discourse; in The Crying of Lot 49, although, he examines capitalist discourse. Debord uses the term ‘predeconstructive construction’ to denote the common ground between society and class.

1. McElwaine, H. A. ed. (1977) The Failure of Expression: Debordist image, social realism and objectivism. University of Georgia Press

2. Brophy, R. N. R. (1989) Social realism and capitalist discourse. And/Or Press

3. Dahmus, Z. ed. (1970) The Defining characteristic of Sexual identity: Capitalist discourse and social realism. O’Reilly & Associates

4. Prinn, V. I. (1994) Social realism and capitalist discourse. And/Or Press

5. Reicher, Q. K. I. ed. (1971) The Absurdity of Consensus: Social realism in the works of Stone. Oxford University Press

6. von Junz, G. Q. (1996) Capitalist discourse and social realism. University of Michigan Press

7. Finnis, O. ed. (1977) The Genre of Society: Social realism and capitalist discourse. Panic Button Books

8. Geoffrey, K. B. Y. (1982) Objectivism, Marxist class and social realism. University of Oregon Press

9. Sargeant, J. V. ed. (1999) Expressions of Absurdity: Capitalist discourse and social realism. Harvard University Press

10. Pickett, P. H. R. (1971) Capitalist discourse in the works of Pynchon. Oxford University Press

Not sure I agree with all its conclusions, but it's certainly a novel interpretation.

[Starglider]

Now we know what the output of SciGEN looks like if the glossary is changed from compsci to socio-economics.

[Terralthra]

Yeah...sadly, I'm sure it could be accepted for publication by certain journals, if the Sokal Affair is any indicator.

[madd0ct0r]

oh. it was a joke then? got halfway through before thinking my criticisim vocab was lacking.

[Zaune]

Thanks a lot, you two. You couldn't have played along for a bit just to see how many people didn't catch on?

[Starglider]

I didn't follow the link, it was just obviously autogenerated from the templating structure (the content is not relevant as socioeconomics can easily be that vapid without artificial aid). Having checked it out I was a little unfair, Dada is almost a decade older than SciGEN, although the later is more advanced (produces neat graphs, diagrams, correct formatting etc).

[Straha]

Yeah...sadly, I'm sure it could be accepted for publication by certain journals, if the Sokal Affair is any indicator.

A. The Sokal affair doesn't really prove much other than that Sokal is a huge asshole (no surprise if you've ever watched him at work, or read his writing) and that editors of a philosophical journal were far too naive to think that a reputable academic from a prestigious institution would actually participate in an issue calling for a dialog between scientists and philosophers without an ulterior motive. Damn idiots they were.

B. This sort of thing happens with alarming frequency in academia. Computer Science and Physics journals have a history of it going back about two decades. Fun fact: Twenty-something academics like to pull hoaxes, and editors at most journals are lazy and overworked and have no real incentive to effectively block articles from being published.

One of the things that really annoys me about the Sokal hoax is that instead of being a touchstone for attempting to restart dialog between two (plus) disparate spheres of academia that could really use dialog and discussion to better themselves, it turned into a schoolyard fight where each side screamed angrily at the other side a variety of insults and your mom jokes. The final result is a veritable newsflash: Cultural theorists are pretty out-of-touch with modern life and academic scientists tend to be arrogant assholes with terrible communication skills outside the academy.

Or is the other way around?
(Spoiler: It's true about them both.)