קטגוריה: ענת ריכטר

Someone goes online

Someone goes online-not particularly computer savvy but they feel they 'get by' as far as checking the weather online, doing their taxes and finding out what movie is playing where-they have in mind that they want to meet someone. It doesn't have to be romantic, though, in all honesty, it would be great if it were. But they don't want their future friend to be from one of those sleazy matchmaking sights. So they go to a blog. Blogs are where all the cool kids hang out. Blogs are where those who aren't just looking for sex find their fix. Blogs don't have sexual predators in them. Blogs are for intellectuals ('just like me'). Blogs are where it all happens. Right? Wrong.


This is the truth as seen and read from the 'outside'. I'm not a computer wiz, or a hacker and, frankly, I'm lucky if I can find my way around Israblog. But I know how to write and in a community of writers you'd think that would be enough. You'd think. You'd be wrong.


Blogs are founded upon a system of prom kings and queens every bit as much as your average American high school. Blogs have cool kids that everybody fears yet desperately wants to be friends with, and it has its resident geeks that get stuffed into virtual lockers on a regular basis. It is a common misconception that within the world of internet those coveted roles become reversed. That those kids who were teased and taunted in high school—those who's lunch money was eternally missing because it got taken away by the bully of the hour—are now the reigning kings and queens of the cyber playground. They have the power to make you or break you. A good word from them about a post you've written will send you into cyber heaven. A bad one will make your life a living hell. Only that your life doesn't end at the corner of your computer screen; it seeps into your 'real' life, making you ashamed to leave your 'real' home, go to your 'real' job or talk to the very 'real' man who slices your cheese in your local supermarket—but that’s already a different post.


The truth is that coolness is a trait for life, just as the number of teeth you show when smiling. A good orthodontist and a couple thousand dollars to spare will make you show more or less teeth, and will, most likely, make these teeth nicer to be seen, but it will do nothing, nothing I say, for the way your lips curl at the corners of your mouth when you smile making you look like a joker. In much the same way, coolness can be acquired. To an extent. Extent being the operative word here. Always and without a doubt the cool factor will fail you when you need it most. When that person you've been dreaming would comment on your post finally does so, you will grow back your greasy hair, pimples, and that chubbiness as if they never left and it would be just another day in your 10th grade gym class again.


Alas, you're dreams of sweet revenge have failed. The jock with the great abs and killer charisma who, your only solace was to think, was a total retard and couldn't put together a sentence unless it was in the shape of a car, has done it once again. It turns out he can put a sentence together. A few in fact. It also turns out that when he writes, people read. Seems that the one you took pride in being the opposite of was not only handsome, cool and good at sports but, what d'ya know, he's clever too…


They're now picking teams for a game of basketball. It's amazing how you're still surprised when you get picked last.

פאנל חמישי ואחרון

May I offer you a fifth discourse?

Jacques Lacan (Anat Richter)

Men and Women differ in their relation to the word. Man's specific relation to language is characterized by separation. Mediated, as it were, by his penis, man's word is external to him. Language is for man, returning to Jacobson, a set of signifiers set in constant reference to one master signifier—the phallus.

The woman's relation to the word is that of continuity, of lack of separation. Woman experiences the word in the flesh. An extension of her own body. I have noted before that woman is never whole, there is always something in her that escapes discourse (Seminar XX, Lesson III, 33). Why, women may ask, are we never whole? The reason, my beloved hysterics to whom I owe my career, is that you lack signifier (phallus).

Within the boundaries of the four psychoanalytic discourses I have developed following the events of 1968—the discourse of the Master, the discourse of the University, the discourse of the Hysteric and the discourse of the Analyst—man clearly embodies the discourse of the Master, while woman, we shall expect, should embody the discourse of the Hysteric. But perhaps I have missed a discourse, perhaps, rather than hysteric, women exemplify a fifth discourse—the discourse of the body.

לודוויג ויטגנשטיין (פלאי גרייצר)

1. "הביקורת מתה". אך האם נאמר, למשל כשאנו מנענעים את ראשינו אנה ואנה,"הביקורת חיה"? השווה זאת לנפנוף בידינו על מנת לגרש זבוב, או העוויה של הפנים.

2. "הביקורת לא יכולה למות!" – זו הערה דקדוקית? אמפירית? מתי אנו אומרים בשפתינו הרגילה על דבר שהוא מת, ומתי אנו אומרים שהוא ביקורת. יש חפיפה בין הדברים.

3. אבל אסור להסיק מכך, למשל, שהמוות הוא מצב שהביקורת נמצאת בו, או שהביקורת "נמצאת" במוות במובן כלשהו מלבד מובנו הרגיל של "נמצאת" – וכי איזה מובן עשוי זה להיות?

4. "אבל הרי הדבר החשוב הוא לא מה שאומרת הביקורת, אלא האם הספר טוב או רע! אני יודע זאת בלב ליבי!"

5. וויליאם ג'יימס היה אומר- "ראו כמה נפלא ומסתורי הדבר! המבקר מציע פרשנות, ואילו הקורא מסכים עמו, אף שלא חש בפירוש זה בעת הקריאה. הפירוש, אם כך, כבר נוכח בכוח אם לא בפועל בקריאה המקורית, כאפשרות שטרם מומשה או טרם נוסחה במילים".

6. מה ההבדל בין "מבקר" ובין "בעל דיעה"? ובכן, הם שייכים למשחקי לשון שונים. ויש חשיבות לכך שרק על אחד מהם נאמר שהוא כותב בעיתון.

לפאנל הרביעי. לפאנל השלישי. לפאנל השני. לפאנל הראשון. להכרזה על הפרוייקט.