Simulacra and Simulation (The Body in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism) - Jean Baudrillard

Nice read but... well...

I couldn't agree with markgoats review anymore if I tried. There are some very intriguing ideas and concepts in this book and it certainly keeps your attention. However, the benefits of Baudrillards ideas are often burried deep beneath excessive ramblings. Often you will ask yourself "hang on, what does any of this have to do with simulacra or simulation?". Baudrillard strives too hard to find things that really aren't there, converting standard instances of evolution into grim examples of his thoughts on a dead society.

Don't get me wrong, there are a number of very interesting arguments to be found in this book (I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Crash), however, they come few and far between. Hidden amongst assumptions of previous knowledge and ramblings of a man desperate to convince the world that he is right with very little evidence to back it up. At one point I found myself comparing his work to that of Freud - it is written in such a way that he can't be wrong.

On a side note, I would love to get an apostrophe count on this text, the man has a fetish.

it's alright

no actually, there is some good stuff in here. baudrillard is smart but a little fatalistic about everything. he likes taking things as far as they go which always means death for him and maybe that is precisely why i think he is flawed. because he games end with death and i don't think that's true.

Read to enjoy, not to impress your friends

To respond to the previous writer's criticism: The reason this book lacks a coherent, logical structure is that it is a collection of essays. Consequently, one should not be surprised that it is not nicely tied together by an introduction and conclusion.

I seldom agree with Baudrillard, not least because I am never too certain how seriously (given his anti-academic stance and avowed debt to pataphysics) he intends us to take him. However I always enjoy reading him because is such a consummate stylist. The essays in this book are more difficult than some of his work but, nonetheless, very enjoyable.

Earn brownie points with your postmodernist chums.

This book lacks even the most rudimentary structure, throwing you
into its confused ramblings without so much as an introduction, or
preface. Where there are valid points hidden beneath the deceptive
postmodernist veil, they tend to be weak and whimsical. The
author has done well to hide the fact that he has nothing to say,
by shielding every point amidst a cloak of circular argument and
blatant nonesense. For whatever reason, he's prone to dredging
out paragraph long sentences that serve to further obscure any
shred of meaning. The bottom line is that this chap _intends_
that nobody understand his writing, and any meaning you find
herein is likely to be of your own devising.

If this author genuinely wanted to discuss profound, topical ideas
surely he would have made an effort to layout a readable, logical
argument. This is not the work of an author aiming to teach,
provoke or enlighten. It's the literary equivalent of Escher's
'relativity'.

Provocative

Baudrillard is indeed modern philosophy's equivalent of Nietzsche, but in this work at least does not live up to that great man. Be prepared for a struggle if you want to read this book; the writer's arguments are painstakingly condensed to the point that it is hard to tell whether he has really justified his observation with evidence.
While the chapters on Clones and Holograms are very interesting, inherently suited as the subjects are to the books concern, in other places the subject matter and arguments do seem the result of whim rather than an attempt to locate truth.
So while this book contains a lot of value, and will certainly change the way the reader interprets the world, Baudrillards style of writing forces the intelligent reader to approach his claims critically and selectively.