Morton’s book out: forgets to mention one important OOO figure and misspells the name of someone he is acknowledging…


Tim Morton’s new book is out – surely it will be as awesomely nonsensical as his blog writings = here. First thing to draw my troll attention? Lack of Levi Bryant, one of the other founders of OOO, in the Acknowledgement section – scandalous!

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, Graham Harman [check] brought this book into being in almost every sense. He compelled me to become an object-oriented ontologist, through the ingenious device of brilliant, seductive prose. And as series editor he has been a most helpful, generous partner in putting this book together.

Ian Bogost [check], one of the founders of object-oriented ontology (OOO), gave me the title at a highly spiced brainstorming session in Los Angeles in December 2010, and since then has shared his thinking in the most generous ways possible.

There many people whose more than inspiring ideas and kind words have helped me on this project, including but not limited to: Jamie Allen, Jane Bennett, Bill Benzon, Paul Boshears, Rick Elmore, Paul Ennis, Rita Felski, Dirk Felleman, Nathan Gale, Bobby George, Thomas Gokey, Joseph Goodson, Peter Gratton, Liam Heneghan, Eileen Joy, Julia Reinhard Lupton, Douglas Kahn, Ken Reinhard, Tom Sparrow, MacKenzie Wark, Cary Wolfe, and Ben Woodard.

This book is dedicated to my son Simon. Anyone who has trouble imagining causality as magical and uncanny need only consider the existence of children.

Sure, there are parenthetical references to the great onticologist here and there in the book, but nothing really interesting. I propose to move the periodization of the fake philosophical history of OOO to the next stage: “…and then it split into two sub-movements: pro-Harman (Morton and Bogost) and pro-Bryant (Bryant).”

Note to sympathetic commenters – sure, this is a waste of my time, but it’s hilarious and I mention it because I like to poke holes at self-important morons. Give me this one thing, please. No egos were hurt in the preparation and publication of this blog post.

About these ads

13 thoughts on “Morton’s book out: forgets to mention one important OOO figure and misspells the name of someone he is acknowledging…

  1. Confidentially (er, or not), I’m not surprised by this omission, as Morton doesn’t seem to really like Bryant. Or rather, Morton actively dislikes Bryant, and will take any opportunity in private discussion to talk shit about him. Seems like a case of planks and motes to me, but of course you already know Tim’s a spiteful asshole.

  2. Epic snub, bro!

    I liked this part: GH “brought this book into being in almost every sense.” I wonder what sense of “bringing into being” were excluded?

  3. We live in an era of bargain basement philosophy, sadly – books that are peddled out through cheap publishers, blogged as their written, and then instantly consigned to oblivion. In this culture of instant gratification philosophy, books such as the one from Morton have their rightful place.

  4. You can’t even bitch and bully without pretending you are above such pettiness. Pathetic. Everything stodgy, stifling, stuck up and stupid about the academic world is on display here. Thankfully the Internet allows us access to the materials and lets us skim over the egos. I am enthused by Morton because he is taking actual risks and treading new ground. The mistakes he makes can be addressed better elsewhere and ridiculed by people with an actual sense of humour. That you lack one and take this more personally than those you supposedly satire is painfully evident.

    • Thanks, James. I was hoping someone like you stops by. Get yourself an extra cookie today for “being enthused” by Morton’s risks and new grounds.

      No one is above pettiness, this post is quintessentially (see, I know big words too) petty. We are all full of jealousy and resentment.

  5. @James sorry buddy but the OOO internet thing is based on the behaviour you’re railing against, Harman et al are hardly shrinking violets in that regard. As for Morton treading new ground I am not quite sure of how original it really is, especially once you remove the Lovecraftian Cthulhu stuff, personally mind-independence isn’t really that shocking but if Morton is good for you, then hey tremendous. .

    • You mean stuff like this: “These beings press on the glass like the uncanny faces in a painting by the Expressionist James Ensor. They are what OOO calls objects, and it’s time to let them in—or rather, to let ourselves out.”

  6. Ummm, does anyone on the internet other than Graham Harman even like Levi Bryant? The Bryant guy is a psycho. Close friend of mine says something about how lawyers were on him for online harassment. Go figure. That’s why I thought James’ “bully” comment was funny. Get a clue my friend. Levi and Harman are real dicks. It’s no surprise they are intensely disliked and I might be making an understatement in saying even that. These guys are hardly innocent in any of this and blogs like the one we are all reading here are only leveling the playing field. Besides, Mikhail has a point. Harman putting over only his buddies through some cheap ass Open Access series with pretty shitty editing hardly inspires me. Quite the opposite. Petty enough? No, just terrible scholarship on Morton’s part and even worse job on Harman’s part if he was responsible for all of the errors.

  7. I went ahead and read a couple of chapters – I am ready to kill myself now, but also I see why “James” is so easily aroused by Morton’s taking risks and so on: it’s very sexy and “innovative” as shit…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s