You cannot select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
52 KiB
52 KiB
In [ ]:
from reportlab.pdfgen.canvas import Canvas from reportlab.lib.pagesizes import letter, A4 from reportlab.lib.units import inch, cm import sys from reportlab.pdfbase.ttfonts import TTFont, pdfmetrics
Creating PDF using the Canvas¶
Instructions
In [ ]:
fontpath = "fonts/OSP-DIN.ttf" font = TTFont('MyFontName', fontpath) pdfmetrics.registerFont(font) c = Canvas("pageloop.pdf", pagesize=A4)
In [ ]:
for i in range(1000): c.setPageSize(A4) print (f"page {i}") c.setFont('MyFontName', 72) # c.drawString(10*cm, 0.5*cm, "Page {0}".format(i)) c.drawCentredString(A4[0]/2, A4[1]/2, "JUPYTER Page {0}".format(i)) c.showPage()
In [ ]:
c.save()
Creating PDF using Platypus¶
In [4]:
from reportlab.lib.pagesizes import A4 from reportlab.platypus import SimpleDocTemplate, Paragraph, Spacer from reportlab.lib.styles import getSampleStyleSheet doc = SimpleDocTemplate("text.pdf", pagesize=A4, rightMargin=72, leftMargin=72, topMargin=72, bottomMargin=18) content = [] styles = getSampleStyleSheet() from urllib.request import urlopen for line in urlopen('https://pad.xpub.nl/p/!%E2%80%93Nina_Power/export/txt'): line = line.strip().decode() print (type(line)) print (line) if line: p = Paragraph('<font size=12>'+line+'</font>', styles["Normal"]) content.append(p) content.append(Spacer(1, 12)) doc.build(content)
<class 'str'> m <class 'str'> <class 'str'> !!!!!!!!!!new pad for group: https://pad.xpub.nl/p/%3F!-Powers <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> undecidabilitynamiclaralouisakendal <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> ! / ? <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Nina Power <class 'str'> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Power <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Nina Power is a philosopher and activist whose writings span European philosophy, politics, feminism, arts and culture. She is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy in the Department of Humanities <class 'str'> at The University of Roehampton. Power is the author of One- Dimensional Woman (2009) and, with Alberto Toscano, co-editor and translator of Alain Badiou’s On Beckett (2003). This essay “!/?”, <class 'str'> on the politics of punctuation, is part of a larger research project concerning contemporary words, symbols and images. Power lives and works in London. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Part 1: ! <class 'str'> <class 'str'> “[T]he entire thrust[0] of the LTI [[i]The Language of the Third Reich[i]] [1b] was towards visualisation, and if this process of visualizing could be achieved with recourse to Germanic traditions, by means of a runic sign*, then so much the better. And as a jagged[2] character the rune of life** was related to the SS symbol***, and as an ideological symbol also related to the spokes of the wheel of the sun[1]****, the swastika [卍, 卐]***** … Renan’s[3] position: the question mark – the most important of all punctuation marks. A position in direct opposition to National Socialist intransigence[4] and self-confidence … From time to time it is possible to detect, both amongst individuals and groups, a characteristic preference for one particular punctuation mark. (>) Academics love the semicolon (;); their hankering [5]after logic demands a division which is more emphatic than a comma(,), but not quite as absolute a demarcation [8] as a full stop. Renan the sceptic declares that it is impossible to overuse the question mark.” – Victor Klemperer,[6] ‘Punctuation[7]’ from [i]The Language of the Third Reich[I][1A] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> 卍Symbols卐: <class 'str'> <class 'str'> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runes#/media/File:Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic_alphabets.png / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions https://www.vikingrune.com/2009/07/norse-runic-third-reich-symbols/ <class 'str'> **https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GxWBIjI3BAw/S7Oq8bjcUvI/AAAAAAAAAZs/fSaKTdpNe6M/s320/Runic_letter_algiz.png <class 'str'> ***https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ2nSDWXKepN554orrf80osPAO5Qx5UW8nM3w&usqp=CAU <class 'str'> ****https://w0.pngwave.com/png/673/230/white-nationalism-black-sun-nazism-symbol-symbol-png-clip-art.png <class 'str'> *****https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Four-swastika_collage_(transparent).png <class 'str'> The word swastika comes from Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक, romanized: svástika, meaning 'conducive to well being'. <class 'str'> First use of runic symbols:(?) by proto-norse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Norse <class 'str'> Appropriation of symbols from other backgrounds/cultures. (Swastika); <class 'str'> <class 'str'> > constant debate about oxford comma - https://www.rd.com/article/oxford-comma-proper-use/ <class 'str'> <class 'str'> [0] thrust -> ""leitmotiv"" // To thrust is to push forward quickly and forcibly, like the way a pirate would plunge or thrust a sword into his enemy. <class 'str'> [1] Alternative names: Sun Cross, Wheel Cross, Solar Cross, Pagan Cross, Woden’s Cross and Odin’s Cross (https://www.ancient-symbols.com/symbols-directory/sun-wheel.html) <class 'str'> [1b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_%E2%80%93_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii <class 'str'> [2] jagged - <class 'str'> mid-15c., "having notches," from verb jaggen (c. 1400) "to pierce, slash, cut; to notch or nick; cut or tear unevenly," a Scottish and northern English word of unknown origin, related to jag (n.2). Originally of garments with regular "toothed" edges; meaning "with the edge irregularly cut" is from 1570s. <class 'str'> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sawtooth-td_and_fd.png <class 'str'> Jagged Character --> ? :) a rough character. <class 'str'> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan Him? also this article in https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/hitler%E2%80%99s-gospel <class 'str'> [4] intransigence [ in-tran-si-juhns] the state or quality of being intransigent, or refusing to compromise or agree; inflexibility: No agreement was reached because of intransigence on both sides. <class 'str'> refusal to change one's views or to agree about something. <class 'str'> [5]to hanker: feel a strong desire for or to do something, can also be described as a hunger for something. <class 'str'> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Klemperer <class 'str'> [7] Punctuation (or sometimes interpunction) is the use of spacing, conventional signs (called punctuation marks), and certain typographical devices as aids to the understanding and correct reading of written text, whether read silently or aloud.[1] Another description is, "It is the practice action or system of inserting points or other small marks into texts in order to aid interpretation; division of text into sentences, clauses, etc., by means of such marks."[2] <class 'str'> [8] demarcation : the action of fixing the boundary or limits of something <class 'str'> <class 'str'> In the era of emojis[😡😡], we have forgotten about the politics of punctuation. Which mark or sign holds sway[0] over us in the age of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube comments, emails, and text messages? If we take the tweets of Donald Trump as some kind of symptomatic indicator[9], we can see quite well that it is the exclamation mark*** [6] – ! – that dominates. A quick look at his tweets from the last 48 hour period shows that almost all of them end with a single declarative sentence or word followed by a ‘!’: ‘Big trade imbalance!’, ‘No more!’, ‘They’ve gone CRAZY!’, ‘Happy National Anthem Day!’, ‘REST IN PEACE BILLY GRAHAM!’, [1]‘IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!’, (we shall leave the matter of all caps for another time), ‘$800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!, ‘Jobless claims at a 49 year low!’ and so on … you get the picture. Trump’s exclamation mark is the equivalent of a boss slamming [8] his fist down on the table, an abusive partner shouting at a tentative[3] query[5], an exasperated [2] shock jock[2b] arguing with an imaginary[4] opponent. It is the exclamation mark as the final word, which would not be so frightening if Trump’s final word was not also [1]backed up by nuclear annihilation [7], the US army, the police, court and prison system, vast swathes [11] of the US media and electorate, and multiple people around him too afraid to say ‘no.’ This is the exclamation mark as apocalypse*, not the ‘!’ of surprise, amusement, girlish shyness, humour, or ironic puncture. This is the exclamation** of doom.[10] [How so?]Because it is backed up by [1]. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> [😡😡] --> state of mind of Trump https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump - at your own risk. 😡 <class 'str'> https://emojitracker.com/ emojitracker: realtime emoji use on twitter <class 'str'> https://medium.com/better-marketing/a-brief-history-of-the-emoji-ee78ff86e619 - brief history of the emoji <class 'str'> Various ways to generate/predict Trump tweets with Python: https://towardsdatascience.com/generate-fake-donald-trump-tweets-using-python-8d83885fd5c6 because it is quiet systematic <class 'str'> Use of CAPITAL letters added to exclamation mark, how to go futher into the boss slamming expression? - what are you interested in there? thinking about how far can it goes with only textx <class 'str'> Exclamation mark as a way to embody the speech, show invovlment, energy. <class 'str'> * apocalypse: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/04/30/we-are-living-apocalypse <class 'str'> Different meanings of the punctuation marks, depending on the support you're writing/reading into <class 'str'> Exclamation mark as way to talk to the peaple / Being informal / and create a contrast with very formal usual way of speaking that is used by most politics <class 'str'> ** exclamation synonyms: a sudden cry or remark expressing surprise, strong emotion, or pain. (cry, call, shout, yell, shriek, roar) <class 'str'> *** exclamation mark: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/exclamation-point-inflation/563774/, history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark <class 'str'> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham - frequently referred to as one of the most influential christian leaders <class 'str'> <class 'str'> [0] holds sway --> what rules what, control/command <class 'str'> [2] exasperated 😡: intensely irritated and frustrated <class 'str'> [2b] Shock jock - a disc jockey on a talk-radio show who expresses opinions in a deliberately offensive or provocative way. <class 'str'> [3] Tentative - of the nature of or made or done as a trial, experiment, or attempt; experimental: a tentative report on her findings. unsure; uncertain; not definite or positive; hesitant: a tentative smile on his face. <class 'str'> [4] imaginary /ɪˈmædʒ.ɪ.nər.i/: Something that is imaginary is created by and exists only in the mind: As a child I had an imaginary friend. / The story is set in an imaginary world. / imaginary fears <class 'str'> [5] Query - question, especially one expressing doubt or requesting information. <class 'str'> [6] exclamation-mark: used to indicate strong feelings or high volume (shouting), or to show emphasis. <class 'str'> [7] extermination <class 'str'> [8] https://tenor.com/search/slamming-door-gifs <class 'str'> [9] symptomatic indicator: If you're symptomatic, you might be sick. <class 'str'> [10] the big goodbye :( <class 'str'> [11] Swathes - a broad strip or area of something <class 'str'> <class 'str'> The writer is making a link between Nazi rhetoric and Trump rhetoric. the sign SS=!> <class 'str'> non-verbal signs and how they are used ideologically <class 'str'> changes of use of symbols / signs in different times <class 'str'> difference between syntax and symbol <class 'str'> <class 'str'> The [i]Sturm and Drang[i] [1] needed an unusually large number of exclamation marks, suggests Klemperer, and, though you might suspect the LTI ([i]Lingua Tertii Imperii[i] [2]– the language of the Third Reich [3] as Klemperer calls it) would adore the exclamation mark, “given its fundamentally rhetorical nature and constant appeal to the emotions,” in actual fact “they are not at all conspicuous[4]” in Nazi writings.[2A] Why did the Nazis not need the exclamation mark? Klemperer states, “[i]t is as if [the LTI] turns everything into a command or proclamation as a matter of course and therefore has no need of a special punctuation mark to highlight the fact – where after all are the sober utterances[5] against which the proclamation would need to stand out?”[3A] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> -> Assertiveness of speech was obvious and did not need to be reinforced by exclamation marks ?! The point of nazis was to come across assertive but controlled. Trump is performing emotional involvement by using this symbol of exclamation. <class 'str'> Why did the Nazis not need the exclamation mark? Due also to the fact that the speechs were mainly oral; while now we use th exclamation marks to draw attention on digital devices. <class 'str'> It seems that in some way, the "!" is becoming a !!!sign!!! rather than a symbol with specific purpose. Since Nazi had no oppositions parties, they don't need to stand up with the voice. Anything told by Nazis was supposed to be true; without any kind of discussion. <class 'str'> Not using exclamation mark could be interpretated/experienced by the reader a sign of natural authority; tranquil strengh. <class 'str'> You don't necessarily need an exclamation mark to reach the people and make you understand from the others, as long as you already have the people's attention and respect, <class 'str'> or peaple had just no choice to listen to you or follow your ideas. <class 'str'> yes or as long as opposition is suppressed: "from rational debate, to well-researched news, to public and open discussion – when these go, the exclamation marks will go too" <class 'str'> In Javascript the ! before a function gives to that function priority!!! <class 'str'> During Nazi era, radio was the most used media, and radio was also in some streets, so you basicaly had (almost) no choice to listen to it. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> This point alone should herald [5a] a terrible warning. “Sober utterances[5][Expressions]” – from rational debate, to well-researched news, to public and open discussion – when these go, the exclamation marks will go too, because there will be no opposition left to be falsely outraged[9] against. There will be no critical press, no free thought, no social antagonism[6], because anyone who stands against the dominant discourse[7] will disappear, and perhaps social death will suffice, rather than murder, if only because it is easier to do. When Trump and others attack the media[8], it is so that one day their tweets will no longer need the exclamation of opposition. It is so that all statements from above will be a command or proclamation[12] in a frictionless, opposition-less universe. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> -> Exclamation mark as a symbol for screaming into nothing?? So therefore Trump is having a monologue and cancelling opposing statements? <class 'str'> <class 'str'> But we are also tempted by the exclamation mark because it is also a sign, in some contexts, of another kind of disbelief[10]. Not the Trump kind in which he cannot reconcile [10b] the fact that others disagree with him (or even that they exist), but the kind which simply says ‘oh my goodness!’ or ‘that’s great!’ or ‘I’m shocked/surprised/happy stunned!’ But then we use them all the time and *they grow tired and weak…and we use them defensively, [13] when we say: ‘I’m sorry this email is so late!’, ‘I have been so useless lately!’, ‘I’m so tired I can hardly see!’ and so on, ad infinitum[11] … (and what of the ellipses? … another time, another time). [ellipses =...] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> *they grow tired and weak : by abusing it too often, the value of the exclamation mark has been faded away.. <class 'str'> . <class 'str'> - also related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetition_compulsion <class 'str'> <class 'str'> (original notes of the author) <class 'str'> 1a. Klemperer, Victor. [i]Language of the Third Reich: LTI: Lingua Tertii Imperii[i]. Translated by Martin Brady. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. <class 'str'> 2a. Ibid. 67. <class 'str'> 3a. Ibid. 67. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> [1] Sturm and Drang: ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm_und_Drang ) : <class 'str'> "Sturm und Drang [ˈʃtʊɐ̯m ʊnt ˈdʁaŋ]1 (lit. "Storm and Passion") is a German political and literary movement of the second half of the 18th century. <class 'str'> It corresponds to a phase of radicalization in the long period of Enlightenment (Aufklärung). " <class 'str'> [2] translates to "Language of the Third Reich" <class 'str'> [3] Third Reich: official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945 <class 'str'> [4] conspicuous: clearly visible. / attracting notice or attention. <class 'str'> [5]utterance - a statement, therefore a sober utterance is a statement without emotion or intention <class 'str'> [5a] Herald - a person or thing viewed as a sign that something is about to happen. <class 'str'> [6] antagonism - see Chantal Mouffe - on the political: she uses agonism as apposed to antagonism <class 'str'> antagonism is two conflicting parties that have no common ground; enemies <class 'str'> Mouffe: <class 'str'> "... antagonism is a us / them relationship in which enemies face each other who have no common ground whatsoever, <class 'str'> agonism is a us / them relationship in which the conflicting parties recognize the legitimacy of their opponents, even though they see no rational solution exists. ' <class 'str'> They are in conflict, but see each other as participants of the same political community, - a common symbolic space within which the conflict takes place. <class 'str'> According to Mouffe democracy has to convert antagonism into agonism. <class 'str'> [7] Discourse - written or spoken communication or debate. <class 'str'> [8]https://www.thoughtco.com/media-medium-and-mediums-1689581 <class 'str'> [9] concept of social media outrage - https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/09/25/molly-crockett-social-media-outrage/ <class 'str'> [10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy <class 'str'> [10b] Reconcile - restore friendly relations between. <class 'str'> [11] ad infinitum - forever <class 'str'> [12] proclamation a public or official announcement dealing with a matter of great importance. <class 'str'> [13] https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/exclamation-points-and-periods-are-causing-anxiety-the-solution-is-full-exclamation-point-amnesty.html <class 'str'> <class 'str'> If you look at the comments to YouTube videos (a sentence to which nothing good is ever likely to be added), you will find a particular use of the exclamation mark. Take, for example, the currently number one trending video: ‘Jennifer Lawrence Explains Her Drunk Alter Ego “Gail”’[1], where the actress talks to Ellen DeGeneres on the latter’s popular programme ‘The Ellen Show’ about how when she’s on holiday and drinks rum she becomes a masculine, adrenalin-junkie, alter-ego ‘Gail’ who jumps into shark-infested waters to amuse her friends, eats live sea creatures, and challenges people to arm-wrestling competitions. Apart from the slight melancholy induced by wondering why Jennifer Lawrence has to split herself into different beings in order to have a break from work, how does the ‘public’ response to the video tell us anything about the various uses of the exclamation mark? While many of the comments suggest that Lawrence is the victim of MKUltra [1b]] mind control, and a victim of child abuse, or that she is fake, some of the comments shed a small, pitiful, grey kind of light on the exclamation mark as a kind of pleading into the void [2]– the mark that will never be registered, because the speaker is speaking primarily to reassure him or herself. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> There is the pleading, compassionate use: “love how she is so open!Ò” says Kailey Bashaw, to which Oliver 2000 responds, “Yeah I love her porn pictures” with no punctuation at all[8]. Lauren Robelto writes: “Everybody commenting about alcoholism makes me so sad. She’s worked very hard and just wants to take a break and have fun and everyone’s criticizes her. Honestly if I were her I wouldn't be able to stop drinking because of all the hate! Lighten up people! JLaw is gonna keep thriving with or without your support!!” A similar kind of plea, the plea of the fan, a plea for understanding combined with a passive-aggressive[6] double use of *the exclamation mark to signify a kind of double-triumph**: the commentator has both convinced themselves and history that leaving negative (or indeed positive) comments [11] on YouTube will in no way affect the reception of whoever they are passionate about. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> There is a footnote in Marx’s [2][Capital, vol. 1 which does something interesting with the relation between the exclamation mark and the question mark, and I want to insert it here as the perfect dialectical [3] extract for moving from the exclamation mark to the question mark. Here Marx is quoting Wilhelm Roscher writing about J. B. Say, the liberal economist famous for arguing that production creates its own demand. All the comments in parentheses[7] are Marx’s own: “‘Ricardo’s school is in the habit of including capital[9] as accumulated labour under the heading of labour. This is unskillful (!), because (!) indeed the owner of capital (!) has after all (!) done more than merely (!?) create (?) and preserve (??) the same (what same?): namely (?!?) the abstention from the enjoyment of it, in return for which he demands, for instance (!!!) interest.’ How very ‘skilful’ is this ‘anatomico-physiological[10] method’ [4]of political economy, which converts a mere ‘demand’ into a source of value!”[4a] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Marx was famously brutal and scabrous[5] in his take-downs, devoting hundreds of pages to figures that are now barely remembered, or remembered largely because Marx took them down. But here our interest lies in the use of ‘!’ and ‘?’ and ‘!?’ and ‘??’ and ‘?!?’ and ‘!!!’[0]. What is Marx signalling here? Disbelief in idiocy [stupidity], incomprehension, mockery, but also perhaps a curious hope. Hope? Hope in a better analysis, one worthier of the world, one that will explain rather than mystify…[12] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> [0]exclamation Marx haha <class 'str'> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mctn16hLzhg <class 'str'> [1b] MK Ultra= CIA funded programme (LSD research-"mind control experiments 1950s-60s) . Experiments on humans which were intended to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations in order to weaken the individual and force confessions through mind control. <class 'str'> Prince's book on it:nhttps://unglueit-files.s3.amazonaws.com/ebf/22eed392946f4b64a8c22d1ed10d83d8.pdf <class 'str'> [2] void a completely empty space. <class 'str'> [3] Dialectic is defined as the art of determining the truth by the logical exchange of ideas and opinions. A philosophical, logical discussion using questions and answers on ethics or social problems is an example of dialectic. <class 'str'> [5] Scabrous - rough and covered with, or as if with, scabs./ indecent; salacious. <class 'str'> [6] passive-aggressive (People with passive-aggressive behavior express their negative feelings subtly through their actions instead of handling them directly.) <class 'str'> [7] Parentheses - in (brackets)/ to insert an explanation/comment on the text, Marx uses it in a way that comments and also then changes the text <class 'str'> [8] Oliver2000 probably is from 2000, the generational gap brings also to have total differences in writings, on shape and contents so no marks yes porn; <class 'str'> *: ! can be contextualized in many different ways, which can be easily used with a political purpose in communication / ideology / propaganda? <class 'str'> ** also the fullstop, in the internet, sounds a bit "parental" to... millenials (?) <class 'str'> -> yes, it can be deceptive sometimes... <class 'str'> [9] capital wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available for a purpose such as starting a company or investing. <class 'str'> [10] anatomico-physiological Relating both to anatomy and to physiology. ->anatomical: relating to the body structure of organisms + physiological: relating to the way in which a living organism or bodily part functions. Haberlandt proposed the 'anatomico-physiological' classification in his classical book 'Physiological Plant Anatomy'. In his classification, function has been taken as the sole criterion while the origin, nature of cells, their topography and other characters were thoroughly ignored. <class 'str'> [11] https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2016/10/why-are-youtube-comments-worst-internet <class 'str'> [12] mystify: make obscure or mysterious. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> -> punctionation changes intonation, changes text, changes meaning <class 'str'> differenct kind (combination?) of punctuation give different kind of tensions and impacts in the reading experience <class 'str'> can serve as an addition or a standalone thing. <class 'str'> comment: is a reaction not a question or discussion. Different way of engaging. different reason. <class 'str'> Comment section: where peaple express themselves for different reasons: making a statement, asking a question, congratuling, criticizing, replying to another comment, etc... <class 'str'> The internet has a lot of places to have discources. <class 'str'> Marx is constantly searching for a nuance when positioning '!' and '?' in between words <class 'str'> How you read an exclamation mark is personal. Maybe different for every person/ culturally? How do you pronounce it? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/!!! ) <class 'str'> The meaning or use of an exclamation mark is different in parts of the world(overview on wiki): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark <class 'str'> Emojis offers the possibility to express a very specific state of mind / statement / mood inside a text <class 'str'> <class 'str'> ! !! !!! as levels of intensity. How to you make the sound of intensity? It depends on what is being intensified. -> ambiguity <class 'str'> commenting on YouTube as a way of processing content individually <class 'str'> emphasis on power and how holds it. punctuation as power tools. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Nienke and Steve note: There is some very useful annotation being done here. There is still room for more discussion about the text. It would be interesting to record more of the sorts of discussions and thoughts the text generated during the reading-annotation process. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Please try this - METHOD: in a group of 4- two people have a conversation about the text and 2 people take notes about what is being said. After 10 mins – swap places. Repeat. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Part 2: ? <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Are we today in need of more question marks? Klemperer describes, as above, the question mark as being “in direct opposition to National Socialist intransigence and self-confidence.”[5] The question mark is itself a question, a kind of collapsed exclamation mark. A question mark can be an act of aggression or interruption: ‘oh really?’ But it can also function as a kind of pause, a break in the horrible flow, the babble, the endless lies. The question mark is the person who says ‘hang on, what is being said here?’, ‘what is happening?’, ‘is this okay?’ It is the question of the body that stands against the crowd, head bowed, frightened, but compelled by an inner question of their own – ‘is this the right thing, what they are saying?’ It is the feeling and the admission that one doesn’t know, and the intuition that there might not be a simple answer to the situation. We are surrounded by people who want to give us their solutions, who tell us how things work, what we should think, how we should be, how we should behave. There are too few Socratic beings, and far too many self-promoters, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, liars, confidence tricksters. We want to be nice, but we end up getting played. Anyone who claims to have ‘the full picture’ is someone who wants an image of the world to dominate you so you shut up or give them something they want. They are not your friends. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> How to understand the question mark as a symbol, then, of trust? There must be room for exploration, of a mutual, tentative openness. A place where it is possible to say ‘I don’t know’ and not feel ashamed or ignorant, or foolish, or unkind. The internet is so often a place where people are shunned and shamed for asking questions, as if ignorance wasn’t a condition for knowledge, and as if we never wanted anyone to go beyond the things everybody already understands. Sometimes ‘ignorance’ is in fact the greatest kind of intelligence, and sometimes it is the most noble political strategy. Philosophy and psychoanalysis tells us that, in any case, we in fact know less than we think we do know. Knowledge and understanding are not transparent processes: we bury and forget, we lose the ability to ask questions of ourselves, and we when we think we understand ourselves this is when we dismiss others. We want to think that we are solely good, that we have the ‘right position,’ and that the others are wrong. But if we give up on our inner question mark, we become rigid, like the exclamation mark of condemnation. We forget that other people think differently and that not everyone must think the same thing. We forget about friendship, flexibility, and forgiveness. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> If we do not give ourselves enough time to think about the politics of punctuation, we run the risk of being swept away on a wave of someone else’s desire. We become passive pawns and stooges. We become victims of the malign desires of others to silence us, to put us down, to make us terrified and confused. Punctuation is not merely linguistic, but imagistic and political through and through. The ! and the ? are signs among other signs, but their relation and their power course through us when we are least aware of it. When we are face to face, we can use our expressions, our body as a whole, to dramatize these marks, with a raised eyebrow, a gesture, a shrug – a complex combination of the two marks can appear in and about us. But we are apart much of the time, and we must rely on markers that do not capture our collective understanding. We must be in a mode of play with the words and the punctuation we use, to keep a certain openness, a certain humour: not the cruelty of online life or the declarations of the powerful, but the delicate humour that includes the recognition that jokes are always aggressive, and that we live permanently on the edge of violence, but that we must be able to play if we are able to understand our drives, and, at the same time, the possibility of living together differently. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Footnotes <class 'str'> 1a. Klemperer, Victor. [i]Language of the Third Reich: LTI: Lingua Tertii Imperii[i]. Translated by Martin Brady. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. <class 'str'> 2a. Ibid. 67. <class 'str'> 3a. Ibid. 67. <class 'str'> 4a. Marx, Karl. [i]Capital, Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy.[i] New York: International Publishers, 1977. 82. <class 'str'> 5a. Klemperer, Victor. [i]Language of the Third Reich: LTI: Lingua Tertii Imperii[i]. 74. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Original text: just in case we would mess around to much with it and not be able to read it smoothly anymore: <class 'str'> <class 'str'> “[T]he entire thrust of the LTI [[i]The Langue of the Third Reich[i]] was towards visualisation, and if this process of visualizing could be achieved with recourse to Germanic traditions, by means of a runic sign, then so much the better. And as a jagged character the rune of life was related to the SS symbol, and as an ideological symbol also related to the spokes of the wheel of the sun, the swastika … Renan’s position: the question mark – the most important of all punctuation marks. A position in direct opposition to National Socialist intransigence and self-confidence … From time to time it is possible to detect, both amongst individuals and groups, a characteristic preference for one particular punctuation mark. Academics love the semicolon; their hankering after logic demands a division which is more emphatic than a comma, but not quite as absolute a demarcation as a full stop. Renan the sceptic declares that it is impossible to overuse the question mark.” – Victor Klemperer, ‘Punctuation’ from [i]The Language of the Third Reich[I][1] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> In the era of emojis, we have forgotten about the politics of punctuation. Which mark or sign holds sway over us in the age of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube comments, emails, and text messages? If we take the tweets of Donald Trump as some kind of symptomatic indicator, we can see quite well that it is the exclamation mark – ! – that dominates. A quick look at his tweets from the last 48 hour period shows that almost all of them end with a single declarative sentence or word followed by a ‘!’: ‘Big trade imbalance!’, ‘No more!’, ‘They’ve gone CRAZY!’, ‘Happy National Anthem Day!’, ‘REST IN PEACE BILLY GRAHAM!’, ‘IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!’, (we shall leave the matter of all caps for another time), ‘$800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!, ‘Jobless claims at a 49 year low!’ and so on … you get the picture. Trump’s exclamation mark is the equivalent of a boss slamming his fist down on the table, an abusive partner shouting at a tentative query, an exasperated shock jock arguing with an imaginary opponent. It is the exclamation mark as the final word, which would not be so frightening if Trump’s final word was not also backed up by nuclear annihilation, the US army, the police, court and prison system, vast swathes of the US media and electorate, and multiple people around him too afraid to say ‘no.’ This is the exclamation mark as apocalypse, not the ‘!’ of surprise, amusement, girlish shyness, humour, or ironic puncture. This is the exclamation of doom. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> The [i]Sturm and Drang[i] needed an unusually large number of exclamation marks, suggests Klemperer, and, though you might suspect the LTI ([i]Lingua Tertii Imperii[i] – the language of the Third Reich as Klemperer calls it) would adore the exclamation mark, “given its fundamentally rhetorical nature and constant appeal to the emotions,” in actual fact “they are not at all conspicuous” in Nazi writings.[2] Why did the Nazis not need the exclamation mark? Klemperer states, “[i]t is as if [the LTI] turns everything into a command or proclamation as a matter of course and therefore has no need of a special punctuation mark to highlight the fact – where after all are the sober utterances against which the proclamation would need to stand out?”[3] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> This point alone should herald a terrible warning. “Sober utterances” – from rational debate, to well-researched news, to public and open discussion – when these go, the exclamation marks will go too, because there will be no opposition left to be falsely outraged against. There will be no critical press, no free thought, no social antagonism, because anyone who stands against the dominant discourse will disappear, and perhaps social death will suffice, rather than murder, if only because it is easier to do. When Trump and others attack the media, it is so that one day their tweets will no longer need the exclamation of opposition. It is so that all statements from above will be a command or proclamation in a frictionless, opposition-less universe. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> But we are also tempted by the exclamation mark because it is also a sign, in some contexts, of another kind of disbelief. Not the Trump kind in which he cannot reconcile the fact that others disagree with him (or even that they exist), but the kind which simply says ‘oh my goodness!’ or ‘that’s great!’ or ‘I’m shocked/surprised/happy stunned!’ But then we use them all the time and they grow tired and weak…and we use them defensively, when we say: ‘I’m sorry this email is so late!’, ‘I have been so useless lately!’, ‘I’m so tired I can hardly see!’ and so on, ad infinitum … (and what of the ellipses? … another time, another time). <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> If you look at the comments to YouTube videos (a sentence to which nothing good is ever likely to be added), you will find a particular use of the exclamation mark. Take, for example, the currently number one trending video: ‘Jennifer Lawrence Explains Her Drunk Alter Ego “Gail”’, where the actress talks to Ellen DeGeneres on the latter’s popular programme ‘The Ellen Show’ about how when she’s on holiday and drinks rum she becomes a masculine, adrenalin-junkie, alter-ego ‘Gail’ who jumps into shark-infested waters to amuse her friends, eats live sea creatures, and challenges people to arm-wrestling competitions. Apart from the slight melancholy induced by wondering why Jennifer Lawrence has to split herself into different beings in order to have a break from work, how does the ‘public’ response to the video tell us anything about the various uses of the exclamation mark? While many of the comments suggest that Lawrence is the victim of MKUltra mind control, and a victim of child abuse, or that she is fake, some of the comments shed a small, pitiful, grey kind of light on the exclamation mark as a kind of pleading into the void – the mark that will never be registered, because the speaker is speaking primarily to reassure him or herself. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> There is the pleading, compassionate use: “love how she is so open!Ò” says Kailey Bashaw, to which Oliver 2000 responds, “Yeah I love her porn pictures” with no punctuation at all. Lauren Robelto writes: “Everybody commenting about alcoholism makes me so sad. She’s worked very hard and just wants to take a break and have fun and everyone’s criticizes her. Honestly if I were her I wouldn't be able to stop drinking because of all the hate! Lighten up people! JLaw is gonna keep thriving with or without your support!!” A similar kind of plea, the plea of the fan, a plea for understanding combined with a passive-aggressive double use of the exclamation mark to signify a kind of double-triumph: the commentator has both convinced themselves and history that leaving negative (or indeed positive) comments on YouTube will in no way affect the reception of whoever they are passionate about. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> There is a footnote in Marx’s [i]Capital[i], vol. 1 which does something interesting with the relation between the exclamation mark and the question mark, and I want to insert it here as the perfect dialectical extract for moving from the exclamation mark to the question mark. Here Marx is quoting Wilhelm Roscher writing about J. B. Say, the liberal economist famous for arguing that production creates its own demand. All the comments in parentheses are Marx’s own: “‘Ricardo’s school is in the habit of including capital as accumulated labour under the heading of labour. This is unskillful (!), because (!) indeed the owner of capital (!) has after all (!) done more than merely (!?) create (?) and preserve (??) the same (what same?): namely (?!?) the abstention from the enjoyment of it, in return for which he demands, for instance (!!!) interest.’ How very ‘skilful’ is this ‘anatomico-physiological method’ of political economy, which converts a mere ‘demand’ into a source of value!”[4] <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Marx was famously brutal and scabrous in his take-downs, devoting hundreds of pages to figures that are now barely remembered, or remembered largely because Marx took them down. But here our interest lies in the use of ‘!’ and ‘?’ and ‘!?’ and ‘??’ and ‘?!?’ and ‘!!!’. What is Marx signalling here? Disbelief in idiocy, incomprehension, mockery, but also perhaps a curious hope. Hope? Hope in a better analysis, one worthier of the world, one that will explain rather than mystify… <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Part 2: ? <class 'str'> <class 'str'> Are we today in need of more question marks? Klemperer describes, as above, the question mark as being “in direct opposition to National Socialist intransigence and self-confidence.”[5] The question mark is itself a question, a kind of collapsed exclamation mark. A question mark can be an act of aggression or interruption: ‘oh really?’ But it can also function as a kind of pause, a break in the horrible flow, the babble, the endless lies. The question mark is the person who says ‘hang on, what is being said here?’, ‘what is happening?’, ‘is this okay?’ It is the question of the body that stands against the crowd, head bowed, frightened, but compelled by an inner question of their own – ‘is this the right thing, what they are saying?’ It is the feeling and the admission that one doesn’t know, and the intuition that there might not be a simple answer to the situation. We are surrounded by people who want to give us their solutions, who tell us how things work, what we should think, how we should be, how we should behave. There are too few Socratic beings, and far too many self-promoters, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, liars, confidence tricksters. We want to be nice, but we end up getting played. Anyone who claims to have ‘the full picture’ is someone who wants an image of the world to dominate you so you shut up or give them something they want. They are not your friends. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> How to understand the question mark as a symbol, then, of trust? There must be room for exploration, of a mutual, tentative openness. A place where it is possible to say ‘I don’t know’ and not feel ashamed or ignorant, or foolish, or unkind. The internet is so often a place where people are shunned and shamed for asking questions, as if ignorance wasn’t a condition for knowledge, and as if we never wanted anyone to go beyond the things everybody already understands. Sometimes ‘ignorance’ is in fact the greatest kind of intelligence, and sometimes it is the most noble political strategy. Philosophy and psychoanalysis tells us that, in any case, we in fact know less than we think we do know. Knowledge and understanding are not transparent processes: we bury and forget, we lose the ability to ask questions of ourselves, and we when we think we understand ourselves this is when we dismiss others. We want to think that we are solely good, that we have the ‘right position,’ and that the others are wrong. But if we give up on our inner question mark, we become rigid, like the exclamation mark of condemnation. We forget that other people think differently and that not everyone must think the same thing. We forget about friendship, flexibility, and forgiveness. <class 'str'> <class 'str'> <class 'str'> If we do not give ourselves enough time to think about the politics of punctuation, we run the risk of being swept away on a wave of someone else’s desire. We become passive pawns and stooges. We become victims of the malign desires of others to silence us, to put us down, to make us terrified and confused. Punctuation is not merely linguistic, but imagistic and political through and through. The ! and the ? are signs among other signs, but their relation and their power course through us when we are least aware of it. When we are face to face, we can use our expressions, our body as a whole, to dramatize these marks, with a raised eyebrow, a gesture, a shrug – a complex combination of the two marks can appear in and about us. But we are apart much of the time, and we must rely on markers that do not capture our collective understanding. We must be in a mode of play with the words and the punctuation we use, to keep a certain openness, a certain humour: not the cruelty of online life or the declarations of the powerful, but the delicate humour that includes the recognition that jokes are always aggressive, and that we live permanently on the edge of violence, but that we must be able to play if we are able to understand our drives, and, at the same time, the possibility of living together differently. <class 'str'>
In [ ]: