63-What hides under the spectacular oppositions is a unity of misery. Behind the masks of total choice, different forms of the same alienation confront each other, all of them built on real contradictions which are repressed. The spectacle exists in a concentrated or a diffuse form depending on the necessities of the particular stage of misery which it denies and supports. In both cases, the spectacle is nothing more than an image of happy unification surrounded by desolation and fear at the tranquil center of misery.
Guy Debord - Society of the Spectacle
And it suddenly occurs to me that tomorrow is a work day.. I blame it on the 3 episodes of Criminal Minds I just watched.
To my fellow Camus disciples: on YouTube, there are a handful of mini BBC documentaries (or it’s just one documentary chopped up) about the great French-Algerian that I’d urge you to watch. Lots of old footage and revealing interviews with people who knew Camus personally. The one above centers on Camus winning the Nobel Prize and, relatedly, the Algerian question. I didn’t realize that the honor was a source of such dismay for Camus, who felt the French writer Andre Malraux would’ve been a more deserving and appropriately aged recipient. Indeed, the younger Camus apparently bristled at the fading-career implications that some attached to the Prize. He believed that his most important literary contributions were as-of-yet unwritten. Also, I will forever be irked by the criticism that Camus was “behind history” on the matter of Algerian independence. His vision of a peaceful federation did not prevail, and it may have always been folly. But what does it mean to be “behind history” when that same “history” would soon bless Algeria with decades of civil war, sectarianism, and authoritarian rule? This was not capital H “History” as capital P “Progress.” So often it isn’t. If anything, I think it’d be more fitting to say that Camus was “ahead of history,” a prophetic voice against the dangerous designs of revolutionary (that is, violent) justice.