This might be the greatest explanation of fantasy and jouissance I've encountered. Also a big fan of your podcast. However, can you get rid of the cut/swoosh sound FX in the forthcoming videos? It's twice as loud as the voiceover. Keep up the great work!
Understanding Lacan is a fantasy. You imagine the final scene where you understand everything Lacan ever said and be able to explain it to everyone. Since Lacan is known as one of the most difficult thinkers in history, you receive accolades and admiration from everyone. You are regarded as one of the smartest people alive. Every book you publish becomes a bestseller. Countless academics cite your work. You are invited to speak at all the prestigious institutions, and you get to debate with Jordan Peterson, at which point you realize you didn't want this fantasy to come true.
Another great video, Todd! Thanks! Your work is having a big influence on mine. If I could make a request, please do us all a favor and make a video on the concept of the phallus (phallic signifier, phallic function, etc.). That would be a huge help. Anyway, keep up the great work!
excellent video thank you so much for your channel. just one criticism to the style of presentation, please remove those sound effects in between your slides, it's annoying/distracting and gives the video the feeling of a power point
R. L. Stevenson said, _to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive._ Would traversing the fantasy here (rather than avoiding it in continued pursuit) mean to embrace the lack awaiting one’s arrival? Perhaps I’m saying that wrong.. is this relatable in that sense?
This is mind-blowing, thank you. I have a question about when fantasy functions as reactionary/conservative. You said fantasy functions thus when the subject resists involvement in subconsciously enjoying the loss, and you reference Lacan's idea of 'traversing the fantasy'. On a very experiential level, I myself, find myself keeping emotional distance at the moments in a story (say a movie, or TV show) when the loss is being explored as a response to my having identified something neoliberal and ideological about the story. And I do find myself, impatiently wanting to skip to the end, to see the point where the object of desire is met. So when you said that it really resonated with me, but almost in the opposite sense you related it to us... i.e. its only when my alarm bells about a narrative being some kind of capitalistic, reactionary propaganda are NOT triggered do I feel I invest fully in the loss of the narrative, and thus the whole story. Am I kidding myself here? Any idea what is going on here? Or am I misunderstanding?
And I guess that raises an interesting point about how much a subject consuming a fantasy presented to them can consciously craft their response to it. By your lights, someone not fully investing receives fantasy as a reconciliation to our lack, as reactionary ideologically, where someone fully investing can receive a fantasy (when the loss is alluded to in the final object) as a radical piece of art that allows them to embrace lack rather than reconcile to it. To what extent are subjects, speaking beings, conscripted into experiencing stories in a certain way? To what extent do stories thus imposed upon us (text, film, etc) differ from 'choose your own adventures' where there is an illusion of participation by the subject (gaming, computer gaming, or interactive TV like Bandersnatch)?
Thanks for the question. One's response to the fantasy is always mediated by knowledge and political position--one's own desire. So it's not impossible to respond to the fantasy in the exact opposite way that the creator's design.
The type of ending your talking about i.e. of Blade Runner, reminds me of the ending of The Hunt? (The Danish film with Mads Mikkelsen) or I might not understand what you're talking about but great video nonetheless
hey Todd how are you you mentioned here that not all fantasy works ideologically, or that fantasy can be non ideological. but, maybe i missed it if you explained it, i’m not sure what that means or looks like? thanks **
Most fantasies can function in a nonideological way if one relates to them in the right way, if one recognizes that the enjoyment that fantasy provides depends on the loss that it envisions. It's when one focuses on attaining the fantasy object that fantasy necessarily functions ideologically. By paying attention to the form of the fantasy and to how it organizes enjoyment, this spell is broken, I would say.
This might be the greatest explanation of fantasy and jouissance I've encountered. Also a big fan of your podcast. However, can you get rid of the cut/swoosh sound FX in the forthcoming videos? It's twice as loud as the voiceover. Keep up the great work!
Understanding Lacan is a fantasy. You imagine the final scene where you understand everything Lacan ever said and be able to explain it to everyone. Since Lacan is known as one of the most difficult thinkers in history, you receive accolades and admiration from everyone. You are regarded as one of the smartest people alive. Every book you publish becomes a bestseller. Countless academics cite your work. You are invited to speak at all the prestigious institutions, and you get to debate with Jordan Peterson, at which point you realize you didn't want this fantasy to come true.
Bhahahahaha, very well put
I like to think that even Lacan didn't understand himself
What is that bark sound every time a slide passes?!
Great video regardless. Really appreciate this series from Todd.
Another great video, Todd! Thanks! Your work is having a big influence on mine. If I could make a request, please do us all a favor and make a video on the concept of the phallus (phallic signifier, phallic function, etc.). That would be a huge help. Anyway, keep up the great work!
Your blog is also great, helped me a lot too!
@@HS-bh9dz Glad you like it! Thanks!
This made everything click for me, thanks.
Please omit the sound effects they’re a bit distracting. Otherwise a superb video as usual. Thank you 🙏🏾
This video is very helpful but the weird sound in between slides is driving me nuts!
excellent video thank you so much for your channel. just one criticism to the style of presentation, please remove those sound effects in between your slides, it's annoying/distracting and gives the video the feeling of a power point
R. L. Stevenson said, _to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive._ Would traversing the fantasy here (rather than avoiding it in continued pursuit) mean to embrace the lack awaiting one’s arrival? Perhaps I’m saying that wrong.. is this relatable in that sense?
Yes, that's right
Todd McGowan hell ya
Exactly what I needed for my screenwriting classes, great video!
Everyone remembers that Chewie didn't get a medal :D
Exactly! The loss pervades the recovery!
Could you analogise the function of loss and attainment in fantasy to the function of production and realisation of surplus value in capitalism?
I think that something like this is right. I'm working on another book on capitalism that does address this question.
This is mind-blowing, thank you. I have a question about when fantasy functions as reactionary/conservative. You said fantasy functions thus when the subject resists involvement in subconsciously enjoying the loss, and you reference Lacan's idea of 'traversing the fantasy'. On a very experiential level, I myself, find myself keeping emotional distance at the moments in a story (say a movie, or TV show) when the loss is being explored as a response to my having identified something neoliberal and ideological about the story. And I do find myself, impatiently wanting to skip to the end, to see the point where the object of desire is met. So when you said that it really resonated with me, but almost in the opposite sense you related it to us... i.e. its only when my alarm bells about a narrative being some kind of capitalistic, reactionary propaganda are NOT triggered do I feel I invest fully in the loss of the narrative, and thus the whole story. Am I kidding myself here? Any idea what is going on here? Or am I misunderstanding?
And I guess that raises an interesting point about how much a subject consuming a fantasy presented to them can consciously craft their response to it. By your lights, someone not fully investing receives fantasy as a reconciliation to our lack, as reactionary ideologically, where someone fully investing can receive a fantasy (when the loss is alluded to in the final object) as a radical piece of art that allows them to embrace lack rather than reconcile to it. To what extent are subjects, speaking beings, conscripted into experiencing stories in a certain way? To what extent do stories thus imposed upon us (text, film, etc) differ from 'choose your own adventures' where there is an illusion of participation by the subject (gaming, computer gaming, or interactive TV like Bandersnatch)?
Thanks for the question. One's response to the fantasy is always mediated by knowledge and political position--one's own desire. So it's not impossible to respond to the fantasy in the exact opposite way that the creator's design.
Todd McGowan thanks, sorry in retrospect a bit of a meandering point on my side. Love your work, learning a lot
The type of ending your talking about i.e. of Blade Runner, reminds me of the ending of The Hunt? (The Danish film with Mads Mikkelsen) or I might not understand what you're talking about but great video nonetheless
hey Todd how are you
you mentioned here that not all fantasy works ideologically, or that fantasy can be non ideological. but, maybe i missed it if you explained it, i’m not sure what that means or looks like? thanks **
Most fantasies can function in a nonideological way if one relates to them in the right way, if one recognizes that the enjoyment that fantasy provides depends on the loss that it envisions. It's when one focuses on attaining the fantasy object that fantasy necessarily functions ideologically. By paying attention to the form of the fantasy and to how it organizes enjoyment, this spell is broken, I would say.
Is the real core of phantasy mentioned at the end object a?
Yes, that is the confrontation with the nothingness of the object
Is narrative only possible because of fantasy? Is narrative fundamentally fantastical?
Yes, I think that's right. Fantasy is at the basis of narrative. Or it narrativizes our desire.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Thanks very much
Nice!
Fantasy can also be teleological.
Maybe it always is