/lit/ - Literature

>>10186477
>But I think we have gone a little off topic with all the race stuff.
You're 100% correct. It's honestly a topic I usually prefer to avoid like the plague. It's a far cry from what OP was asking about originally and, from a Girardian standpoint, more of a self-proving kind of lesson than anything else. The fact that conversations about race almost *immediately* spiral into craziness don't prove that he was wrong about anything...more that he was right about everything. Apologies then for getting too carried away with it. Moving on.

>Girard said scapegoating doesn't work anymore since humanity has became aware of it.
This is kind of an amazing point, when you think about it. Because he's right, and you're wise, I think, to bring this up. Here I understand the point being that it's not that we can't victimize or destroy other people, it's that we *can't feel good about it.* Which is enough to say that the myth-goggles aren't working. And who could argue that they aren't? We know the current situation sucks -
that much, at least. We just don't know how to fix it. At least, that's how I interpret that.

>>10186569
>girardian cinema
It's an interesting question. Zizek is a master with films, and Girard's stuff seems to be more popular with literature than cinema. It might be too easy to just say that they're talking about, ultimately, the same things. For a more explicitly Girardian film? I might go with Fail Safe, a 1964 Cold War drama about nuclear war. This is more in his Clauswitzian sense than his biblical/anthropological sense, but similar themes: the logic of (mutual) destruction as it restores an order that has come unstuck.

>Like the human members of the nuclear system, the machine that sends the launch code just follows orders, or tries to. But nobody has thought through what happens when orders are followed poorly—or too well. The American bomber commander, for example, must carry out his attack order even if he cannot verify it by radio, since radio loss could mean that home has been destroyed. He cannot be recalled even when successfully contacted by the president, or his own wife, as he’s been trained to regard these as impostors. Even the leaders are bound: They must counterstrike, even when convinced they’ve been attacked by mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/10/fail_safe_50th_anniversary_sidney_lumet_s_nuclear_war_movie_is_better_than.html

And surely there are lots of other films that might tackle the more Biblical or literary stuff. I'll be thinking about this for a while, I suspect. I'm certain there are other good ones.

>>10186602
Gives me the feels, anon. Dem shivers. You're on to something really interesting there.