Literature equivalent of this brilliant and highly accurate documentary? I already read Curtis' blog...

Yeah I like Virilio a lot.

Read The Technological Society. Go to the source.

You mean a flaw other than the false pretence of authenticity? Sorry, if it's my taste that doesn't sit right with conspiracy-theory level narrative-engineering then maybe I'm just a retard. The film was enjoyable but I couldnt take it seriously because it didn't take itself/the audience seriously

Pretty much this.

Curtis is piecing together historical events like theyre direct consequences of one another in order to make a story.

Having said that, I did like the film very much.
Noone seems able to explain how we got to our current shitty situation today, so its interesting to see someone try.

I don't like the thing!

He's leagues above the rest. Complain all you want that it's still BBC and he's 'constructing a narrative.' To say that he's not 'actual information'...well so what? That's why I'm asking for the lit equivalents. For those who have written about it, perhaps first and better.

unironically read Pynchon.

Noone said they didnt like it. Not liking something and admitting something isnt entirely unproblematic, is not the same.
We're only discussing the subject of your thread, calm down...

THIS.

Just take Curtis' work as a fun aesthetic experience. The links and narrative are largely arbitrary and no more useful than any other links one might make.

You'll find, with all of this type of stuff, that at each connection/position made, if you dig down, that there had to be an arbitrary value choice where the writer decided "I choose (based on no real proof) to side with this or that side of this", and then everything is built on the many connections based in such arbitrary sides taken.

So instead of giving literature recommendations people lecture me on how I'm supposed to enjoy a documentary I already saw.

Alright dude so you won't get mad with us. Pynchon and Robert Anton Wilson in fiction, Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem in non-fiction, between those 4 you'll have shit to read for the rest of the year.

or maybe I just agreed with the guy. sorry that made you feel bad about yourself.

>Robert Anton Wilson in fiction

brutal, he's probably the worst author I've ever read, 0 insights into anything

Pynchon and Debord are good though

I'll be honest with you, I've read the illuminatus when I was around 15 and remember being blown away, but I've never came back to it because somehow I knew nostalgia wouldn't hold it, but at the same time, he's pretty good to get into the "paranoia might as well be real" mindset which is so prevalent on Curtis' movies.

> I've read the illuminatus when I was around 15 and remember being blown away
> he's pretty good to get into the "paranoia might as well be real" mindset

No he's not. It does the exact opposite. The fact that you think RAW is good, or comparable to Pynchon/Debord means you haven't a clue about any of them.

Good to know the pseuds who think they're brilliant for stating that Curtis' documentaries aren't perfect also shill the worst writer of all time and have nothing to say in general.

Oh shit, I remember you, you're the guy who completely loses his shit whenever someone mentions the Illuminatus trilogy.

I don't know how old are you but I've fucking read the book 12 years ago, around the same time I discovered Pynchon and Debord, of course they will forever be linked in my head and it's pretty obvious they have similar preocupations, just because RAW touched your dick when you were a kid or something you can't deny it.

>reddit meme

Even if you posted this thread, its not all about you and what books YOU should read. If people want to discuss a given subject, then what's the problem?

I liked HyperNormalisation so much that's I watched two of Curtis' other films right after, one of them, The Century of the Self, I liked even better.

Im just not sure what to recommend based on your glorification of Curtis as someone with a perfect historical overview of the last 50 years.
Again, I think he's great, but I find his movies to have more artistic value than anything else.

we could probably sell him on galton-darwin's next million years

hypernormalisation was just another rushed, failed hit piece on the God Emperor during the election. all those sweet delegates. yum yum yum.

In the end hypernormalisation is the slightly more "intellectual" (hate to use/miss use this term is this context) to say "Wow, just wow it's 2017. 2. 0. 1. 7. I can't even".

...

A pseud who makes "documentaries" that don't contain any facts or citations.
youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

>they took an image macro from a shit-tier website and posted it on another shit website that I marginally prefer

I like episode two of "all watched over by machines" where he compares the inadequacies of free markets to the inadequacies of californian/cybernetic ideologies that believe that through technology we can bypass representative democracy and attain some kind of direct democracy. It was pertinent when it was released as it totally lambasted some of the ideas behind the occupy movement about a month before occupy wall-street.
I found it the most relevant to todays current predicament.

but.....he complains about politicians having no progressive ideas anymore and doesn't offer any prescriptive ideas of his own.....bit of a cop out.

The third episode is amazing, too.