Joshua Clover Books

Film analysis being what it is, I am used to some esoteric theorizing in the genre. Although the monographs from the British Film Institute have not been immune, usually they provide sufficient insight to a movie to justify reading them. I have been able to appreciate several movies, such as The Birds, Belle De Jour, Vertigo, more than I otherwise would have because of the background and interpretation provided by BFI.

THE MATRIX, however, by Joshua Clover, simply is not up to snuff. Clover brings up some interesting issues in the book, perhaps the most interesting of which is why Edge of the Construct films (in which characters are living in a falsified reality) were so popular at the end of the Twentieth Century. But the questions are buried under so much analytic-babble that the answers are never really all that clear.

Similar problems exist with other issues raised in the book. Clover discusses The Matrix in reference to such issues as the increase in video game popularity, the symbolism of all the characters of the rebellion wearing sunglasses but only within the matrix itself (never while in the real world), and the parallels between the matrix world and current society's push to make one an ever working automaton in a corporate structure. But these issues all feel a bit artificial, as if Clover is not really analyzing the movie The Matrix as much as he is using the movie to soliloquize about his own views of the world and issues that he thinks the rest of us need to hear.

This is particularly unfortunate given the specific movie involved. The Matrix is pregnant with meaning, both philosophical and social. This book could have been - should have been - better than the average release by BFI. Instead we get enough to whet the appetite only to be denied the nutritional meal.

If you are looking for a superficial, easy-reading analysis of The Matrix, try one of the countless other books on the subject. In his analysis of The Matrix for the British Film Institute, Joshua Clover brings his wry wit and background as a pop-culture guru* to bear on the film's far reaching cultural implications.

Clover's analysis invokes the work of many postmodern luminaries, not surprisingly focusing on Baudrillard and his simulation. He drops the M-Bomb** on several occasions and trashes the franchising of our private lives. On the surface, it might seem like the intellectual analog to the 20-yard long Vegas Buffet, but to the properly initiated it's more like a fantastic Bolognese meal; a dizzying array of between five and nine courses, each a contrast to the last but all building toward the thesis, a complete experience of culinary shock and awe not to be missed.

Other reviewers are quick to dismiss this book as being "buried under so much analytic-babble that the answers are never really all that clear." The truth is, in life the clear answers are often the wrong ones. And an answer that is clear probably is not worth discussing. The part of the world that is truly interesting is not black and white and Clover's is not a black and white analysis. The difficulty that some might find in unpacking the meaning contained in his writing is the breadth of prior knowledge required to make sense of it.

If you, the reader, are not conversant in the cultural discourse of postmodern theory, including the writings of Jean Baudrillard, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Guy Debord and others, you will be at pains to extract the full meaning of Clover's writing. Critical theory tends to reify its terms; simple terms are called upon to reference entire branches of prior discourse. When Clover references, "Guy Debord's 3D Glasses" it implies an entire set of discussions about their greater cultural significance. Without knowledge of this prior discourse, you might find yourself "buried under analytic babble." If you find yourself thus, don't blame Clover, get yourself a library card.

This book is a real treat, don't let the critics fool you.

* Aside from being a Professor at the University of California-Davis, Clover has also done quite a bit of writing for Rolling Stone Magazine and The Village Voice.

** The M-Bomb: every academician's best friend, Karl Marx.

This is the most confusing book of poetry I've ever read. I couldn't follow any of the material. However, I very much liked the sound of the poetry. If you like sound and don't care at all about logic, this could interest you. Otherwise, steer clear!

Very Good Book. I learn English from it. No need to live in '60s, Clover brings them to you. I read for wife and she kick me out. I still have book though, makes good fire. I recommend to anyone who needs encouragement.-

Okay, I can't imagine who'd want to read this book, but let's hypothetically say that you do. I see used copies everywhere--no doubt because it was thrust upon the members of the Academy of American Poets, who then relegated it to their "recycle" pile. So if you're intent on getting it, visit a thrift store, where discounted copies abound.

There is much that is surprisingly warm in this theoried and avant aesthetically conscious amalgamation. And while it surges with elitist-hip pretensions, it grooves to a back-beat of pop and populist rhythms, with many-hued chops against a background of blue. It is a cartoon philosopher and the future of anarchism railing against the bars with a baby bottle. Worth many reads. You can definitely learn from it.

who isn't happy to be a killing machine?,

joshua clover's meditation on small-town violence meeting today's tough issues is a profound meditation on small-town...

no matter how far we back away from ourselves this scene will not reveal itself as a movie set.

clover tails stephen wright on the going native episode, plucking observations about the state of words from the world of fin de siecle or whatever wherever with something like glee, but not glee, exactly, but without the staid proprietary stare of big time talkers in verse.

I am trying to invent a way for you to buy me back--

quote marks are so 20th c. clover's what poetry reads to itself late this afternoon.