Simulacra and Simulation

Great book, though it requires a bit of experience sifting through florid 20th century French philosophical prose. I would strongly encourage people not to get fixated too heavily on the "simulation" aspect in terms of what we think of these days when we hear "simulation". When it comes to Baudrillard, it's always important to focus on the semiotic aspect. What something is referring to, and whether there even is a thing for it to refer to.

As we approach the fall season, I'd recommend this little blog post to make it more clear: http://www.critical-theory.com/understanding-jean-baudrillar...

It discusses how the fact that we associate pumpkin spice lattes with fall, despite pumpkin not really needing to be harvested only in fall anymore and despite there not even being any pumpkin in the drink to necessitate even the tenuous seasonal connection. To quote the main arguments here:

>The fact that we welcome the return of pumpkin season, save for those who demand they buy these pumpkins from an ethically sourced gluten free farm just masks the fact that there are no seasons. We could probably ship pumpkins from all around the world to get our pumpkin fix year-round. But even then, it’s only the third order of that list above. It’s not quite at that next level pure simulacra shit.

>Did I mention that there’s no pumpkin in your pumpkin spice latte? It’s nutmeg (and a few other spices). In other words, that delicious sip of fall you just imbibed is actually a pure simulacrum, of that fourth order. Pumpkin spice doesn’t conceal the fact that there are no longer seasons, pumpkin spice has no referent in reality, it exists for its own sake. The only thing “pumpkin spice”refers to is itself– like the distinct difference between “cherry flavored” items and “red flavored” candy that claims to be cherry-flavored.

>Those who bake will quickly note that “pumpkin spice” derives from the mixtures of spices (nutmeg, allspice, etc) that go into a pumpkin pie. But that’s exactly the point: it doesn’t matter whether “pumpkin spice” actually has any correlation to reality. Ads for pumpkin spice items tout pumpkins and other fall fare, as if there’s a biological imperative to shove “things that go well with pumpkin” into our collectively fat faces when the leaves start to turn. Nutmeg and allspice are also available year-round, as is canned pumpkin, meaning we could clearly sate our desires at any time.

> How readable and accessible is this book?

As with most works of cultural theory you need to read it few times, and also check other works of his. Otherwise you may end up reducing concepts from this book to social media or AI slop.

Moreover, books like this usually are just phrases in a long dialectical process. For example, it is useful to read Debord first, and then move to Baudrillard.

"readable and accessible" are some of the last words I would use to describe the book.

It's hard but if you read it once for the vibes and then pay closer attention the next time you go through it's not too hard. Baudrillard is a Zizek-level philosopher in the sense that his own celebrity is kind of at the centre of most of his work (this doesn't mean it's simple, dumb or low-quality, it's pretty interesting, it's just also kinda sci-fi/fanciful as opposed to hardcore logic-chopping or idk complex historiography like some of his contemporaries)

Its not great. I suggest reading Villem Flusser instead.