Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | But Can She Operate a Crane? »

Monday, February 26, 2007

You the Man

posted by on February 26 at 9:25 AM

Looks like George Lucas has turned to “the dark side”:
georgelucas6-739067.jpg However, his girlfriend, Mellody Hobson, is no gold digga. She is the president of Ariel Capital Management and made her own gold on Wall Street. May the force be with you Lucas. (Note: Those of us who are familiar with the dominant themes in post-colonial literary theory would have smiled a little smile if Hobson’s company was called Caliban Capital Management.)

RSS icon Comments


I saw him in a shop in Honolulu. He really is that stature. I had pictured him more Darth Vader sized.

Posted by MyDogBen | February 26, 2007 9:36 AM

Yay, Lucas is down with the swirl!

Posted by monkey | February 26, 2007 9:42 AM

That is an amazing dress...

Posted by Kate | February 26, 2007 10:01 AM

It's 2007. Is this interesting?

Posted by Violet_DaGrinder | February 26, 2007 10:21 AM

Live long and prospero.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | February 26, 2007 10:25 AM

@ 4.

Turn on the cable news and tell me with a straight face that they are not still covering Anna Nicole Smith.

Of course this is interesting. We're in America where gossip is news and news is gossip.

Posted by seattle98104 | February 26, 2007 10:39 AM

thought Charles had some brains, now I know why he works at the Stranger

who cares

she is beautiful, he is a power male, she a power female, what is the news

my family has had cross race marriages for 50 years, half a dozen that come to mind

Charles, wake up it is 2007

of passing interest is more her beauty and sense of style and glamour

Posted by eric | February 26, 2007 10:45 AM

Yes, the glamour is notable.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | February 26, 2007 11:07 AM

the stranger & miscagenation do not mix.

he's old & rich, she's young & hot. she may be accomplished, but he's stratospherically wealthy, therefore his wrinkled, overrated ass is attractive to her.

there is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Max Solomon | February 26, 2007 11:08 AM

I am struck by the "However." We assume that she is a gold digger because__________(She's black), HOWEVER she is unlike her other Black sisters who date white men...

Posted by Papayas | February 26, 2007 11:09 AM

george lucas is worth 80 gazillion dollars and doesn't do a thing about his frog neck...go figure...

Posted by michael strangeways | February 26, 2007 11:28 AM

papayas, forgive me, i'm such the idiot. somehow i forgot we live in a country that has hundreds of black women managing big companies. black women can be found on every major board, running things like it aint no thing. how in the world could i forget that?

Posted by charles mudede | February 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Actually, as Whitney so eloquently informs us, the children are the future, and the Hot Interracial Oscar Couple last nite was Abigail Breslin and Jayden Smith...

Posted by andy niable | February 26, 2007 12:19 PM

George Lucas...the best director ever...without a chin.

Posted by the warden | February 26, 2007 12:31 PM

I assumed he was gay. Oops.

Posted by anon | February 26, 2007 1:11 PM

Another classy one, Mudede

Posted by Rottin' in Denmark | February 26, 2007 2:03 PM

I ran into him on 57th Street in New York last week. I knew he looked familiar, but didn't realize until watching the Oscars last night that it was George Lucas. The hotness of color wasn't with him, though.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | February 26, 2007 2:08 PM

And yeah, he's an itty-bitty little fucker.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | February 26, 2007 2:09 PM

Is there anything but good news in this photo?

She looks 28 but she's 38. It's a date: Good for her and good for him.

Posted by Clementine | February 26, 2007 2:33 PM

How come everytime CM mentions "theory," I feel like I'm in a sophomore undergrad English course? Perhaps it's not the theory itself, I actually love literary theory, but his endlessly shallow treatment of it (mostly consisting of little more than 'So and so [generally Nietz. or Eagleton or Jameson] says...)...

Just thought I'd finally say something bout it.

Posted by jimmy | February 26, 2007 3:29 PM

jimmy, you have not a clue. i much prefer raymond williams, stuart hall, and henri lefebvre over jameson and eagleton. outside of the concept of cognitive mapping, nothing else in jameson's work interests me; and the only book i've enjoyed by eagleton, who is a bad writer, is his study of walter benjamin. as for nietzsche, i only read him because i worship foucault. those who know me know this: foucault, benjamin, and hegel form my holy trinity.

Posted by charles mudede | February 26, 2007 4:39 PM

I am glad to see his thyroid goiter has gone down. When I saw George Lucas down at Siggraph he looked like Jaba the Hutt.

Posted by Jake of | February 26, 2007 4:43 PM

"foucault, benjamin, and hegel form my holy trinity." See, that's what's annoying. Names but not meaning. And, of course, there's the somewhat embarrassing author worship of the man who attempted to deconstruct the author function.

Narcissism of small differences.

Posted by jimmy | February 26, 2007 4:58 PM

names, yes. but the names have great meaning. if you say "hegel," you mean one thing; when you say "heidegger," you mean another thing. when you say "hegel," you must mean three things: vico, neo-platonism, and entelechy. also when you say "hegel," you mean "marx." if you say "heidegger," vico, neo-platonism, entelechy, and marx are nowhere to found. so, yes, names are important.

Posted by charles mudede | February 26, 2007 5:15 PM

There’s also a great deal of difference between Gucci and Prada, Mr. Mudede, but that doesn’t mean dropping there names makes anything more meaningful. And such comments like the paranethetical “ Those of us who are familiar with the dominant themes in post-colonial literary theory*…” don’t amount to much more than that. It’s nice to see someone familiar with relatively esoteric theories and thinkers excited by the fact of ‘possessing’ such knowledge, even desirous to demonstrate this knowledge to others, perhaps believing that they will add a bit of authority to or even excuse an otherwise somewhat offensive and juvenile statement.
But it would be nicer to see these ideas not just named, which is what appears sophomoric, but actually applied.

That’s the crux of my point, but I’ll address some tangentials as well… Particularly, as for justifying the names, I think the following is illuminating and humorous: “if you say "hegel," you mean one thing; when you say "heidegger," you mean another thing. when you say "hegel," you must mean three things:”
Certainly, most likely an unintended oversight, but somewhat revealing of the absurdity of trying to peg a single, or even just multiple, ideas to an author.
Or, ‘Foucault’: “The third point concerning this "author-function" is that it is not formed spontaneously through the simple attribution of a discourse to an individual. It results from a complex operation whose purpose is to construct the rational entity we call an author. Undoubtedly, this construction is assigned a "realistic" dimension as we speak of an individual's "profundity" or "creative" power, his intentions or the original inspiration manifested in writing. Nevertheless, these aspect of an individual, which we designate as an author (or which comprise an individual as an author), are projections, in terms always more or less psychological, of our way of handling texts: in the comparisons we make, the traits we extract as pertinent, the continuities we assign, or the exclusions we practice.”

For someone who has spoken of himself as a Marxist, it would seem wise that you would be wary of reducing actual theories and ideas to trivialized intellectual commodities, thinks that don’t actually *do* anything aside from attempting to associate some sort of saleable characteristic upon those who ‘use’ them.

Does Hegel mean Marx? If you only know Hegel through Marx. However, Marxism’s use of dialects required a massive, and quite clever, reinterpretation of multiple major premises Hegel’s philosophy. There’s a world of difference between Phenomenology of Spirit and any Marxist writing. But then again, does Hegel just mean this text? Or does Hegel mean Spinoza, Kant and Schelling? Or, do we know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God) but a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.

Point? Stick with ideas, use ideas. Dropping names doesn’t due credit to those who claim they know and can use the ideas behind them.

*Enjoying the hegemons of post-colonial theory, seems, of course, ironic in light of many of the theories of post-colonial theory itself.

Posted by jimmy | February 26, 2007 5:59 PM

Hit the showers, Jimmy; we're going to the pen.

Posted by Spew Piniella | February 26, 2007 6:20 PM

jimmy, you really under estimate my madness. this conversation on hegel and marx, on foucault and authorship, is all that matters to me. but i read this stuff and often, as jen graves knows, i dont want to name the names behind this or that idea that appears in something i write. you are grossly unfair to call me a name dropper. i actually read this stuff and my writing responds to that reading.

Posted by charles mudede | February 26, 2007 6:29 PM

"Hit the showers, Jimmy; we're going to the pen."
What does that mean? Sports or jail? Do I shower before, or with the atheletes/prisoners?

And Charles, I'm not saying your knowledge is limited to name dropping. However, the comment in this post certainly was an equivalent to it as are many similar comments. "Those of us who are familiar with the dominant themes in post-colonial literary theory" is a pretentious and shallow treatment of any such ideas. Noting that, I don't think, is undeserved.

I would like to see more meaningful engagement with the ideas, as you say you do in your other writing, in the slog posts as well.

Posted by jimmy | February 26, 2007 6:39 PM

"I found your lightsaber!"

Posted by K X One | February 26, 2007 7:15 PM

I am your sister and celebrity gossip whore, not an unpaid, unacknowledged, research assistant.

Posted by Joseline Mudede | February 27, 2007 2:43 AM

Oh for crap's sake: She likes what she likes (chin or no, squatty body or no) and he likes what he likes (obvious younger babe, might be a girl-moustache in there who knows). So what? They look happy and much be filling some void in each other's life. He's a tool but pretty darned smart so both must know what they're doing there.

Posted by Dash RipRock | February 27, 2007 9:26 PM

itrokf yutqbnv wmbaqul apgqzvok woehzinp sdbmfqrk mzifeyvr

Posted by bypaxgs vhoxyni | March 7, 2007 2:54 AM

pqniocuwg wcodgiaxv bszvj ptvimq igvzqn mxglrv ymvzwq

Posted by smjxognq qbyjilmva | March 7, 2007 2:55 AM

pqniocuwg wcodgiaxv bszvj ptvimq igvzqn mxglrv ymvzwq

Posted by smjxognq qbyjilmva | March 7, 2007 2:56 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).