- Hardcover: 96 pages
- Publisher: Indiana University Press (Nov 1995)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0253329469
- ISBN-13: 978-0253329462
- Product Dimensions: 21.6 x 14 x 1.3 cm
- Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 3,821,581 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
| ||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, and more.
Product Description
Product Description
In a provocative analysis written during the unfolding drama of 1992, Baudrillard draws on his concepts of simulation and the hyperreal to argue that the Gulf War did not take place but was a carefully scripted media event--a "virtual" war.
Patton's introduction argues that Baudrillard, more than any other critic of the Gulf War, correctly identified the stakes involved in the gestation of the New World Order. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This is my first Baudrillard. I came to it knowing that his name is big in postmodernism and that his contention that the Gulf War had never happened had been received in many quarters with scorn and disbelief. So I opened it, curious as to the nature of the nonsense it may contain, only to realise quite soon that the statement in the title was not about fact in the usual everyday meaning of the term but very much to do with the actual nature of the event that took place in the Gulf in 1991.
Baudrillard wrote the book before, during and after the war and so its three sections are headed 'The Gulf War will not take place,' 'The Gulf War: is it really taking place?' and 'The Gulf War did not take place.' The book is short, less than 100 pages, and to the point. He says, 'Since this war was won in advance, we will never know what it would have been like had it existed.' What on earth does this mean? Basically what he is saying is that the Gulf War was constructed and implemented in the realm of hyperreality; it was a virtual war - the opposing combatants never saw each other. One adversary (the US) was isolated in a virtual war that was won in advance and the other (Iraq) was isolated in a traditional war that was lost in advance. It was a war that was planned and carried out using the most advanced communications technology and the consequence of this is that its result was pre-ordained and the enemy was seen as no more than a computerised target. Information and images were controlled so that all that was seen by the world was what was channelled for it. And, as Baudrillard comments, 'now that it is over, we can realise at last that it did not take place.' So he is saying that wars now have little to do with the confrontation of soldiers, nations fighting nations, but are more to do with squashing and controlling forces in the world that disturb the New World Order. 'All that is singular and irreducible must be reduced and absorbed.'
So, on ordinary empirical grounds, it is easy to argue that Baudrillard's thesis is literally nonsense. But really this is not the issue; rather, the reader is shocked into realising the changed character of warfare and how events of this nature indicate to us that much of what we apprehend in the contemporary world is constructed for us in such a way as to demonstrate its hyperreality. Ergo, we inhabit this hyperreal world even though we may not always realise it.
Baudrillard wrote the book before, during and after the war and so its three sections are headed 'The Gulf War will not take place,' 'The Gulf War: is it really taking place?' and 'The Gulf War did not take place.' The book is short, less than 100 pages, and to the point. He says, 'Since this war was won in advance, we will never know what it would have been like had it existed.' What on earth does this mean? Basically what he is saying is that the Gulf War was constructed and implemented in the realm of hyperreality; it was a virtual war - the opposing combatants never saw each other. One adversary (the US) was isolated in a virtual war that was won in advance and the other (Iraq) was isolated in a traditional war that was lost in advance. It was a war that was planned and carried out using the most advanced communications technology and the consequence of this is that its result was pre-ordained and the enemy was seen as no more than a computerised target. Information and images were controlled so that all that was seen by the world was what was channelled for it. And, as Baudrillard comments, 'now that it is over, we can realise at last that it did not take place.' So he is saying that wars now have little to do with the confrontation of soldiers, nations fighting nations, but are more to do with squashing and controlling forces in the world that disturb the New World Order. 'All that is singular and irreducible must be reduced and absorbed.'
So, on ordinary empirical grounds, it is easy to argue that Baudrillard's thesis is literally nonsense. But really this is not the issue; rather, the reader is shocked into realising the changed character of warfare and how events of this nature indicate to us that much of what we apprehend in the contemporary world is constructed for us in such a way as to demonstrate its hyperreality. Ergo, we inhabit this hyperreal world even though we may not always realise it.
24 of 26 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This book is very funny in places, even though it has a serious aim. The introduction claims that the author has expressed a wish for it to be read as science fiction: but this is science fiction as social reality. Baudrillard seems to have sat at home watching the Gulf war on TV and jotted down his observations. Many of the facts he comes out with are startling: more US troops would have been killed during the time of the war if they'd stayed at home; CNN reporters in the Gulf would watch CNN to find out what was happening; CNN was used by the military to transmit misinformation as they knew that the Iraqis were watching. These details are probably available elsewhere; Baudrillard's aim is really to expose the fallacious nature of the society we all live in, and show how the US and Iraq (and of course the UK) all colluded to produce a lovely big advert for weapons and give Saddam a bit of a boost. Baudrillard asks the question: if Saddam lost a war with the West, why is he more powerful than before?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
12 reviews
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
The war happened, but didn't take place...
9 Mar 2008
Format:Paperback
Provacativively titled book either impresses or deeply angers people, I read this years ago and retained only a few points of interest.
Yes, the war happened, as in bombs were dropped, people died, buildings were destroyed, many suffered, etc. But it differed markedly from previous wars in that it was mainly an event to be manipulated by different sides in the media. Therefore, it did not take place the way previous wars had, in that the suffering and even a uniform understanding did not penetrate the population at home who watched the events on CNN.
Unfortunately, all of this business about the 'realness' of the war, and the simulacra, and the hyper-reality we're now mired in, is written in a frustrating and unnecessarily bloated style that makes even this slim work a slight chore at times. Can certainly be expressed in a simpler way, therefore appearing less profound, but then it wouldn't be the work of French postmodern philosopher. Interesting 'take' on a modern war, with points that would only resonate more in the years since, it's hit-or-miss for most readers of current events (more for the philosophy crowd).
Yes, the war happened, as in bombs were dropped, people died, buildings were destroyed, many suffered, etc. But it differed markedly from previous wars in that it was mainly an event to be manipulated by different sides in the media. Therefore, it did not take place the way previous wars had, in that the suffering and even a uniform understanding did not penetrate the population at home who watched the events on CNN.
Unfortunately, all of this business about the 'realness' of the war, and the simulacra, and the hyper-reality we're now mired in, is written in a frustrating and unnecessarily bloated style that makes even this slim work a slight chore at times. Can certainly be expressed in a simpler way, therefore appearing less profound, but then it wouldn't be the work of French postmodern philosopher. Interesting 'take' on a modern war, with points that would only resonate more in the years since, it's hit-or-miss for most readers of current events (more for the philosophy crowd).
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful
Short and Sweet
14 Feb 2007
Format:Paperback
This book basically describes how the first Iraq war differed from traditional wars of the past. It is not for everyone, Baudrillard has the unfortunate position of being too loose with ideas to be taken very seriously by 'real' academics while at the same time writing in a style that is not easily accessible to a popular audience. His thesis is that the 'war' was primarily a media event that was useful in different ways to both sides of the conflict. He does not dispute that violence and suffering took place, but suggests that the event was not a war as was defined in the past by Clausewitz. Any review that states he is trying to 'hide' the essential suffering of those at the ground of the event is just wrong. There is nothing in the book that questions or calls into doubt the experiences of soldiers or civilians; at the same time it does not dwell upon them.
12 of 27 people found the following review helpful
One of the most important political texts of the 1990s
23 Oct 1999
Format:Paperback
This text describes and defines the relations between the dominant states (USA Western Europe), the media and the wars they choose to have.
Wonderful read and learn
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > History > Countries & Regions > Asia > 1946-Present
- Books > History > Countries & Regions > Asia > Middle East > Arabian Peninsula
- Books > History > Countries & Regions > Asia > Middle East > Iran
- Books > History > Cultural History
- Books > History > Military History
- Books > Music, Stage & Screen > Performing Arts
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Communication Studies > Media & Communication Industries > Press & Journalism
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Communication Studies > Media Studies
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Sociology
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Warfare & Defence
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
