<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>J_g_ballard on George&#39;s Blog</title>
    <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/j_g_ballard/</link>
    <description>Recent content in J_g_ballard on George&#39;s Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/j_g_ballard/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Crash</title>
      <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/crash/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:32:53 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/crash/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I remember coming across the Wikipedia summary for this book after Baudrillard did an analysis in his bewildering &lt;em&gt;Simulacra and Simulation&lt;/em&gt;, which read:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It follows a group of car-crash fetishists who, inspired by the famous crashes of celebrities, become sexually aroused by staging and participating in car accidents.
At the time, I thought it was a strange summary, maybe a typo or something—after all, it doesn’t make any sense! So I, in my naivete, tucked this away in the &amp;ldquo;read later&amp;rdquo; list. I’ve read the book and can confirm the above sentence is a valid summary.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
