Maybe I’ve just never come across writing like this but it’s really, really clever, I just did so many double takes in 10 mins of reading (Vytorin 😂). Move over Sam Kriss, absurdist mind-fuckism has a new name: Ayoto
I hope I can, and where I get it wrong will be the most interesting…
The character (Vytorin) in this essay has undertaken a complete character assassination of Ayoto (except Ayoto wrote it) but never once engaged in the content of Ayoto’s arguments or shows evidence of genuine engagement in discussion. While reading this, we are thrown off guard by the vitriol and the framing of Ayoto in the worst possible light. It’s so effectively executed that we’re starting to wonder if it’s true? There are cracks in the protagonists story and warning signs but the focus remains the deficits in Ayoto’s character and authenticity.
With engaged reading we realise it’s Ayoto writing all of this (eventually, in my case) So what does that mean for the character assassination? What’s really true??
I was sitting in this vertigo for some time till I noticed that this is the point: throw mud at the messenger rather than engaging with the message. Undermine and diminish the person to avoid real engagement. It’s the hallmark of online trolling and we can see the US doing this recently with the way they characterise Ibrahim Treoré to avoid intellectual and hegemonic honesty.
This experiment is maybe meant to help us ‘vibe- check’ when we are getting the white version of a story or a person and feel those warning signs: the deflection, distraction, desperate self- protection. What does the protagonist not want to talk about so they have chosen to vilify rather than engage?
Very distorted, very sick personality. His life is a performance…. Thank you for describing it with depth, since I met so many times similar personalities…
“Watching him flirt with liberal guilt (fetish) was like watching a fat kid at a buffet: no restraint, no shame, and somehow no one ever calls it what it is—tasteless.” I could apply this in so many (white church) contexts I encounter. Ugh.
Also kept picturing American psycho (2000)..business cards, the voice, etc. anywaAyz, thank you
This is really clever
Maybe I’ve just never come across writing like this but it’s really, really clever, I just did so many double takes in 10 mins of reading (Vytorin 😂). Move over Sam Kriss, absurdist mind-fuckism has a new name: Ayoto
I hope I can, and where I get it wrong will be the most interesting…
The character (Vytorin) in this essay has undertaken a complete character assassination of Ayoto (except Ayoto wrote it) but never once engaged in the content of Ayoto’s arguments or shows evidence of genuine engagement in discussion. While reading this, we are thrown off guard by the vitriol and the framing of Ayoto in the worst possible light. It’s so effectively executed that we’re starting to wonder if it’s true? There are cracks in the protagonists story and warning signs but the focus remains the deficits in Ayoto’s character and authenticity.
With engaged reading we realise it’s Ayoto writing all of this (eventually, in my case) So what does that mean for the character assassination? What’s really true??
I was sitting in this vertigo for some time till I noticed that this is the point: throw mud at the messenger rather than engaging with the message. Undermine and diminish the person to avoid real engagement. It’s the hallmark of online trolling and we can see the US doing this recently with the way they characterise Ibrahim Treoré to avoid intellectual and hegemonic honesty.
This experiment is maybe meant to help us ‘vibe- check’ when we are getting the white version of a story or a person and feel those warning signs: the deflection, distraction, desperate self- protection. What does the protagonist not want to talk about so they have chosen to vilify rather than engage?
thx!
Very distorted, very sick personality. His life is a performance…. Thank you for describing it with depth, since I met so many times similar personalities…
trustworthy, human, yes 🤌🏼 reminds me of Bion’s “fictional” work
“Watching him flirt with liberal guilt (fetish) was like watching a fat kid at a buffet: no restraint, no shame, and somehow no one ever calls it what it is—tasteless.” I could apply this in so many (white church) contexts I encounter. Ugh.
Paul Jung is also, by some happenstance, a well-known )now decease( clown.
When you have to invent your own white male bully just to feel seen you know your love is real.
Ouch