Yeah, it was a translation (my French is not nearly good enough to tackle philosophy). I found my copy, it's the umich press one, translated by Glaser. Though I

Yeah, it was a translation (my French is not nearly good enough to tackle philosophy). I found my copy, it's the umich press one, translated by Glaser. Though I don't think it's the translation per se, it really was the writing. I agree that it might be a cultural thing, but I've read Montaigne, for example, and it's much clearer even though he predates Baudrillard by 350 years. :-) I'm looking through this again, and there were just so many places where he makes dubious but absolute statements without backing it up at all, and we're to take him at his word. "It is simulation that is effective, and never the real". OK, man. Or the way he throws in vague sentences for effect. I mean, I can't start a chapter with the sentence "The apotheosis of simulation: the nuclear" while keeping a straight face. Anyway, like I said, I think eventually it builds into something cool and tangible it you stick through it, but it takes a lot of digging.