From Bernard Stiegler's Technics and Time vol. 2: Disorientation:
"Conjoining the effect of the real (of presence) in image capture, in which event and input of the event coincide in time, with the real-time or the live aspect of transmission, in which the captured event and reception of this input coincide equally and simultaneously, analogic and numeric technologies inaugurate a new collective as well as individual experience of time as a departure from historicity, if it is true that historicity relies on an idea of time that is essentially time deferred; that is, on a constitutive opposition posited in principle (illusorily--but this illusion has very real effects) between a story line and what it reports" (115).
Note that this is all one sentence. One sentence. For the most part, I've reconciled myself over the past three years to the writing style of academia, especially that special sort that comes from the French philosophizers. I'm pretty sure I even understand what Stiegler means in that sentence above. But every now and then, it just strikes me that I'm spending hours and hours reading and trying to understand work presented in a writing that, if it was presented in an undergraduate paper, I would attempt to murder via drowning in red ink. And then I get sad, and my hand itches for the red pen that isn't there.