Webb, Fox, & Fun
Webb: An author, always, fairly, can be asked to explain his words. He may not want to, he may not, but, always, the question is fair.
As aspirant to public office, always, fairly, can be asked to explain his words. If that aspirant has at one time been a novelist he can, always, fairly, be asked to explain any of the words he wrote in those novels. And anybody who complains that Webb has been hit with a low blow by being asked to explain his words can, always, fairly, be called really dumb.
This could bear some analysis.
First, Webb's response. He claimed he was a "serious novelist" and that all the passages cited were "illuminative" --no explication beyond that, just that they were "illuminative". I guess defining oneself a a "serious novelist" also defines "illuminative". He then went on to say it was all a "Rovian plot", indicating he's insane; and then went on to claim Lynn Cheney had done the same thing, indicating he's a liar. And so now we know what he meant by saying those passages were "illuminative"; they "illuminate" that mentally he's one sick puppy.
A word to the "artsy". Art is inferior to normal life... unless it happens to be superior. It all depends on the quality of the mind and the soul of the man writing. There is no sacred, special reserve for the artist. Great art is great, crap art is crap, and the way you know which is which is through discussion. This offended sensitivity toward discussion by those who fancy themselves versed within the Sanctum of Art indicates a mind not existent except by the agreement of those similarly of that fine and sensitive, sanctum protected persuasion; but I say: If you can't speak, your persuasion is false. Most art is crap. Most modern art is vile. If it has value, defend it.
I would await a response that's not a cliche.
Note: This is one response:
Fox: Another jerk, willing to use his illness to manipulate public opinion to support the least promising most morally problematic area of stem cell research through an amendment that actually constitutionalizes cloning. Not much of a man.
Fun: Presuming that the polls always underrepresent Republicans; that 5% of those listed as Democrats aren't; and that the Republican GOTV is awesome, I would say that any Republican within 15 points in the polls now will win. Republican sweep.
...............
A little more on the silliness. Professor Marge, of George Wa U, saying that a man shouldn't be judged by his writing is a bit distant from the edge of bright because that is exactly how you judge a man. She might have said: You can't judge an author by the character, and since she learned that as a freshman she knows it's true. Or she might have meant that the author is not necessarily the same as the public man. And this is undoubtedly true. The author of the most recently publicized IMs, for example, was not the same as the public man. But when she says that to judge a man by what he has written, as if he were responsible for what he had written, is to show a lack of culture, what she means is that this is to show a lack of the kind of culture she has... and come to think of it by golly she's right again.
I will admit that to make a fair judgment of Webb as an author would take a fair immersion into his writing, say to read four or five consecutive pages. It does seem to me that if Webb thinks his work can withstand that kind of intense scrutiny he ought to hold a public reading. He could put the questionable passages into their brilliant context. I would love to see him establish himself as a "serious novelist". Then the voters could decide if they wanted to see this "serious novelist" represent them in the senate. One would expect that he, Webb, a "serious novelist", would want to share his work with his public. The voters are his public. Everyone knows that an author respects his public, a politician respects his voters. He could regal those who would judge him, and then they could send him on his way.
As aspirant to public office, always, fairly, can be asked to explain his words. If that aspirant has at one time been a novelist he can, always, fairly, be asked to explain any of the words he wrote in those novels. And anybody who complains that Webb has been hit with a low blow by being asked to explain his words can, always, fairly, be called really dumb.
This could bear some analysis.
First, Webb's response. He claimed he was a "serious novelist" and that all the passages cited were "illuminative" --no explication beyond that, just that they were "illuminative". I guess defining oneself a a "serious novelist" also defines "illuminative". He then went on to say it was all a "Rovian plot", indicating he's insane; and then went on to claim Lynn Cheney had done the same thing, indicating he's a liar. And so now we know what he meant by saying those passages were "illuminative"; they "illuminate" that mentally he's one sick puppy.
A word to the "artsy". Art is inferior to normal life... unless it happens to be superior. It all depends on the quality of the mind and the soul of the man writing. There is no sacred, special reserve for the artist. Great art is great, crap art is crap, and the way you know which is which is through discussion. This offended sensitivity toward discussion by those who fancy themselves versed within the Sanctum of Art indicates a mind not existent except by the agreement of those similarly of that fine and sensitive, sanctum protected persuasion; but I say: If you can't speak, your persuasion is false. Most art is crap. Most modern art is vile. If it has value, defend it.
I would await a response that's not a cliche.
Note: This is one response:
Margaret R. Soltan, an English professor at George Washington University, said voters should not regard Webb's novels as indicative of his views, any more than voters in England should have been deterred by some of Winston Churchill's more shocking writing.Wow! Boy! That hurts!
"To think along those lines exposes you as a person who has no culture," she said.
Fox: Another jerk, willing to use his illness to manipulate public opinion to support the least promising most morally problematic area of stem cell research through an amendment that actually constitutionalizes cloning. Not much of a man.
Fun: Presuming that the polls always underrepresent Republicans; that 5% of those listed as Democrats aren't; and that the Republican GOTV is awesome, I would say that any Republican within 15 points in the polls now will win. Republican sweep.
...............
A little more on the silliness. Professor Marge, of George Wa U, saying that a man shouldn't be judged by his writing is a bit distant from the edge of bright because that is exactly how you judge a man. She might have said: You can't judge an author by the character, and since she learned that as a freshman she knows it's true. Or she might have meant that the author is not necessarily the same as the public man. And this is undoubtedly true. The author of the most recently publicized IMs, for example, was not the same as the public man. But when she says that to judge a man by what he has written, as if he were responsible for what he had written, is to show a lack of culture, what she means is that this is to show a lack of the kind of culture she has... and come to think of it by golly she's right again.
I will admit that to make a fair judgment of Webb as an author would take a fair immersion into his writing, say to read four or five consecutive pages. It does seem to me that if Webb thinks his work can withstand that kind of intense scrutiny he ought to hold a public reading. He could put the questionable passages into their brilliant context. I would love to see him establish himself as a "serious novelist". Then the voters could decide if they wanted to see this "serious novelist" represent them in the senate. One would expect that he, Webb, a "serious novelist", would want to share his work with his public. The voters are his public. Everyone knows that an author respects his public, a politician respects his voters. He could regal those who would judge him, and then they could send him on his way.
posted by mouse at 10:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home