Triumph of the Authoritarians

Parent Cafe
141

<p>Dadguy, what that zinger really necessary? This is indeed a bulletin board, but is it necessary to denigrate someone’s efforts to elevate the discussion beyond the level of AIM or of the overwhelming majority of blogs aka Baloney, Lies, and Other Garbage? </p>

<p>FS’s affinity for the bon mot and the bon ton does require an acquired taste, or an hyperactive mind ready to be challenged. I admit needing more time -a lot more time- to deconstruct FS submissions. Many times, this is due to having failed to get the point on the first pass. However, the point is there … buried in all its ingeniosity and subtility. </p>

<p>For what it is worth, one should not be blamed for relying on the concepts of universal and particular audiences: while every argument is directed to a specific individual or group, the writer decides what information and what approaches will achieve the greatest adherence according to an ideal audience. While it is true that one should write for a chosen audience, we also have to realize that the audience is far from being homogeneous, and pobably from from being ideal.</p>

142

<p>Dadguy,</p>

<p>Perhaps at times when you are composing a post–it happens–you fail to understand the context of the conversation; it is a common mistake. </p>

<p>From time to time it happens to me as well. Over the last couple pages I have been addressing how literature is taught and administered, not how literature is composed within the context of different epochs; that is to say, literary criticism, not literature: e.g. Marxist, Semiotic, Structuralist, Post-structuralist, Deconstruction, Lacanian, Feminist and perhaps even–in our recent past—fascists and Soviet literary criticism and analysis at the pedagogic level. Most of these have already had their day and are considered passé even by their recently die-hard dogmatists–excepting the Marxist and feminist criticism now wheezing on academic life support. </p>

<p>As far as I am aware, the Sumerians had no literary criticism.
So your point, though sincerely given, is moot. Theirs was strictly a sacred literature as evinced, for instance, in the epic of Gilgamesh. I would have thought that was clear—not really so complicated, but speed reading is common to all in these quarters. Hope that helps.</p>

<p>As to your editorial advice, I’ll stick with the advice of the editors who are currently paid to dress me down on such matters: So far, so good. I do thank you for the thought, though. Every little bit is appreciated.</p>

<p>Xiggi…always the gentlemen. : )</p>

143

<p>Being in a technical field but having clients who are not techinical, the most challenging part of my job is to make the technical parts accessible to a wider audience.</p>

<p>Clarity can be challenging, especially when you are used to communicating in jargon to others in your field.
Editing is one of the most difficult things apparently.
I was just commenting tonight to my husband on the difference between Stephen Kings behemoth horror tomes and his well crafted short stories.</p>

<p>Have you seen the contrast between Raymond Carvers finshed works and before his editor?
Quite a difference.</p>

<p>Brevity is always most difficult, because you really have to have a strong command of language- and not give in to the temptation to befuddle, and impress with $.50 words.</p>

<p>I think we all could use an editor- and perhaps a delete key IRL? ;)</p>

144

<p>FS,</p>

<p>I’ll stand behind my criticism becuase I meant it constructively. I may not be an editor of anything but I know the difference between discussing things with people and “writing things at them”. That may not matter at the DR, but it will later when you’re on to bigger and better things.</p>

<p>Sometimes, you do one and sometimes you do the other. When it’s the latter, I’m not sure what you’re saying or if I agree with you or not because you try to be more clever than communitive.</p>

145

<p>It’s that pesky word salad thing again, FS. You’re trying to be impressively linguistic, as opposed to communicating a point (I realize that there is no parallel structure to that sentence, but this is a chat board, so grammatical rules are less important).</p>

<p>Yes, it’s the old Engish teacher in me, trying to encourage clarity of language. Big words don’t always make a person sound smarter, no matter how natively intelligent said person may be.</p>

146

<p>

Opening wide and changing feet I see, Dadguy.</p>

<p>I was not referring to the editors at the Dartmouth Review (of which I am one): Sadly, we don’t get paid for our efforts. I was referring to the editors at the New Criterion, where I now write. It is considered something of an important literary journal amongst those with literary inclinations. There are those, of a monotonous disposition, who are able to draw the distinctions necessary to make the New Criterion both “bigger” and “better” than the Review…myself, I’m happy to have beeen given the opportunity to write for either one. </p>

<p>However, should I ever write in your field, I will keep your advice close to the chest and near the heart. But, as it is, there are a great many writing styles out there in the real world; no one’s quite come around to narrowing the whole enterprise down to just one basic and required form. Good thing for me, I guess, eh?

Not sure what you mean here, “communitive” must be one of those 60 cent words—beyond the income of a lowly 50 cent per word student like me. ;)</p>

147

<p>

Why assign a motive to the writing style of a person you don’t even know? It is a chat board, as you note. It’s just another version of the “I’m a wise old fart and you are merely an insolent whippersnapper” attitude that some unfortunately take in addressing the students here. My thought on this, echoing Xiggi, is this: If the Saturday NYT crossword is too hard, don’t write letters of complaint to Will Shortz; start with the Monday and Tuesday puzzles, work your way up, and soon big words and obscure references will start making sense, and you’ll be on your way to enjoying those challenging weekend puzzles!
I’m a regular reader of FS’ edited output at DR and other places; she’s in good hands, not to worry.</p>

<p>DG: I think the “French” reference was to Foucault.</p>

<p>Edit: Good morning, dear!</p>

148

<p>Right on cue! Hello Driver! I was expecting you!</p>

149

<p>EK4, </p>

<p>Sorry about the “50 cent words,” as you say. </p>

<p>I come by them honestly, the old fashioned way…through reading (it may be that different people read different things, I, for instance, rarely read newspapers and just adore poetry and philosophy). I’ve encountered most of these words over such a time that no matter their original price, which I frankly no longer recall, I’m loath to dispense with them just to please those who will disagree with my POV before they’ve even seen it. I realize there are those who find my posts to be a bit off speed when cruising snappy internet boards and zippy chat lines. Let me just say, mea culpa. </p>

<p>But I simply prefer the color of some words and phrases to the dullness of others with little real regard for the luminosity or lack there of in the occasion–or those who attend it…I frequently correspond with CGM on cc, of all places. </p>

<p>I do not recall ever critiquing, constructive or otherwise, (if we can call it that) the writing styles of either you, or Dadguy or for that matter the chatty Allmusic–it isn’t my way–even though you have all been very generous in analyzing not only my words but my intentions in using them. </p>

<p>Simply put, I’m rather pedestrian in these subconscious things, I prefer, where possible, to address the content of the post, not the person. Curiously, my detractors always seem to disagree with my POV. I suppose addressing my style, given the content, is a less costly–some would say cheap–rhetorical move. Certainly requires less effort and incandescence.</p>

<p>Though I can’t say as I’ve gotten around to digging through Mr. King’s weighty texts I have read a bit of Mr. Carver and I understand he is quite a popular and good writer, processing a very direct and economic style; nothing of the Baroque at all. They say Mr. King is quite good as well–and scary. </p>

<p>Perhaps it takes all kinds in a world of diverse people and opinions…well, usually.</p>

<p>Edit: right back at you, Madame!</p>

150

<p>Nice job. That was rather impressive I must say.</p>

151

<p>I meant communicative, but that may not be a word, either.</p>

<p>Let me expand on an earlier point. I often have to explain technical things to a non-technical audience. That doesn’t really mean “dumbing down” what I have to say, becuase the audience is often a board of directors or senior executives who are college educated but not usually in the same things I was. So I can’t insult their intellegence in the process.</p>

<p>I wasn’t aware of your gig at the New Criterion, good luck with that. </p>

<p>I am sorry that you think my criticism of your writing style is a surrogate attack on your POV, because it is not. I offer it at face value. Do with it as you will.</p>

152

<p>* from wikipedia*
maybe someone could translate?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Communicative is a word anyways
there are even university depts that study communicative disorders</p>

153

<p>I often find FS’s style difficult to penetrate, but worth it because I consistently agree with her views. I enjoy her posts and I’m glad she bothers to contribute here.</p>

154

<p>Me too, Hereshoping. I admire anyone who will continue posting through the barrage of critique (including mine).</p>

155

<p>EK4,</p>

<p>Communicative is certainly a word (communitive, however, would be something of a colloquial novelty) and Jurgen Habermas is certainly a philosopher. I have, in the past, read him in high school (I ran the philosophy club). </p>

<p>I was at first curious to read Theodore Adorno’s book “Aesthetic Theory,” then, by way of which, his Frankfurt School of German philosophy (“New Left” liberalism: Marcuse, Horkhiemer et al) and then its modern and popular proponent Jurgen Habermas. </p>

<p>His book, “The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity” is a fascinating survey/critique of modern philosophy. I used what I could in a paper I put together in high school. He is a particularly harsh critic of French Postmodernism (so far, so good). Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard bare the full force of his high-modernists wrath, that is to say, they get spanked (even better). </p>

<p>His real work and contribution to modern philosophy—which I am only vaguely familiar with–is in his highly regarded “Theory of Communicative Action” in which he elucidates on the determinate–negation of subject-centered reason in communicative rationality. </p>

<p>That is to say, communication and rationality are in some sense the same, inasmuch as they define the rationally possible and even more the good and the bad within rationality and communication. It is almost as if communication and rationality are born of the same cloth in the same garment which is woven through communication itself. This forum would be a good example of the process.</p>

<p>Moreover, I am sure that the issue at hand could be referenced within it, since Habermas is very critical of limiting communicative practices [see above, ad hominems and critiques of my communicative style] in an effort to control what is ethically possible within discourse and what will be marginalized. </p>

<p>I am not myself very fond of Habermas and his school, but it is “deep.” </p>

<p>I hope that helps.</p>

156

<p>

Consider it done.</p>

<p>

It helps to know that it comes–exclusively–from the screaming left (by normal standards, not cc standards). </p>

<p>Coincidence? I think not.</p>

157

<p>screaming left, as oppossed to the sanctimonious right…</p>

158

<p>Nah, I’d have the same critique of your writing style, regardless of your political stance!</p>

<p>;)</p>

159

<p>Then there are, of course, the sanctimonious screamers of the left. Every bit as galling as the smugly self-righteous of the right. On this particular board, however, the screamers are ones most likely to send one scrambling for the Excedrin.</p>

160

<p>

To coin a phrase, Madame, I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.</p>