I´m not entirely sure that he isn´t making a straw man argument here, all things considered. I accept that this is a public address, of necessity devoid of nuance and grey zones, but this simplistic way of thinking in garish solid colours unnerves me. Is "pissing" meaning "angered, frustrated" acceptable in polite discourse now?
I don't know about the straw man argument; yes, it's a public address and so broad brush, but there was certainly a fair amount of antagonism towards genre fiction expressed throughout the Big Read over here. (There is a rant about this somewhere in my LJ.)
Is "pissing" meaning "angered, frustrated" acceptable in polite discourse now?
I had the sense that it wasn't as strong an expletive in US slang.
There is a very complete and informative list of logical fallacies here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies). Appeals to fallacies are the salt and pepper of any public lecture of polemical intent, I fear. but there was certainly a fair amount of antagonism towards genre fiction expressed throughout the Big Read over here I thought the address was oddly reactive, almost confrontational, but I wasn´t aware of the whole Big Read bruhaha. It is considered bad form to make an acceptance speech out of a sustained and unnuanced criticism of your opponents here, at least, so the antagonistic tone really startled me. I had the sense that it wasn't as strong an expletive in US slang. Precisely my point: are slang expletives, however acceptable, tolerated in an acceptance speech for such an important literary award? Isn´t the person who wrote the speech breaching decorum, understood as "appropriate tone"?. Those literary critics he scoffs at would have a field day with this one on a nunmber of counts, IF they were as he paints them.
I wrote a bad sentence - I know what a straw man argument is, I just wasn't convinced the criticism wholly applied in this situation.
There was a great deal of fuss about King being given this award; I think Harold Bloom was up in arms about it, etc. etc.
Critics of the Big Read (which was on this side of the ocean, of course, not a US event) mainly directed their ire against Tolkien, but there was a small bit of mudslinging towards King. I watched a late night discussion with a panel of supposed literati who picked out King's The Stand, looked round each other asking, "Well, Ihaven't read this - have you?" and mutually affirmed each other with negatives. Which is a shame, since it's a cracking good read, but it also made me think that they should have invited a slightly better read panel along to discuss the list. Later in the programme various panellists defended their own taste in genre fiction - one was a reader of hard SF, another had a penchant for Georgette Heyer.
King's point in that speech that people can be familiar with the breadth of their culture is a good one, I think.
...are slang expletives, however acceptable, tolerated in an acceptance speech for such an important literary award? Isn´t the person who wrote the speech breaching decorum, understood as "appropriate tone"?
I don't know (I swear an awful lot myself). But it does sound just like Stephen King.
I wrote a bad sentence Ugh. I should have known that :(. I get a little bit lost keeping track of all this sort of catsqualling (that is what it looks like to me). I had pinned it as a reflex of the Cultural Studies crowd vs. the Dead White European Men crowd (among the latter of whom, of course, I can be counted), but it seems there is something more to it. Who are critics comparing Tolkien unfavourably with, to be so upset at his being selected author of the century? Who do they think should have been selected in his place? I don't know (I swear an awful lot myself). But it does sound just like Stephen King. Indeed. But precisely by the fact that a vulgar expletive uttered in an academic and prestigious setting sounds like Stephen King wouldn´t it be used to disqualify him? King's point in that speech that people can be familiar with the breadth of their culture is a good one, I think. I agree. But can we stretch it to "people must be familiar with the breadth of their culture"? It seems to me that is what he was driving at, by constructing some sort of bogus supercilious academical critic to oppose his methods to. That is what I sniffed a straw man here. But I own I know so little about all the Culture Wars going on in the UK I am like a fish gasping on the beach sand here ;-).
Who are critics comparing Tolkien unfavourably with, to be so upset at his being selected author of the century? Who do they think should have been selected in his place?
The complaints are directed towards his (alleged) banality, his (alleged) conservatism, and also there are claims of sexism and racism. There is a perception that fantasy, since it is not 'real', is a lesser type of literature than realist novels. In the author of the century debate, I suspect Orwell would have been a preferred choice. In the Big Read, Pride and Prejudice (which came second) was the critics' preference or, if it had to be fantasy, I would imagine Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy would have been more palatable.
But precisely by the fact that a vulgar expletive uttered in an academic and prestigious setting sounds like Stephen King wouldn´t it be used to disqualify him?
I suspect that if I were Stephen King receiving an award for my distinguished contribution to letters, I would neither feel the need nor the desire to attempt to convert the unconverted.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altariel
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 02:30 pm (UTC)Thus spake the token highbrow
Date: 2004-02-27 02:56 pm (UTC)Is "pissing" meaning "angered, frustrated" acceptable in polite discourse now?
Re: Thus spake the token highbrow
Date: 2004-02-27 04:15 pm (UTC)Is "pissing" meaning "angered, frustrated" acceptable in polite discourse now?
I had the sense that it wasn't as strong an expletive in US slang.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 11:42 pm (UTC)but there was certainly a fair amount of antagonism towards genre fiction expressed throughout the Big Read over here
I thought the address was oddly reactive, almost confrontational, but I wasn´t aware of the whole Big Read bruhaha. It is considered bad form to make an acceptance speech out of a sustained and unnuanced criticism of your opponents here, at least, so the antagonistic tone really startled me.
I had the sense that it wasn't as strong an expletive in US slang.
Precisely my point: are slang expletives, however acceptable, tolerated in an acceptance speech for such an important literary award? Isn´t the person who wrote the speech breaching decorum, understood as "appropriate tone"?. Those literary critics he scoffs at would have a field day with this one on a nunmber of counts, IF they were as he paints them.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 01:06 am (UTC)There was a great deal of fuss about King being given this award; I think Harold Bloom was up in arms about it, etc. etc.
Critics of the Big Read (which was on this side of the ocean, of course, not a US event) mainly directed their ire against Tolkien, but there was a small bit of mudslinging towards King. I watched a late night discussion with a panel of supposed literati who picked out King's The Stand, looked round each other asking, "Well, Ihaven't read this - have you?" and mutually affirmed each other with negatives. Which is a shame, since it's a cracking good read, but it also made me think that they should have invited a slightly better read panel along to discuss the list. Later in the programme various panellists defended their own taste in genre fiction - one was a reader of hard SF, another had a penchant for Georgette Heyer.
King's point in that speech that people can be familiar with the breadth of their culture is a good one, I think.
...are slang expletives, however acceptable, tolerated in an acceptance speech for such an important literary award? Isn´t the person who wrote the speech breaching decorum, understood as "appropriate tone"?
I don't know (I swear an awful lot myself). But it does sound just like Stephen King.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 07:00 am (UTC)Ugh. I should have known that :(.
I get a little bit lost keeping track of all this sort of catsqualling (that is what it looks like to me). I had pinned it as a reflex of the Cultural Studies crowd vs. the Dead White European Men crowd (among the latter of whom, of course, I can be counted), but it seems there is something more to it. Who are critics comparing Tolkien unfavourably with, to be so upset at his being selected author of the century? Who do they think should have been selected in his place?
I don't know (I swear an awful lot myself). But it does sound just like Stephen King.
Indeed. But precisely by the fact that a vulgar expletive uttered in an academic and prestigious setting sounds like Stephen King wouldn´t it be used to disqualify him?
King's point in that speech that people can be familiar with the breadth of their culture is a good one, I think.
I agree. But can we stretch it to "people must be familiar with the breadth of their culture"? It seems to me that is what he was driving at, by constructing some sort of bogus supercilious academical critic to oppose his methods to. That is what I sniffed a straw man here. But I own I know so little about all the Culture Wars going on in the UK I am like a fish gasping on the beach sand here ;-).
no subject
Date: 2004-03-01 05:34 am (UTC)The complaints are directed towards his (alleged) banality, his (alleged) conservatism, and also there are claims of sexism and racism. There is a perception that fantasy, since it is not 'real', is a lesser type of literature than realist novels. In the author of the century debate, I suspect Orwell would have been a preferred choice. In the Big Read, Pride and Prejudice (which came second) was the critics' preference or, if it had to be fantasy, I would imagine Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy would have been more palatable.
But precisely by the fact that a vulgar expletive uttered in an academic and prestigious setting sounds like Stephen King wouldn´t it be used to disqualify him?
I suspect that if I were Stephen King receiving an award for my distinguished contribution to letters, I would neither feel the need nor the desire to attempt to convert the unconverted.