|
April 24, 2005
Distinguishing the bloggers from the trees . . .
Indirectly via InstaPundit, I unintentionally stumbled across an untested hypothesis: My group consisted of myself and one other classmate, Chris. We were assigned the fable "The Fox and the Grapes," which consists of a fox jumping repeatedly for grapes that are just out of its reach, before finally giving up and declaring that the grapes are probably sour anyways. The moral of the fable? "It is easy to despise what you cannot get."While the fable was cited in the context of the unattainable (for most men) Salma Hayek, and it had originally been a source of pants-splitting embarrassment, I thought of bloggers as the fox and the MainStreamMedia as the grapes. Is my hypothesis valid? Are some bloggers envious of the MSM? And, knowing full well that they'll never attain equal prestige, are they inclined to "dis" the MSM in the same way as the fox? EDITORIAL QUESTION: Why does the grape-seeker have to be a fox, anyway? Couldn't the great Aesop have foreseen that this might cause confusion because of the Fox News Network? Sorry to be second guessing Aesop, folks, but since I've started down this slippery slope, I might as well ask whether the fox and the grapes story suffers from a bit of static analysis. I mean, foxes are smart, right? And grapes are, well, more than dumb. Why, unless you're a New Age nut, they're almost inanimate. Surely the fox would realize that in time, the grapes would fall and be his to devour. They might even ferment a little, thus adding some gratification to the delay. But seriously, I want to be fair to the mainstream journalists. And fairness dictates that it be recognized that they are not as dumb as grapes. To that extent, the analogy and the hypothesis are both flawed. However, if we see the grapes not as professional journalists, but as symbols of their work, the fruit of their journalistic accomplishments, might there be some life truth still to be salvaged from the fable? Possibly. But there's still the static analysis problem. I think that in real life journalism, the grapes have to be considered as attached to something sentient. This might not have been a problem for Aesop, as his fables were intended to be broadly interpreted, but for the modern age, we need more drama, more real live action! Clearly, some type of Hollywoodish revisionism is called for, and I'm not thinking that sour grapes also need wrath. I was thinking along the lines of the angry old apple trees in the "Wizard of Oz." Dorothy picked an apple, was promptly scolded, and then the scarecrow had an idea..... SCARECROW:Come along, Dorothy -- you don't want any of those apples. Hmm!As we all know, they got more apples than they wanted or needed. (Although it's probably worth remembering that a single bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.) I just hope the trees aren't the bloggers. posted by Eric on 04.24.05 at 12:21 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|