|
|
|
August 15, 2005
Not all chirping is beautiful
"let readers decide who sings most like a nightingale." In a comment recently, blogger "Slartibartfast" left a friendly warning (which reminded me of the probationary nature of my blogging): I wouldn't mess with Wolcott if I were you. I mean, that guy can write.How true. I replied that Barbra Streisand is a much better singer than I am, that John Lennon was a better writer AND singer, and while I might be musically and verbally unable to counter, say, the nonsense in the song "Imagine," that does not make "Imagine" right. Nor does Wolcott's writing ability breathe truth into his thoughts. It's not my goal to "mess" with Wolcott, whose abilities as a superior writer I respect. However, when I disagree with something strongly enough, well, I ought to say something, or else why blog at all? If I think something is ridiculous, should I not say so? Should the fact that a superior writer said it deter me from disagreeing with it? I don't see why. I say this with full awareness of my limitations. I know I'm not all that great of a writer, and my style (notwithstanding Steven's compliments), well, it just doesn't hold a candle to the New Yorker/Vanity Fair/James Wolcott style, and I know it. I do think I have stuff to say, and I do try to make it interesting, but I'll never be published in any showcase for superior writing talent. Hell, that's why I'm writing in this blog, and I suspect others blog for the same reason. Because this came up in the context of Wolcott's repeated attacks on Michael Totten, let me also say that I don't think my writing is as good as Michael Totten's. (Which means Wolcott will and should ignore me and would probably consider my readers lower on the evolutionary scale than Michael Totten's readers, whom he labels "tottentots." Har!) But the statement -- "I'll let Michael Totten play with his nuances" -- shows what a gracious gentleman Wolcott is. Should I be thankful that he's allowing me to play with my nuances? As the blogosphere's reigning (and unchallengeable) nightingale aspirant, Wolcott shouldn't feel the slightest threat from me, because I'm an admitted loser. I don't plan to enter the nightingale contest, and it never occurred to me that anyone would blog for such a reason. I'm more like a lowly cricket, chirping away annoyingly. Much as I hate to compare the thoughts of Russell Kirk to the thoughts of James Wolcott, I reserve my right to chirp, as often as I want, as long as I continue blogging. (Until somebody fumigates, I guess....)
Hmmm.... That probably explains the last factoid. All things considered, I don't think I'd want to be a nightingale. And where's the rule that says I should try to sound like one? posted by Eric on 08.15.05 at 10:20 AM
Comments
"I still say your style of writing is superior to Wolcott's because your style of thinking is superior. If I didn't think so, I would be reading him instead of you." Well I still say that those who would wish to get the best possible outcome in terms of actually learning something would be reading both Mr. Wolcott and Eric, not one or the other. My attitude is elitist (horror!), increasingly rare (my kind is obviously on the way out), and appropriately for Eric's blog, a classical one. Therefore, my attitude hasn't a chance. Nash · August 15, 2005 05:04 PM Wolcott is all sound and fury, and nothing more. He writes eloquently but is clearly ignorant on the subjects on which he chooses to opine. Consequently, he has taken the appearance of a puffed-up fool. Ignore him. John · August 15, 2005 10:28 PM "He writes eloquently but is clearly ignorant on the subjects on which he chooses to opine." That is a statement of opinion, not fact. The truth is, there are several topics related to media criticism where he is paid to opine on a regular basis. Granted, making a living at something doesn't mean one is competent at it, and the fact that he makes a living at it doesn't make him right, but there seem to be people with a fair amount of money saying that he is qualified to opine. You seem to be saying that because he says things you disagree with, he is ignorant. Are you that arrogant or am I misunderstanding you? Nash · August 16, 2005 01:37 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
• 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! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Dear Eric:
Thank you for the link. I still say your style of writing is superior to Wolcott's because your style of thinking is superior. If I didn't think so, I would be reading him instead of you.
As for "Imagine", that's the song I hate the most, primarily the lyrics, but the music isn't all that great either in my opinion and so doesn't redeem it. I don't have to "Imagine" listening to better music than "Imagine". Even the "Horst Wessel March" or the "Internationale" is better.
I love instead to "Imagine" a world where nobody is stupid enough to imagine that there's anything "idealistic" about somebody who wants to abolish private property, patriotism, or religion. A world where there's nothing worth fighting for would be at peace, but I would rather die than live in it.