|
November 04, 2004
Eliminating pompous regurgitation!
The sign of a true pomposity in the making is when a man begins quoting himself. I had honestly wanted to return to the subject of Arlen Specter, not necessarily as a barometer of the election, but because I think his candidacy reveals much about the way voters think, and the state of American politics at this time. Specter was nearly defeated in the Republican primary by a very conservative candidate named Pat Toomey. This was something I had discussed extensively in previous posts, and, almost reflexively, I had wanted to cite my own posts, not because I like quoting myself, but because I'd rather avoid having to say again what I have already said before. I don't like to bore regular readers, but on the other hand I think it's only fair to allow interested readers who are seeing this for the first time an opportunity to read more if they desire. The Toomey-Specter conflict is now old history, and not worth a lot of time. But now I see that I'm up against a rule recently enunciated by James Wolcott that quoting yourself is "the sign of a true pomposity in the making." While Wolcott began his analysis believing it's a guy thing ("because women are far less prone to cite their previous remarks"), he later discovers that certain "conservative" women are also violators: I noticed that two other conservative bloggers in this op-ed roundup--Joanne Jacobs (a longtime member of Reynolds' blogroll) and Ann Althouse (who guest posts on Reynolds' site)--also quote from themselves. So evidently I'm wrong about this particular pomposity being a male trait. It must be some form of Instapundit viral infection instead.Gee.... Might this be another form of creeping InstaFascism? Once again (at the risk of pompous self-quoting), we can't be too careful! Seriously (no, really!), does Wolcott have a valid complaint? Is it wrong to cite yourself? Or is it only wrong when you were wrong in the first place? I must say that I had I been "rooting for the hurricane" (to say nothing of rooting for the wolves -- first against Elmer Fudd-as-Bush, then against Glenn Reynolds), I might not want to cite myself either. (There I go being mean. In my evil and pompous heart, I know that Wolcott is not always wrong, so I shouldn't make sweeping generalizations.) Still, I think there's just something too, well, harsh about not being able to quote yourself. Who wants to live in a world where you're ever on guard lest you say the same thing twice? Wolcott, for example, was utterly ingenious in calling Roger L. Simon a novelist who wears a hat. Doubtless, he later recognized that his own rule didn't bar him from saying that twice. Why, I'll just bet he'll say it again – without ever bothering to credit himself for his previous brilliance! Modest boy! And what a cruel world it would be if we weren't allowed to tell the world about clever comments we made previously – especially on important occasions! Even Wolcott doesn't begrudge himself such simple pleasures: When Miramax was preparing the audio version of my book (read by the actor Dennis Boutsikaris, who does a Shakespearean job on the Peggy Noonan chapter that is pure Arcadian delight), I got a call requesting helping on the pronunciation of certain names. Alexander Cockburn, for example--last named is pronounced "Coburn," not as if your penis is on fire.Imagine if Wolcott hadn't allowed himself to share that gem! With these exceptions in mind, let's return to Wolcott's remark about rooting for the wolves against Glenn Reynolds. Here's what Wolcott said: Since Glenn Reynolds is supporting Bush's reelection, I believe the same principle applies that I enunciated in my previous post. Go wolves!And sure enough, there was a previous post in which the very principle was enunciated! Go wolves indeed! Isn't it fair to ask whether Wolcott is quoting himself there? Does this not violate the same principle he enunciated about the sign of a true pomposity in the making? Actually, I wish Mr. Wolcott would cite more of his previous posts, because if you started reading out of the blue, you might not understand the full context of what he is saying. For example, when Wolcott reacted to the Bush victory, he titled his post "Anyone Know How to Make a Noose?" If you weren't a regular reader, you might not be sure what he wants the noose for. He really doesn't say, and it worried me, because a noose is hardly a nice image or a reassuring symbol, and if someone wants to make one, it's cause for concern. Is the noose intended for himself, or for others? Fortunately, he left a clue earlier: the title of his Bush victory day post was to have been "Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve to Die." Gee..... If I didn't know it was mere pomposity in the making, I'd almost swear that Wolcott was regurgitating eliminationist rhetoric. posted by Eric on 11.04.04 at 10:25 AM
Comments
If you say something well once, why shouldn't you use it in a quote instead of coming up with less-effective phrasing? I think the point is in how the quote is done. Someone who says, "I think I said it best back in this post..." is not on the level of "A wise man, me, once said..." Of course, I once knew someone who quoted a fictional identity he'd made for himself just for fun. The quotes were supposedly from amazingly obscure lectures, and were strangely germane to the point he needed to make at the time... B. Durbin · November 4, 2004 06:51 PM I should quote myself more often. I like the idea of quoting a fictional identity. Maybe I should start referring to the famous lectures on Transcendental Spectrumology of the learned Herr Doktor Professor Karl Austin Bieberholtz. Ayn Rand loved to quote herself, and, especially, to quote John Galt, Howard Roark, Francisco D'Anconia, and other characters in her novels. It just occured to me that all the great orators in her novels, the expounders of her philosophy, were the male characters, not the female characters with whom she identified. I should quote more often from holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma, and from wicked Wanda. Wanda could explain the physics of this election from an atheistical point of view, tying it in with the Chaotic Field Theory (she would have voted for Kerry). Dawn and Norma could show us how the anti-homosexual amendments were part of a Communist plot to destroy the polytheistic holiness of marriage, tying it in with "Holy Music vs. Drug Music and The Conspiracy Behind the Conspiracy" (they would have voted for Bush). Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring Zionist fascist · November 5, 2004 04:30 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 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
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Thanks - this got me over my surprisingly long-lasting disgust at this guy and his remarks. "hoist with his own petard".