Being me is so unfair!

As I said earlier, I feel more had by Andrew Sullivan than by Tiger Woods. I don't like it when people are not who they say they are, and the whole Sullivan Doppelganger thing makes me wince when I think back on the innumerable posts I've written over the years either agreeing or disagreeing with the man. There's something very disturbing about not knowing who I was agreeing or disagreeing with.

And then on top of that, there's the annoying "cerebral juices" metaphor. The other day, Sean Kinsell poignantly asked that it stop:

...can we please not hear any more about Sullivan's juices, cerebral or otherwise?
And then today, Glenn Reynolds asked the same thing, noting additionally that marination was involved:
CAN WE PLEASE STOP IT WITH THIS "marinating in Andy's cerebral juices" metaphor?
Sean and Glenn are two bloggers I greatly respect. And the last thing I want to do is stew in Andrew Sullivan's "juice." However, I'm still unclear on the concept. What was the idea of introducing the cerebral juices metaphor in the first place? Is the idea that since all of Sullivan's doppelgangers are working for him, that they're all marinating in the same "soup" so it's all OK?

Really? Isn't this just another attempt to homogenize the decline?

I'm not trying to prolong a very unpleasant metaphor, but I thought I should ask.

The whole thing seems very unfair. Not to sound bitter, but why does Andrew Sullivan get to have lots of people being him, while I have to be stuck being me? Do he and his various cerebrally marinated selves think that "being me" is for the little people?

posted by Eric on 12.19.09 at 12:42 PM


Which alter ego do you want?
The one obsessed with a certain ex-governor's uterus or one of the stewed ones?

I'd be your alter ego but I have too big a one to do that.

Veeshir   ·  December 19, 2009 3:47 PM


"I've marinated in Sullivan's cerebral juices for a few years now and know intuitively what he interested in and what to bring to his attention."

Excuse me now, I'm septic.


Kenneth Greenlee   ·  December 19, 2009 8:55 PM

Let me simplify for you.

If you persist in drooling of Sullivan, Johnson, or Woods, I'm out of here.

There is no way anything about any of themmcan be interesting.

I will remove from my must read list all who disagree with ntha.

Larry Sheldon   ·  December 19, 2009 9:18 PM

Count me in with Larry Sheldon. I don't want to read anything about Andrew Sullivan or Charles Johnson. They are irrelevant lunatics. So just stop the posts regarding them.

Bob Sykes   ·  December 20, 2009 6:55 AM

In the case of Larry Sheldon and Bob Sykes, we have two commenters aggravated by a narcissistic, passive-aggressive sense of midlife "entitlement" which takes the form of imagining that they can tell Eric what he should, and should not, blog about.


Kenneth Greenlee   ·  December 20, 2009 8:52 AM

Kenneth, do you think that maybe they're Eric's alter egos?
He didn't want to have to write this post, maybe his alter egos have stewed in his cerebral juices and have reacted as he would want.

Well that or what you said.

Veeshir   ·  December 20, 2009 10:35 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits