Letters to the Editor
-
Yes, but.
<<Irony, after all, is a tacit admission that nothing matters too much.>>
And apparently undetectable to Mr. Bayard, at least where his own reactions are concerned.
That characterization of irony, and the notion that it's essentially conservative, is not original with him. I find lately, though, that it seems less and less apt to me. I think of Jon Stewart, a principal bete noir currently cited by many anti-ironists, and I think: this is a man who thinks nothing matters too much? It seems to me that Stewart is a man who clearly (witness his industry-changing appearance on "Crossfire") cares deeply about the things he satirizes; his passion is his motivation. If those things didn't matter to him, he wouldn't care enough to make jokes about them. Maybe that's a post-9/11 phenomenon, but I relate to it: I've always loved satire, and loved it most when it was fiercely lacerating in the name of ideas I hold dear. Perhaps it's time to retire that outdated definition of satire?
<<"insult to the timber industry." ... But what does it mean, exactly?... "If your toaster could write a sentence, it would write one just like that." He gets our attention, yes -- and then the questions resume. Why a toaster?>>
Why anything? Maybe it's just me, but I got what Siegel meant by that immediately. A toaster is a thing, not a thinking being, and the sentence it would write if it could would be devoid of thinking. Is this a complex idea?
<<There is, finally, an unexamined arrogance in many sociological critiques, and Siegel's is no exception.>>
As there is in any critique of anything -- Siegel's book indeed not excepted. To critique is to presume objective knowledge and insight and perspective not demonstrated (one implies) by the creator of the thing being critiqued. It is an inherently arrogant thing to do -- and yet a valuable one. Arrogance, in and of itself, is not a mortal sin; in fact, I'd argue it's essential to believe in oneself sufficiently to accomplish big things, like running for president or starting an online daily magazine.
More to the point, Mr. Bayard seems shamefully unaware of the arrogance ironically implicit in his own critique of Siegel's book (arrogance which, again, I would say is essential to the very doing of the thing). Hmm.
<<But maybe I wouldn't say that if I were an intellectual.>>
But you are an intellectual, Mr. Bayard. You are "a novelist and journalist who lives in Washington, D.C." What other description could possibly fit you better?
Don't misunderstand me: I find Siegel's self-superiority annoying and his cultural hand-wringing tiresome. But any person of intelligence and depth who can't see some truth in contentions like those he makes -- that people aren't reading as much, that there's a general decline in critical thinking abilities, etc. -- isn't using the brain he or she was born with. There is such a thing as protesting too much.
A more balanced review might suit you better, Herr Mozart.