Letters to the Editor
-
The only thing more boring than the subject of this article
Is this article.
-
@ Nulla Sallus
... That's a joke, right? Or are you actually a living, breathing illustration of the exact type of knee-jerk anti-everything troll Siegel's book describes?
-
"sprezzatura" was a fine word, lots of history
shame he ruined it - another victim of the internet...
-
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 Perhaps it's time to retire that outdated definition of satire?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.
-
EVERYBODY PANIC!
Oh, those kids with their loud music and their Dan Fogelberg, their Zima, hula hoops and Pac-Man video games, the hippity-hop music and YooToobs on the Interwebs, it's all gonna come crashing down, and when it does, mark my words, you'll be regretting the day you didn't mark my words.
-
good grief
all that--admittedly insightful--verbiage inspired by someone who amounts to no more than a baby with a thin skin who couldn't take a little criticism of his work.
Sad that we've come to this. But, then, academic cultural critics often have very thin skins. Nothing new there. Had Siegel pulled this shit in a University context, he could well have lost his tenure.
What a dope.
-
Eactly right, a "wounded vanity" production
Siegel's "sprezzatura" caper wasn't just childish and dishonest--it was terminally pathetic. He lived and then he died by the Internet, debasing it far more than the dumbest anonymous poster ever could. Now he comes back to say that everyone else should have to die by it too. That's Narcissism 101: if my world ends, everybody's world should have to end.
To the letter-writer who thinks that after all there is some truth to Siegel's Chicken Little rant: there is ALWAYS some truth to Chicken Little rants. When writing was invented, someone complained that our memories would atrophy as a result, and that someone was right. What makes Chicken Little so boring is that the sky is always falling, and there is never a shortage of fuming superannuated birdbrains to bring us the news.
Are we all going to hell in a handbasket because of the Internet? No. SIEGEL went to hell in a handbasket because of the Internet. If he now wants to rehabilitate himself, I suggest that he try to put himself right instead of putting everyone else in the wrong. He should start by getting down on his knees and thanking his lucky stars that anyone will still pay to publish him, and then in his next piece try to express a little gratitude to anyone who is still willing to read him.
-
@G.L.
Oh my god, you're right! It's all true! Everything you said, precisely. In fact, you wrote my letter. That's creepy -- yet somehow satisfying. Now I won't have to say it. Thank you.
Now get outa my head! :)
-
Show your talents... G L and HadEnough
I had not heard of Lee Siegel until reading this article. And the sock puppet episode, for sure, is embarrassing. And his new book may be an extended moan, fine.
Anyway, I searched and read Siegel's review of What is the What by Dave Eggers. And read it.
http://www.powells.com/review/2007_04_19.html
Now, rather than be labelling Siegel pathetic etc, perhaps Had_enough and G L would like to read Siegel's review and then post links to their own equivalent engagements with books or movies or whichever art form they are interested in writing about.
In a way, such inane attacks, thrown away, seemingly without any thought, just a knee-jerk reaction, absolutely VALIDATES the argument advanced by Siegel regarding the blogosphere. It is full of (knee) jerks, happily wading in on issues that they demonstrate no understanding of.
I am a professional writer, and even if I was being disassembled as Eggers is in Siegel's piece, I would still appreciate the forensic examination of my work and the skill with which Siegel deploys his pen.
Okay, I look forward to the links to your criticism and exploring in full the vast contribution that G L and Had_Enough have made to Western culture.
-
Blah blah blah
If there were only two people left on this planet, they'd be bickering over something trivial.
And so here's my bit of bickering:
Siegel sounds like a sensitive bore and Bayard ends up sounding like a bore.
I do agree with Siegel about coffeehouses: everybody there sits with their laptop for hours and hours, taking up every available table for someone who just wants to sit down and rest with a cup of whatever. They stare at their screens in a trance. Funny, I have a feeling they're all on Craigslist posting a rant or an personal ad.
The internet has leveled the playing field and everyone can now throw in their two cents, usually anonymously. Few people would post their opinions if they had to give their real name and city as is required by print newspapers if one authors a letter to the editor. So is it a good thing that everyone and everyone's mother can be a pundit? Yes and no. It's more democratic in some ways but there are no zillon of pages out there in cyber space filled with utter crap. But who should judge what is crap and what is good? Editors and gatekeepers? The old ways and the new ways have pros and cons - as most things do.
As for irony and satire: Family Guy and the Simpsons and the Daily Show and Curb Your Enthusiasm are all very funny, very un-PC. They are products of our time. My generation (50 and younger) is the most sarcastic and cynical in history and nothing is sacred. No wonder we're like that - the world is increasingly surreal and I think sarcasm is a survival mechanism.
And now I'm done boring you.