I got an email from my evil twin brother Jed:
I read Robin Marty’s evasive, straw-addled non-review of Indoctrinate U, and had to comment when I read this bit here:
As an English major, I picked electives that introduced me to many multi-cultural works. Yet my required classes instead embraced the “white, heterosexual males,” Norman Fruman opined in Kersten’s column that colleges were rejecting. I was given the works of Robert Browning while we skipped over his wife, Elizabeth, or even stranger, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, who was better known as a painter, over his sister, Christina. Complaints regarding the complete rejection of women writers for study in that class convinced our professor to give us a handout of “A Room of One’s Own” and the declaration that we can go “have a study group with it, or something.”
One simple explanation for this “disparity”; if one is teaching a required survey of Western Literature, Robert Browning and Dante Rossetti are both vastly more important figures than Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Christina Rossetti. They matter more.
For someone who’s majoring in literature – toss ’em all in there! But if you’re talking about a survey to show people where Western Lit has been and what it’s done? There’s no excuse for ignoring important authors (whiteness and maleness and straightitude notwithanding) in preference to usually-trivial female authors.
Jed, having been a lit major, has strong opinions about these things.
You mean that there are men who right poetry?
The sissies. I guess they use them fancy feathered quill pens ‘cuz their wrists aren’t strong enough to wield a 29-cent bic.
Having been a Bachelor of Arts at two different universities and having to satisfy the general requirements for both, I have had a wee bit of exposure to “Women’s Studies”, Multiculturalism, history, and even a bit of literature – though I’m not a literature major.
Women are pretty fairly represented in BA programs. I read Anne Raynd (sic), Elizabeth Browning, and on my own read Harriet Tubman. The complaint here is anecdotal – and as is the case with nearly all anecdotal commentary, it’s essentially meaningless. We don’t set policy by story-telling, nor should we. The ability of people to believe they’ve been ‘left-out’ or offended, either directly or on behalf of some group, never ceases to amaze – the irony here of course is, this film is about the veiws of righties being ‘left out’, and the complaint presented on this blog is that the person is foolish to believe women have been left out of the education process – a larger examination – or an objective one at least – suggests entirely the opposite. The irony here nearly drips off the page.
I’ll go see Indoctrinate U – I certainly have some preconceived notions about the victim mentality and over-focus on tiny detail, as well as ultra-thin skin of much of the right – but assuming the facts are presented as FACTS not just anecdotal screed, I’ll give it a fair hearing. Having written movie reviews for our High School newspaper, I’m sure I’m eminently qualified to determine the calibre of the film.
Poor Peev, he starts out wanting, needing, and so desiring to be a rational fair minded individual
“I’ll give it a fair hearing”
And then shrieks down the hill into the valley of partisan hackery
“Having written movie reviews for our High School newspaper, I’m sure I’m eminently qualified to determine the calibre of the film.”
Stay Classy Peev
“[T]he irony here of course is, this film is about the veiws of righties being ‘left out’”
In the preview of the film and the reviews I’ve read of it, its about being persecuted for your political beliefs.
The ability of people to believe they’ve been ‘left-out’ or offended, either directly or on behalf of some group, never ceases to amaze
But as Terry notes, that has absolutely nothing to do with the film. Nothing. Zip.
I’d explain it – again – but why be redundant? I’ll just await the revealed word of Peev.
For Peev, it’s about seeing his written blatherings more than anything else. Outside of Fark, I’ve never read a person so in love with himself and his comments, yet technologically inept enough not to be able to start his own blog.
Having written movie reviews for our High School newspaper, I’m sure I’m eminently qualified to determine the calibre of the film.
Can you imagine the poor editor?
PEEVE: “Here’s my sixteen-thousand word, single spaced review of ‘Red Dawn.'”
EDITOR: “But I asked for six-hundred words.”
PEEVE: “Six-hundred words? You gotta be kidding. I used that many in my first paragraph describing the opening credits.”
And you thought your job was tough.
Terry whimpered: “In the preview of the film and the reviews I’ve read of it, its about being persecuted for your political beliefs.”
Snif! You wingnuts are just like Jesus that way.
Sorry ’bout all the persecution from smart people for your belief in “intelligent design” and whatnot!
wow
I know you love to write about me, and two swipes at my “review” are flattering, but I’d like to point out that assuming you actually read my “review” you would see that it went up before the movie ever showed in Minneapolis. That’s why it states this at the end: “Robin Marty will be attending tonight’s preview of “Indoctrinate U” at the Oak Street Cinema, and will provide a full report on the event on Sunday.”
Note WILL BE. Future tense.
I like to review movies after I see them, not before.
Doesn’t angryclown think all college people are “smart”? If so, isn’t it about “smart” people persecuting other “smart” people? And why didn’t angryclown mention dinosaurs in his comment? I feel cheated, somehow. 😉
I don’t think any swipes were aimed at this “review” being anything less that a review, at least from what is presented here. It seemed more like “here is the cheese that goes with that particular whine”. *shrug*
I like to review movies after I see them, not before.
So it only looked like you’d already concluded it was just a bunch of conservative whining?
That’s what it looked like, sure. It also looks like, over at Minnie Mon, they have an idiosyncratic definition of “on Sunday.”
Actually Mitch, are you saying it ISN’T about how righties are under-represented? It ISN’T saying that their views are treated with scorn, in short that they are “left out” or treated with contempt? No? Oh wait, it IS that the film says exactly that…it says that right wing views are squelched, that their positions are left out of the curriculum, are left out fo the discussion…hrmm..
In fact, you have said that the goal of academia is too often to use higher education to indoctrinate people into left wing views and that right wing views are LEFT OUT of the indoctrination process. You aren’t dumb, why do you insist on pretending you didn’t grasp these points.. it’s simply a higher order sort of usage of the idea “left out”, and it’s not really a hard one.
Also, the irony was on point… you complain about the fact that when presented anecdotally, any complaint is meaningless, yet, repeatedly you’ve made anecdotal complaints about this prof or that, and I strongly suspect the film does too.
Chaofish- I was poking fun, I certainly don’t believe I’m qualified by having written reviews as a 16 year old. I equally don’t think that Robin’s experience suggests a broad-reaching exclusion of women’s views, NOR does Mitch’s brother being ‘a lit’ major, suggest a broad-reaching inclusion. See above, the anecdotal comments of anyone really are of little real value (unless they’re commenting on their experience only) – that’s the point. So somebody made a tangential complaint – and the ccomplaint was of little value – so what? Refuting it with equally banal drivel – is also meaningless. And more than that, considering Robin pretty clearly commented that she/he hadn’t reviewed it, and Mitch missed that (or worse, left it out) – well it makes this string of complaints a big waste of time.
Actually Mitch, are you saying it ISN’T about how righties are under-represented?
That happens to be a fact, but it’s not the theme of the movie, no.
It ISN’T saying that their views are treated with scorn, in short that they are “left out” or treated with contempt?
Again, both of them are true often enough, and both make appearances in the film. But no, either of those is the theme.
No? Oh wait, it IS that the film says exactly that…it says that right wing views are squelched, that their positions are left out of the curriculum, are left out fo the discussion…hrmm..
Look, Peevish, I’m going to operate on the assumption that you can follow this:
Disagreement, even unto the point of ugliness and contempt, are signs of ugly, stupid, depraved people – but they’re not necessarily *wrong*; nobody has a right not to be offended.
But using the official power, legal weight and academic authority of the university and the academic establishment to squelch the *existence* of ideas and dissent – not via a winning argument, but by making dissent impossible to sustain – IS wrong, it IS unamerican, and it IS the subject of the movie.
College students being told to get psychiatric counseling for handing out leaflets. Honored professors being suddenly ostracized (in the classical sense of the term) once they come out of the closet as Republicans. Administrations actively maintaining one standard for liberal protests and another, vastly stricter one for conservative dissent. About liberal mobs hounding conservative speakers off campus – not via the strength of their argument (liberals always lose head to head arguments with conservatives – the exceptions are vanishingly few, and usually chalked up to differing rhetorical abilities on the debaters’ parts *), but by numbers and volume and the overhanging threat of violence.
THAT’s what the movie’s about. And, really, any continued questioning about what I said (or, more accurately, your need to see my take on the movie in very pointillistic terms) is irrelevant.
it makes this string of complaints a big waste of time.
Counting paragraphs…counting…counting…
* Oh, relax. It’s hyperbole. Partly.
Chad – I have an equally pithy comeback, but I’ll save that for later.
But here’s one for you that isn’t pithy. Assume these facts, (may not be true, but just assume them to humor me a moment),
First, many people on Mitch’s blog (including Mitch), if you don’t first disarm the argument, will bring up trivial crap and irrelevancies and focus on points that either aren’t being argued, or more likely, on tiny little points in the overall argument, rather than evaluating the topic as a whole.
Second, they will, seemingly purposefully, fail to grasp challenging points, unless they are spelled out laboriously.
Third, Peev (like Mitch and sometimes oh, Chad) is a long-winded gasbag.
Fourth, often, in fact nearly always, issues are complex, and a reasonable discussion requires more than 50 words. That is, unless your whole goal, like AC so ably does, is to simply mock.
Now, I’m sure you think points 1 and 2 are false – but I would differ based on my experience having to connect the dots so often for Mitch, if not for others, but I doubt you can reasonably argue that 3 and 4 are wrong.
Or – if I want to emulate AC (and who wouldn’t), I could just say –
My editor’s job was only exceeded in it’s challenge by George Bush’s English Prof, which was only exceeded by the challenges faced by his Geography and History Profs, and I’d guess that between the two of us, only one of us voted for him. Finally, since Mitch can’t constrain himself to 5000 words on Katherine Kersten – why should I?
Mitch can’t constrain himself to 5000 words on Katherine Kersten – why should I?
Speaking not as a critic of what you write (I am, but let’s ignore that for a moment) and as someone who has written for a living for his entire adult life (as in, since age 16) in one form or another, including a stint as a writing teacher, I’ll answer that:
a) It’s my blog. If I take 5,000 words but don’t ever really get to a point, or get to seven or eight tangentially-related points more or less simultaneously – nobody will read it. I am, for better or worse, putting myself out there as one of several destinations on peoples’ daily circuit of blogs. I’m apparently modestly successful at it – I get around 2,000 visitors a day (my SiteMeter and my server logs don’t agree with each other).
2) If I were a crap writer, I sincerely doubt I’d get 1/100 of that. I’m no Hemingway, but I have reason to believe I handle the blocking and tackling of “telling a story” in my various posts modestly well on average.
III) I grew up in an environment – the son of a writing teacher, a news reporter when I was 16 – where poor writing was frowned on. And by “poor”, I don’t just mean basic spelling and grammar, but *style*; not “color”, per se, but writing in a style that’s appropriate for the medium. Also, a piece of writing should start somewhere, go somewhere, and end somewhere. It should leave a reader with at least a basic understanding of what you’re shooting for; it should make a point, and cut out the crap. Now, while comments are usually spur of the moment things, there’s a certain self-indulgence (says my upbringing) involved in writing a LONG LONG LONG stream of consciousness piece that is NOT concisely written, that flits about among several narratives, and is just-plain-hard to follow (especially given the medium; comments favor short, to the point comments, not extended narratives; peoples’ attentions spans don’t forgive wordiness in comments). It’s just bad form, in other words.
So – and again, I’m speaking purely clinically, here – you’d probably do much better if you wrote more, SHORTER, comments – each one with ONE point, perhaps – rather than the Dostoevskiian magnum opi with which you tend to treat us.
Third, Peev (like Mitch and sometimes oh, Chad) is a long-winded gasbag.
Um, no. If I were, I’d get 30 hits a day.
Seriously, Peev. You oughtta try writing a blog. One post a day. It would – again, I’m speaking as a writer and sometimes writing teacher – probably do you a world of good.
Second, they will, seemingly purposefully, fail to grasp challenging points, unless they are spelled out laboriously.
Actually, you pretty much defeat your purpose by approaching it that way.
In a comment section, precise concision is the key. A good comment is almost like poetry in that no word is wasted; there is no verbal flab. You are unlikely to change anyone’s mind, no matter how good (you think) your point is; better to merely express the point as elegantly (meaning: concisely and perfectly) as possible. If at all.
And as I noted above, going on and on and on in a comment section is very off-putting. It’s almost an imposition; people will bail on a long, long, long comment. Hell, I do; much of what you call my “unwillingness to debate” is actually “my eyes have glazed over trying to follow whatever this long, baroque comment is trying to say, and I gave up”.
Follow the model of Angryclown, whose underlying idea (“Everyone but Angryclown is dumb”) is expressed consisely, with rapier-like precision, each missive – while laughably politically naive and based on a perspective that can’t survive in nature – crafted like a fine piece of German machinery.
Less is more.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Poop fart anus, wiener hole, butt cheek.
You don’t get any more concise than that.
A professional writer in action.
A marvel to behold.
Really.
Peeve-
Mitch is right that in this medium shorter and to the point is better. You think you need to write more to get your point across, but the more you write, the less people are likely to read it all. Comments sections should be conversations, not long one-sided diatribes.
You’re right that Mitch can be a long-winded gas bag at times (I also can on occasion). But it’s his blog. Imagine it as a dinner party with Mitch as host and the commenters as guests. As host, Mitch is afforded a lot of leeway in setting the conversation. If he wants to ramble on a bit with his arguments, personal stories, etc. guests will generally be pretty tolerable. After all, he is the reason that they came in the first place.
However, if a guest–someone they really don’t know at all except through Mitch–starts monopolizing the conversation with lengthy rants, the other guests will be turned off by what they view as rude behavior. The points being made may be valid, but if no one is listening they are meaningless.
After reading Yoss’ post, people in the office are staring at me strangely wondering what I suddenly choked on.
peevish, here’s a clue: often, the same thing can have more than one detrimental result; frequently, a bad result is occasioned by more than one cause.
The film makes both points: that intellectual diversity, in terms of incorporating conservatives and conservative thought, is lacking in the university culture; and that conservative thought and expression is often stifled.
Only somebody too peevish to see the connection would fail to see the connection.
As to how long a piece of writing should be, the simple rule is that if you write entertainingly enough, people will read your novel series; as it is, you don’t do well at the sort essay, peevish, and would be better off writing briefly and being pithy than going on at length and being pissy.
Pithy trumps pissy.
Concisical.
Bill C admitted: “After reading Yoss’ post, people in the office are staring at me strangely wondering what I suddenly choked on.”
The Limbovian phallus? Again?
I see, once again, why “classyclown” was not “nick name of choice”. 😉