September 22, 2006
Biting.
Have you been reading the Time.com blog Political Bite, which is "hosted" by Ana Marie Cox (formerly of Wonkette)? Well, go read it now, because I just wrote something for it: here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
"Eddie's comment seems a non sequitur???"
Must have been the "biting."
Here's another non sequitur: I am reading "Tender at the Bone" by Ruth Reichl; Ann, did you go to school with her at Michigan, by any chance?
I guess what comes to mind are our actors/actresses who represent a character in a film, and sometimes never seem to ever lose the image of that character. ie. Renée Zellweger in Bridget Jones' Diary. For me it was tough to accept her role in Cold Mountain, regardless of how great she actually was in the film, opposite Nicole Kidman, which inevitably won her an Oscar. So in this case, we take Renée's character role, her quotes, as "Bridget Jones" as a part of her and her identity, and it's difficult to move on from that characterization. Has anyone seen Fonzie in anything other than "Happy Days"?
So yes, indirection can be effective to establish a message, but it carries with it a sense of endorsement and responsibility.
And I still agree with Dolan from the Sept. 19 Althouse post on the Pope's Speech in Regensburg, Germany, whereby he stated,
Dolan: "It's hard (indeed, impossible) to believe that the Vatican would ignore the entirely predictable consequences that would (and now have) followed from the Pope's quotation of obviously controversial views about the Prophet (even dated ones from the 14th century). Benedict XVI and the members of his inner circle are just not the kind of men and the Vatican is not the kind of organization that make naive mistakes or fail to consider the consequences and ramifications of every Papal pronouncement, from every angle, before it is ever made. It is also a certainty that the Vatican is both informed and concerned about the persecution of Christians in the Islamic countries."
It's interesting that you decided to write about "indirection" for Time. It got me thinking about the New Criticism (not so new any more) and all that. With respect to expository writing, it's perhaps less complicated, although you take a hard example when focusing on an essay writer's quotation of someone else's views which the author disclaims as his own. For authors of imaginative literature, in whatever form, I don't think there is any general proposition that's likely to hold true, other than the truism that an author means something by what he writes (or quotes or has his fictional characters say).
Your essay in time.com says that authors can't really deny the connections between controversial stuff they quote, or have a fictional character say, and whatever message those authors are trying to convey. I was trying to figure out whether the idea of "connectedness" you were talking about is anything more than the truism that an author always intends something by what he writes, including whatever he chooses to quote from another. So it's just a special case of figuring out purpose and intent, and on that, a lot will depend on who is doing the figuring and why and what they deem to be the moral of the fictional story at hand.
You're certainly right that the use of quotations can be an indirect way of floating an idea or opinion without expressly subscribing to it. But is this all just another way of talking about irony, parody, allegory and like categories, and how they can be woven into a narrative? I think it probably is. Of course, it's all bound up with the particulars of the text (speech, novel, film, whatever) at issue. At bottom, I think the New Critics were right that the text is more interesting when taken on its own terms, without trying to force it to fit into some cultural or political agenda. Worrying about an author's purpose or intent in quoting controversial stuff is a bit different than that, but not all that different.
Ann -
I agree with your point that Ratzinger can't plausibly disavow the thrust of the Manuel II quote.
On the Turkish law, though, I think our more vocal enemies have a point when they question our credibility on matters of human rights.
How much better if Turkey could discover its own love for individual free expression and relocate national pride in a willingness to hear debate and criticism, which is, after all, a mark of strength.
Members of Congress, among others, were calling for the prosecution of journalists who reported on the NSA wiretapping and Swift programs.
Short of that, accusations of treason are pervasive on the American right.
There haven't been any such prosecutions, of course, but then there's the torture thing and the unprovoked war thing.
We've got some housekeeping to do before we sweat Turkey too much.
He exposed the wounded pride sensitivity of Muslims in general, proved that Islam is not a religion of peace, and said he was sorry that they failed to understand what was to be inferred from the quoted text.
This is so disgusting. You know they killed a nun behind this bullshit, don't you? Forgive me if I take you to be implying this was a net positive.
This radical Islamic movement is a fairly recent phenomenon. Like, mid-twentieth century recent.
The Catholic Church has a lot more blood on its institutional hands than Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas put together.
[fwiw I'm Irish Catholic]
Doyle: I originally had some material in there about how we don't always live up to the free speech values we profess, but I edited it out to deal with my word limit. I agree that we should set an example on this score and show the world how great it is to love free speech.
"Aloof the fray"?
The Catholic Church has a lot more blood on its institutional hands than Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas put together.
So, no matter how far in the past that happened, no Pope from here to the end days has any moral authority to point out the historic fact that Islam was spread by the sword?
Very nice. You are one Irish Catholic well prepared for Dhimmitude. Congratulations. You must be so proud.
Post a Comment