[Vision2020] Blessed be the ties that bind . . .
Joan Opyr
auntiestablishment@hotmail.com
Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:09:57 -0800
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C410BE.FEE86410
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Amy writes:
>Joan, you correctly deride conservative America's most vocal spokesfolks=
--the hype-driven, >intellectually bankrupt talk-show types and commentat=
ors, because you want "substantive political >debate." But you sometimes=
mix in those who provide that substance, but with whom we disagree. >Pa=
glia certainly (and Fox-Genovese probably-I'm not caught up here) provide=
substantive debate. >They are great folks to read and to disagree with-=
-they make us really work to refine our ideas, relying >not only on ideol=
ogy, but logic, facts, and interpretations of events and culture. I just=
don't see how >you can dismiss scholars like Paglia in the same way you =
dismiss the Rush-Limbaughs of the world. >Yeah I disagree with Camille (=
and aint she a tramp), but she's brilliant and knowledgable and worthy of=
>real debate and consideration.
It's true; Camille Paglia is not Rush Limbaugh. You'll have to excuse me=
My hyperbole is acting up again. (Hitting self in head with small ham=
mer.) That said, however, I think that Sexual Personae, the book that ma=
de Paglia famous, is wide-ranging but shallow. Paglia knows a little abo=
ut a lot of things, which makes her both fun and infuriating to read. In=
the final analysis, though, is she a scholar or is she a dilettante? Pu=
t her on the Susan Sontag scale (a woman Camille has been hounding for a =
decade, yelling, "Look at me, Susan! Take me seriously!") and how does P=
aglia measure up? She has a good mind; she also has a genius for self-pr=
omotion. I think the latter has decidedly trumped the former. She can't=
decide if she wants to analyze Madonna or be her, and no one, but no one=
, has wanted to be Madonna since about 1991.
Paglia's mind wanders. She gets off topic. She's on the verge of making=
an interesting point, and then something else darts across her viewing s=
creen and she's off. She can't sustain a critique. These are my complai=
nts about her, and they comprise the reason I largely dismiss her work --=
but you're quite correct. They are not the same as my complaints about =
Limbaugh. The only connection between the two is that they're willing to=
grotesquely oversimplify for the sake of playing in a shallow medium. =20
Hookers, the pair of them . . . though one is quite clearly $1500 a night=
and the other takes Green Stamps and penny rolls.
Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explor=
er download : http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C410BE.FEE86410
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><BODY STYLE=3D"font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Amy writes:</D=
IV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>Joan, you correctly deride conservative Am=
erica's most vocal spokesfolks--the hype-driven, >intellectually bankr=
upt talk-show types and commentators, because you want "substantive polit=
ical >debate." But you sometimes mix in those who provide that s=
ubstance, but with whom we disagree. >Paglia certainly (and Fox-=
Genovese probably-I'm not caught up here) provide substantive debate.&nbs=
p; >They are great folks to read and to disagree with--they make us re=
ally work to refine our ideas, relying >not only on ideology, but logi=
c, facts, and interpretations of events and culture. I just don't s=
ee how >you can dismiss scholars like Paglia in the same way you dismi=
ss the Rush-Limbaughs of the world. >Yeah I disagree with Camill=
e (and aint she a tramp), but she's brilliant and knowledgable and worthy=
of >real debate and consideration.<BR></DIV> <DIV>It's true; Camille =
Paglia is not Rush Limbaugh. You'll have to excuse me. M=
y hyperbole is acting up again. (Hitting self in head with small ha=
mmer.) That said, however, I think that Sexual Personae, the b=
ook that made Paglia famous, is wide-ranging but shallow. Pagl=
ia knows a little about a lot of things, which makes her both f=
un and infuriating to read. In the final analysis, though, is =
she a scholar or is she a dilettante? Put her on the Susa=
n Sontag scale (a woman Camille has been hounding for a decade, yelling, =
"Look at me, Susan! Take me seriously!") and how does Paglia m=
easure up? She has a good mind; she also has a genius for self=
-promotion. I think the latter has decidedly trumped the forme=
r. She can't decide if she wants to analyze Madonna or be her, and =
no one, but no one, has wanted to be Madonna since about 1991.</DIV>=
<DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Paglia's mind wanders. She gets off topic.&=
nbsp; She's on the verge of making an interesting point, and then somethi=
ng else darts across her viewing screen and she's off. She can't su=
stain a critique. These are my complaints about her, and =
they comprise the reason I largely dismiss her work -- but you're qu=
ite correct. They are not the same as my complaints about Limb=
augh. The only connection between the two is that they're will=
ing to grotesquely oversimplify for the sake of playing in a shallow=
medium. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hookers, the pair of th=
em . . . though one is quite clearly $1500 a night and the=
other takes Green Stamps and penny rolls.</DIV> <DIV> </D=
IV> <DIV>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment <BR></DIV>=
</BODY></HTML><br clear=3Dall><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explor=
er download : <a href=3D'http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com=
</a><br></p>
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C410BE.FEE86410--