Ah, last November. I had a few days of exciting pre-election jitters, a few days of post-election elation, 21 days of novel writing craziness, and enough mental energy left over to post not just one, but sometimes three blog entries a day.
Now, I'm still in need of topic suggestions.
I'm in the middle of reading David Denby's "Snark", which normally I'd be able to read in a short evening at 122 pages. But my lack of mental energy (and clarity) is affecting not only my writing, but my reading. As to "Snark", there's a lot of food for thought in that book, and he addresses an issue that seems to be on my mind often.
That issue would be snark. Is it snarky of me to point that out?
Last time I looked at this book's Amazon page there was just one review. Now there are 41. I'm enjoying the book (slowly), but have found it to be filled with contradictions and confusing. And here I was thinking it was me, since I've been so foggy minded.
This is the first time that looking at Amazon has been a therapeutic experience. The book is muddled, not my mind. Phew.
Reality checks are a wonderful thing.
Nonetheless, I'm still foggy. And I'd like to write about snark. But not tonight. Stay tuned.
Painting note: Gustave Courbet Femme nue couchée, 1862
It's been too cold to recline nude. Then again, and I'm sure this is too much information, when one's breasts start sliding under one's armpits, it's probably time to stop reclining nude. Or is that a societal message that I should ignore?
Addendum: Speaking of snarky, as much as I love reading Margaret and Helen, I've started to find their use of the word "bitch" for women such as Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin distasteful. I've been enjoying the posts about Ann Coulter's new book, but attacking the size of the woman's feet (over and over and over again) is not amusing. I know this is not a debate, but using argumentum ad hominem (attacking a person's character instead of their ideas) may be somewhat fair in the cases of both of Coulter and Palin, but it gets wearisome.
4 comments:
I miss thinking clearly. And being warm. And not having to wear shoes.
I've never heard of this Snark book. Or maybe I have and my mushy brainy has forgotten about it. I dunno.
I think the lady in the painting's awesome and it looks to me like she's there by herself so who's going to care if things slide around?
No, I'm glad you shared your TMI. I was going to share some, myself, and now I won't feel awkward about it ... I was going to say that the woman in that painting made me laugh, because of the socks. Sometimes I sleep that way. I hate sleeping in clothes, but I do in the winter, because I don't want to be cold if the blankets shift and let in a draft. Sometimes, though, only my feet are cold, and other clothes are annoying me (over-sensitivity to clothes is a textbook ADD symptom), so I'll sleep in just socks. It seems so silly, but nobody sees it, except Melissa and the dogs, and Melissa is, by now, long used to my strangeness.
I agree with you about the "bitch" thing. I prefer attacks against people I don't like to center around things I think are fair game, such as their intelligence or morally questionable actions. When I talk about Ann Coulter, I call her a psycho, or talk about how I wonder if liberals ate her parents, because her attacks are so irrational and over the top. I love Margaret Cho, but she once told this joke about how Laura Bush's pussy probably smells like moth balls, and it left a really bad taste in my mouth (the joke, that is, not the .... well, never mind). I hate the Bushes, but I thought that crossed a line. It had nothing to do with how LB is married to a horrible human being. It was an attack on her femininity/sexuality - or lack thereof - and I din't see the point ...
Anyway, I'm writing too much. I'll leave off here.
I guess I'm piling on here, but I agree with you about the M & H posts. I found their blog through yours, and really enjoyed my first visits there, but the Ann Coulter attacks put me off. I suppose that's hypocritical of me, since I have said some pretty rude things about Coulter myself--but picking on her looks that way seems out of line.
This issue points up a problem with blogging, which is how much we (bloggers, that is) care about pleasing the readers. Is the blog a place to spill your thoughts without restraint, or should you think of it more as an offering to your readership and take their sensibilities into account? I know there are people who detest my politics, and I've even had people complain to me that they love the poetry and perfume posts, but the moonbat stuff is too much. Should I crank it down to please them?
And there's also the associational aspect of this problem. For instance, there's a London schoolteacher whose blog fascinates me. I used to follow her publicly, but I quit because I radically disagreed with some of her posts. Although I respect her and her opinions, I didn't want people to identify me with them.
Sorry to drone on. I'll shut up now. Maybe you could do a post with your thoughts on the issue. I'd love to read them.
The "lady" (I find that a funny word) in the painting is wearing stockings. And she hasn't a problem with breasts under the armpits.
I'm glad that to hear some agreement with my feelings about these kind of attacks on those we disagree with. Honestly, I more than dislike Ann Coulter, and it bothers me that she's a best selling author. And even if she's nasty, I wouldn't call her a bitch. Nor would I make fun of the size of her feet.
Of all my blog posts, one that I took down, where I unleashed some real bile onto Sarah Palin, was viewed by more people than any other entry. If I cared about popularity, I would have continued in this vein. But instead, I felt ashamed of my actions.
Maria, you weren't droning, btw. I appreciate hearing your thoughts! I'd love to read more of how all of you feel about this topic.
I'd love it if there was a snark backlash!
Post a Comment