Sloganeering.Org
home | archive | about | site policies | contact us | s.o store

Are You Tough Enough To Read This Book?

Peter Straub has written an interesting piece for The Millions, where he makes some excellent points about the relationship between genre and literary fiction, and suggests that horror, done correctly, is as free of barriers as literary fiction is supposed to be. Also, I suspect that Straub is sick and tired of fielding questions from an apparently endless parade of effete, fussy mandarins, because he goes at them (well, their effete, fussy, straw man stand-in, anyway) with a rhetorical hatchet.

And that’s fine. I’m sure he’s sick and tired of defending his chosen genre against imputations that all examples of such writing are inescapably, axiomatically inferior to literary fiction; who could blame him for hitting back? But I don’t know if the best way to fight back against snobbish, pretentious, dismissive people is by basically calling them a bunch of pussies:

How certain are you, anyhow, that what you call “unpleasantness” is not a necessary, even crucial, part of our experience? Maybe you should lock yourself up in your heart long enough to work out your actual relationship to matters like shame, loss, envy, panic, brutality, greed, insecurity, loneliness, failure, whatever you find particularly unpleasant. Because that, dimwit, is where you live, especially if you really hate the whole idea of familiarity with such crappy, low-rent feeling states.

Never mind that your average Nine Inch Nails fan would say exactly this sort of thing. And never mind the fact that people who are removed from their own negative feelings are often only able to maintain their distance because their lives are fucking sweet, or that they rightly consider that distance a blessed luxury. That’s not the problem. The problem is that some of these same folks have no difficulty whatsoever in employing this quién es más macho tactic against others on their own, and therefore would assume that you’re not even talking about them in the first place. Because these literary mofos are tough.

Maybe you didn’t like The Road. Huh. You obviously lack the grit and the steely-eyed determination that’s required to crawl your way a through sewer, only to eventually realize just how wonderful the fetid muck you’re buried under actually is.

You might laugh—but I swear to god, I actually read an analysis of The Road that basically hurled that accusation at anyone who didn’t think the book was very good. (And here’s where I want to kick my own ass for not bookmarking that horseshit, but I assumed it was not worth linking to. Ah well.)

There’s plenty of misery in literary fiction—enough, anyway, that it seems a little odd to claim that its readers are a bunch of lily-livered pantywaists who would never embrace a novel that made them consider just how grueling, capricious, demeaning, or insignificant life is. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that there’s more than a few literary fiction fans who look for works that inspire those sorts of feelings.

What separates the genre fan on the make for gut-punching dread from the literary one, is that the latter requires a kind of intellectual imprimatur to be present before they are willing to give themselves over to a work; they need to be flattered, a little bit. Or, I suppose they might say instead that they have an aesthetic standard that must be met if they’re going to take a book seriously; they want artful writing, if they can get it.

Eh, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Then again, what the hell do I know? I just wrote an essay sticking up for the toughness of literary fiction readers—don’t ask me what I think.

| March 10th, 2010 | by BCSilvia | Categories: Books & Literature | Trackback | No Comments »


I Might be Wrong

We all make mistakes. How we prepare to avoid making errors, how we deal the repercussions of the ones happen anyway, and how we decide when to forgive those who screw up, are a large part of our personal lives and our larger culture. Part of that is how people react when they make blunders of their own. When celebrities, politicians, or giant corporations, make mistakes, they’re often writ large, and require big, splashy apologies to keep the money people happy.

Private individuals have more freedom, generally because their mistakes are often small-time, at best. On the domestic level, and when dealing with errors that result in nothing more than a minor inconvenience, a person has a lot of options when it comes to admitting fault. They could deny everything, or cover their tracks—thus the world will never know which family member left the toilet seat up, or tracked mud into the kitchen. Or, they could own up—knowing that the consequences will be light, or last only a short while. The most irritating response, however, is when a big, flashy admission of fault is brought to bear on the tiniest of offenses.

This usually has to do with the fact that the person making such a big deal about making a mistake is attempting to do it in such a self-aggrandizing way. “There’s no doubt about it, yup I made a mistake. I can admit when I’m wrong, you know—when I blow it, I’m not going to try to make excuses. I did it, and there’s no getting around it, yes indeed.” Yes, a Foghorn Leghorn rant is surely the appropriate response to forgetting to change the toilet paper roll and you certainly deserve a cookie for being so honest about your blunder!

There’s a particular personality type that seems especially prone to the occasional bombastic admission of meager mistakes. These folks tend to live in a constant, rotating circle of blame; a place where things keep going wrong all the time, and it’s always somebody’s fault, and it’s their job to remind those idiots that they really need to do better, next time.

When one of these Blamer makes a huge mistake, they desperately fling the responsibility outward. But of course, they know that nobody’s perfect, they know that a person who never seems to be responsible for anything that’s gone wrong is suspicious—and, of course they’re also highly motivated to prove that they’re not the sort of person who is always looking for scapegoats.

So, it becomes vitally important for them to prove that they can take responsibility for their own mistakes. Which is why they latch on to low-cost errors that nobody really cares about, and why they make such a huge deal about them, because–wow! If that’s how he reacts when he forgets to unload the dishwasher, imagine how sorry he’d be if he did something really bad!

The thing is though, the kind of person who owns up to tiny mistakes in such a grandiose way is a lot like the guy who does the least work when helping someone move: “You guys grab that sofa—don’t worry, I’ll get those cushions for you!” Instead of always somehow managing to avoid the heaviest physical burdens, the Blamer always manages to avoid the weightiest part of the responsibility when something goes wrong.

That’s not the problem, though.

The problem is that the Blamer only does the big-deal owning up in order to justify their efforts to assign blame to others, to find fault with others, to nail down once and for all why their plans are always failing, why their desires are always frustrated, and why they can’t seem to get anything important done. And things never ever just happen by themselves, in the Blamer’s world. There’s no such thing as an unavoidable error. They are the Quincy, M.E.’s of personal interactions: It’s never an accident—it’s always murder. In the confines of a private home, this kind of personality-type is destructive enough; but, in an office setting, people’s livelihoods are at stake.

So, let the grandiose mea culpa over nothing serve as a warning. If you encounter someone who makes a big deal about their own little mistakes, do yourself a favor and keep your distance.

| March 1st, 2010 | by BCSilvia | Categories: Miscellaneous, Psychology | Tags: , | Trackback | No Comments »


Video Service: Fire Time



I used to have really strong opinions about music, until I eventually realized that almost all of those opinions were negative. Like many blinkered indie music snobs, I found that lots and lots of songs just pissed me off for no clearly discernable reason. I don’t know exactly why I felt that way; it was automatic.

And that’s a little scary.

Oh sure, I had my arsenal of gripey adjectives: corporate, boring, cookie-cutter, bullshit. But, if I’m honest, when it came to me and music, the emotional response happened first, and the predictable critiques were drafted ex post facto. I didn’t know that I was doing this, of course; I thought I was coolly and dispassionately assessing artistic merit (or lack thereof).

Bullshit.

But the anger I lived with was real. When I eventually realized that I wasn’t Lester Bangs Jr., and that I lacked critical acumen—or even the basic vocabulary of a music critic—I abandoned my rationalizations. But the anger was still there; it just became unmoored from language.

I think we’ve all been blindsided by a particularly effective insult before. Rationally, logically, its content was probably trivial. But, sometimes, someone gets you with a shot that should bounce right off you, but actually really freaking hurts. And though the initial shock might wear off pretty quickly, you find yourself probing the wound for days afterward, because the disproportionate response it brought out of you points to a disturbing fact: You have a weak point that you didn’t know about. Anything that hits you harder than it should sends the same message: You are not as strong as you thought.

“Bad music” was one of the things that got me to consider some pretty uncomfortable truths about myself. For example: If I hated a song that millions of other people seemed to love, then either I knew something that those other people didn’t, or I was missing something blindingly obvious. After realizing that I was no informed connoisseur, the latter option seemed far more likely. In the end, it became clear that my attempts to dress up my emotional responses as thoughtful considerations had more to do with my fear of being thought of as a reactionary dummy than any real intellectual evaluation.

So, that’s why I’m posting Harry Nilsson’s “Jump Into The Fire.” I can’t say I’m a huge fan of his work, but my parents loved him, he died tragically, and he was kind of a fucking maniac. And, since I’ve talked so much about how I tend to like or dislike things without quite knowing why, I thought I might as well put up something that I actually have a reason for enjoying. I mean, the song has basically one verse that gets repeated over and over, but Harry’s vocals just get more and more histrionic until the whole song just breaks. I love vocal performances where the singer goes from just-about-to-completely-lose-it to just-fucking-losing-it. I value that more than any well-built technical performance—even though those can be great, too—it’s just the way I’m wired to respond, I guess.

Whoaaoooaoooao!

| February 19th, 2010 | by BCSilvia | Categories: Music, Video | Trackback | No Comments »


Hello

Um, hi.

It has been so ridiculously busy at work lately that I haven’t been able to think of anything to put here. I mean, so busy that it follows you home at night and sits on your head, and ruins your ability to concentrate.

I’m sorry. I’ll try to be back real soon.

| February 18th, 2010 | by BCSilvia | Categories: Meta | Trackback | No Comments »


Milestone

Just wanted to take a moment to say congratulations to Francesco Marciuliano, on his 1000th Medium Large strip. If you haven’t seen Medium Large before, this weekend might be a good time to check it out. (Caution: you may bruise your diaphragm with laughter if you try to take in all the strips at once, so you might want to go at it one at a time, and take frequent breaks to rehydrate.)

| February 12th, 2010 | by BCSilvia | Categories: Miscellaneous | Trackback | No Comments »


Site Feeds

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives:

By Category

By Date


Search This Site


RSS Posts at Snappy Patter

RSS Links of Interest

Arts & Entertainment

Books & Literature

Comic Strips

General Interest

Money & Commerce

Politics & Philosophy

Science & Technology

Meta