Sophomoric Bliss in ChevronsAdvice for the Advice Giver. Consider this: those who have nothing important to write need tips and tricks to get them to write. Since your inner critic has obviously failed, you need to find a good outer critic to counter the endless stream of vacuity and ream-filling endeavors coaxing you on. But don’t worry, you’ll be safe and comfy with the censor on your side. Inside Higher Ed censors outer critics.
—Comment censored by InsideHigherEd.com and Professor Rockquemore, regarding her Career Advice column, "Tame Your Inner Critic" (see http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/summer/summer7)
To Professor Kerry Ann Rockquemore:
Here’s what you wrote regarding a cartoon I sketched for a previous blog entry: “Lol! That cartoon just cracked me up! I look forward to reading your blog!!!” Now, what shall you write regarding the one depicted above (http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com)? “You racist sonofabitch?” No, you probably wouldn’t do that. SILENCE is the more likely response. Anyhow, all I’m trying to do here is present a critical voice you’ve likely never heard before under the shroud of positivism hermetically safe-keeping Academe today. Who knows? You might actually take a step back and contemplate a moment, though I doubt it. After all, your career clearly depends upon a certain blindness, one you seem to have adopted eagerly and joyfully. Helas, c’est ta vie et heureusement pas la mienne! As you know, Inside Higher Ed regularly CENSORS comments, and of course you back that censorship either actively or passively. Your career depends on such support. So many there are like you grouped together in an oddly cocooned academic herd. In a democracy, why should my critical voice be periodically eliminated from the arena of debate regarding Inside Higher Ed and elsewhere in Academe? Perhaps you should talk to Doug Lederman to at least make an attempt to convince him that CENSORSHIP does not benefit DEMOCRACY and its cornerstone, VIGOROUS DEBATE. It only benefits the corrupt status quo. BTW, I did a cartoon ages ago on writing opposites: Theroux vs. Orwell. Evidently, you are Therouxian, while I Orwellian. And I sort of like the double entendre in the latter. For that toon, see http://www.theamericandissident.org/CriticalEssays.htm. NO RESPONSE WAS EVER RECEIVED FROM KERRY ANNE ROCKQUEMORE, evidently a true believer in controlled, inoffensive debate, cornerstone of a thriving PC-ocracy.
4 comments:
"those who have nothing important to write need tips and tricks to get them to write."
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think the importance of the thing a person is writing about may be highly subjective. Some writing is just catharsis (good to keep to yourself), some writing resonates with some folks and not others. When I was just getting started writing I think I benefited from some 'tips and tricks' type books. I remember being very excited to write stories like H.P. Lovecraft and Roald Dahl (they were my first favorites, and a lot of my early writing was just me copy-catting them), and some of those 'tips and tricks' books helped me avoid some cliches and obvious beginning writer errors.
So, there's that, for whatever it's worth.
Then you and I are different, Spencer. Bad things compelled me to write. And I don't perceive that as catharsis. I wrote to get my side of the story out there, to get my opinion out there. And that is what human dignity is about. I never looked for tips or tricks or read books on how to write. Bad things that happened to me spurred me on. Injustice, unresolved injustice, is the best thing to bring a person to the pen. And I'm not talking about the pen of fluff writing or fluff poetry. I never wanted to be a writer. I never wanted to be a poet. It just happened and not early in life, but later in my 40s.
"Then you and I are different, Spencer."
Yeah. I think that's okay, though.
True. What counts is an open dialogue and exchange of ideas.
Post a Comment