jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are quite welcome. Though, just to be a bit
> impish, there are many more out there which could
> be suggested.....

Do your impish worst... Oh, I see you both have!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Nov 11 | 05:09AM by The English Assassin.

To return to the original post for a moment: Just expressing my own experience and understanding of the matter from a number of sources over the years:

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1. Trolling: This term usually refers not just to
> online provocation for the sake of it, but to
> provocation out of purely malicious or mischievous
> motives. Generation of heat is always the aim,
> never of light. Provocation isn't trolling, in my
> view, when the aim is to incite serious reflection
> on what are perhaps unexamined assumptions, nor is
> it equivalent merely to strong statements of
> personal taste or opinion.
>
> "Needling" isn't really an instance of trolling,
> either. My personal policy is to get out the
> needles only when I am in the presence of too many
> hot-air balloons.
>

In general, I would agree with this, but again, this is "in the eye of the beholder" to a great degree; and use of a loaded vocabulary or tone frequently runs the risk not of provoking thought, but rather appearing as personal attack or insult for the purpose of insulting alone, and the balance can be a difficult one to strike. As Maurice Winter Moe once remarked (and here I'm citing from de Camp), criticism

[is] "vain, ineffective, & superfluous," because "the ordinary mind can never be influenced by mere advice, more or less mingled with flattery; and that on the other hand, real criticism arouses so much antagonism on the part of the subject that its purpose is entirely defeated." (de Camp, p. 85)

(Unfortunately, de Camp typically does not give the source of that quotation in an intelligible fashion, making it difficult if not impossible to locate with the resources at my command.)


> 2. Ad hominem: Ad hominem attacks and fallacies
> are actually much rarer than is commonly assumed.
> Ad hominem attacks are not simply personal
> attacks, sarcasm, or even personal abuse. They are
> attacks upon a person because that person's
> identity or values are intimately related to his
> argument. For instance, an unidentified man
> objects to abortion rights. Someone replies, "You
> would say that; you're really a Catholic priest".
>

I think the only thing I'd object to here is some of the phrasing, and that just for the sake of clarification, so that it becomes clear that a person's argument is being rejected not due to faults in the argument, but because of the source (person). Their "identity or values" need not be connected to the particular argument itself, but a flaw in their character, personality, some personal action which is found objectionable, etc., mayu still be cited as reason for rejecting the argument, when the argument itself may be perfectly sound, regardless of all these factors.


> 3. Personal essays and other expression of
> opinion: Clark Ashton Smith's own brief essays
> (mostly in the form of letters to the editor) are
> an excellent example of these. Although they touch
> on literary matters, they are not full-scale
> literary criticism, because of the brevity and
> comparative superficiality with which they treat
> their subject, and because of the author's candid
> admission that they reflect merely personal
> views.

This I have addressed elsewhere, agreeing with the distinction as such, but disagreeing with the tendency to reject this from consideration as criticism, given its role in the history of criticism.


> 4. Literary criticism: In the contemporary sense
> of the term, "literary criticism" tends to refer
> mainly to the professional activity of university
> professors who must "publish or perish". Modern
> literary criticism tends to be heavily
> theory-driven (although usually the theories are
> more current than, say, Victorian/Edwardian-era
> Freudianism), and often skewed by personal
> ideology and identity politics to which the critic
> has undue emotional attachment.

Here I am in agreement only in part. By no means all criticism of an in-depth, informed nature is of this type, nor is it driven by these motives. There is, it seems, a burgeoning field (especially of genre criticism) which approaches the subject from the desire to illuminate, examine, propose alternative readings, or many another intent, including the historical or biographical, and many of these are very capable and interesting; some are in themselves written rather well, and nearly all show a genuine love of literature and at least a measure of sympathy (not necessarily agreement, for they may often disagree quite vigorously and even violently) with their subject. It is these, I must admit, that I have encountered more frequently, though I certainly have have plenty of acquaintance with that of the academics as well. (And, as you noted, the two are not always at odds, either.)

And, of course, theory itself can often be very useful in writing about such a subject, for it can bring to light a different perspective than one is used to, can get a reader to reexamine various works that they greatly enjoy or, conversely, have never been able to "get into", and perhaps bring about an ability to at least understand the attraction of the work for others, even if not sharing it; or simply being able to appreciate much-loved works on a wider variety of levels.

As for this:


> Stepping
> outside a given framework and critiquing it
> externally is the easiest sort of criticism to
> make. To do this, one simply identifies the frame
> of reference and moves outside it. The sole
> purpose of this sort of criticism is either to
> convert the infidel, or to comfort the choir.

It can also be constructive to play devil's advocate in this fashion, to argue something from various sides, to reach a more informed or rounded view. It is not often used in this fashion, but it can be, and then becomes quite a valuable tool, I think.

> Constructive criticism from within has more
> potential positive value, but can be vitiated by
> too much identification with the subject matter.

Agreed. One must attempt to avoid such, and I think one of the best ways to do this is to take on something with which one does not agree, or has little attachment, but entering into a discussion of it as honestly and sympathetically (again, in the above usage of the term) as one can; having no preconceived notions of liking or disliking the work itself, but attempting to view it with as open (yet not uncritical) a mind as possible. This, I find, allows for the work to suggest various ways to approach it, and points to numerous associations which in turn may prove fruitful in arguing points of the work either pro, con, or a mixture of each.

As you say, I post the above in the attempt to clarify my own approach to criticism, and how I view it in its more beneficial aspects. (And hence why I often find so much enjoyment in it.)

jdworth:

I won't rehash the various differences of opinion I have with certain of your formulations, or, for that matter, the points of agreement. All that, I think, is well-trodden ground. I would, however, make a few minor additions and clarifications.

1. Provocation:

It is certainly true that, when one offers a provocation, one risks generating more heat than light. My feeling, obviously, is that sometimes that risk is worth taking.


2. Ad Hominem arguments:

I think that identity and values are intimately linked with character, or inferences thereof. For an excellent and in-depth, though also informal and irreverent, dissection of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, click here:
The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy.


3. Literary Criticism:

My strictures here are directed primarily at the contemporary, professional forms that literary criticism takes within the academy, and, generalizations though they are, I stand by them.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2. Ad Hominem arguments:
>
> I think that identity and values are intimately
> linked with character, or inferences thereof. For
> an excellent and in-depth, though also informal
> and irreverent, dissection of the argumentum ad
> hominem fallacy, click here:
> The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy.

That's what I get for posting in a hurry and not proofreading my post. Yes, these are "linked with character, and inferences thereof", but character may be irrelevant to the validity of an argument, and therefore identity and values may not be related to the argument in question; yet one still sees these being used in an attempt to refute said argument. As I said, my only object here was an attempt to make explicit the distinction, not a problem with the argument itself. Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes, or I am unknowingly being simply obtuse here, but that was my meaning above.

As for the essay... nice, clear, clever.

No worries--it was just a mutual misunderstanding, as I was indeed confused by your phrasing.

Glad you like the essay on the ad hominem. When I first read it, it made me realize that I was misunderstanding the term, as well.

The English Assassin wrote:

> Ha! All unintended. I don't suspect you to believe
> that, but you do seem to have a bit of a
> persecution complex... just an observation...
> albeit unkind one... My 'sneaking in like an
> illegal immigrant' comment is a case in point and
> was hardly meant as a sleight on you, but an
> attempt (maybe a failed attempt..) at a humorous
> remark of the sheer ludicrousness of you being
> barred from these forums... It's not ALL about
> you, you know! :)

I'll merely suggest that you read some Nietzsche. You may be amused by the contrast between his originality, ludicity and humor, and the robotic pomposity of some of his disciples, a not insubstantial sub-demographic of whom are far from failing to give the impression that, in improximally to un-Freudian terms, they are so anally retentive as to be able to conduct ultrasonic petomania or convert coal to diamond by a means not suitable for exposition on a family forum...

> But regardless, I personally appreciate those who
> exhibit creative thinking that is a synthesis of
> their own reading and learning coupled with their
> own personality and thinking, rather than the
> regurgitating of academia...

Careful -- speaking truth to pomposity may (and did) provoke a sulk...

*** Since the appearance of 'Analysis Terminable' in 1980, I had repeatedly made the same two-pronged argument: that Freud's scientific and ethical standards were abysmally low and that his brainchild was, and still is, a pseudoscience... Whereas the original objectors to 'Analysis Terminable' in 1980 had flatly denied my entire case against psychoanalysis, these recent statements mostly took the plaintive form of 'yes, but...' Although virtually all of my charges were conceded in one letter or another, each correspondent clung to some mitigating point that might justify the continuation of psychoanalytic business as usual... Step by step, we are learning that Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine--one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry... ***

I despise people who take accurate shots at Freud, based merely on a thorough understanding and knowledge of his life and work. Nevertheless, I think Crews is right on the money in his assessment. However -- and I have the full endorsement of Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius and Lao-Tzu in saying this -- I must also insist that Freud was a brave pioneer, a profound thinker, and did the best he could with the materials and knowledge available to him.

*** Much as I like CAS's line as literature, I'm not sure it IS so humble to announce that "All human thought, all science, all religion, is the holding of a candle to the night of the universe." Not even sure it avoids self-refutation. CAS obviously thinks he understands the universe well enough to know humans can't understand it ("All humans are fools," said the human.) ***

I despise people who punctuate in slipshod fashion. I, myself, am a master of this delicate art and have, twice, won gold medals in Punctuathons sponsored by the Royal Canadian Society for the Promotion and Preservation of Pure English.

*** On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are ... necessarily denied to us. While we can conceive of the possibility of determining their shapes, their sizes, and their motions, we shall never be able by any means to study their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure ... Our knowledge concerning their gaseous envelopes is necessarily limited to their existence, size ... and refractive power, we shall not at all be able to determine their chemical composition or even their density... I regard any notion concerning the true mean temperature of the various stars as forever denied to us. ***

I despise people who quote Comte, particularly in November. On the subject of science (and this is positively my last word (unless I decide otherwise (or not (as the case may be)))), I would merely remind you that a) I have a degree in English; and b) I have read Nietzsche, T.S. Kuhn and the mathematician E. Brian Davies. If that doesn't make you see the error of your ways, all I can say is: I despise you even more.

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 26 Nov 11 | 06:21AM by treycelement.

Is that really the best that this person can do after six (!) edits?

For the rest:

Quote:

Rede me and be nott wrothe,
For I saye no thynge but trothe.
I will ascende makynge my state so hye
That my pompous honoure shall never dye.

William Roy

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Nov 11 | 10:44AM by Absquatch.

While I am at it...

English Assassin:

I did not read your reply to my last remarks to you, except for what was quoted in the valueless Pound's long episode of verbal diarrhea, above. So, just a couple of brief final thoughts:


1. CAS and the limits of human knowledge:

You've got it backwards, apropos of CAS and his "all science" comment. It's humans that CAS thinks he understands well enough to state his strictures about, and not the universe.


2. "Persecution complex":

You're making progress, as at least now you can admit to being insulting. Please, persevere in this direction. Your perception in this matter remains as skewed as ever, but at least it has the merit of honesty.

In the interim, though, don't forget the adage that "even paranoiacs have enemies". There's a distinct difference between being paranoid, over-sensitive, etc., and having a finely tuned "crap detector" (Hemingway's phrase).

I agree in principle with the people here who are calling for a bit more civility in these exchanges. At the same time, you have to admit that it's quite a hoot to think that no less a personage than "The Esteemed and Venerable Two-Time Punctuathon Gold Medalist" holds us all in serious contempt! (Heh heh, I probably should have put another comma in there somewhere, no?)

Okay, I just broke my own rule about feeding trolls. - I promise to be quiet now!

For the record, I find the practice of referring to people one disagrees with as "trolls" pathetic. It reflects an immature mind-set that can conceive of no other reason for people to hold different opinions than that they do so simply to annoy you. Please bear in mind that I speak as a troll, of course.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I am at it...
>
> English Assassin:
>
> I did not read your reply to my last remarks to
> you, except for what was quoted in the valueless
> Pound's long episode of verbal diarrhea, above.
> So, just a couple of brief final thoughts:
>
>
> 1. CAS and the limits of human knowledge:
>
> You've got it backwards, apropos of CAS and his
> "all science" comment. It's humans that CAS thinks
> he understands well enough to state his strictures
> about, and not the universe.

I don't think that was me... Maybe it was, I honestly can't remember saying it and I can't be bothered to read back through this topic...

> 2. "Persecution complex":
>
> You're making progress, as at least now you can
> admit to being insulting. Please, persevere in
> this direction. Your perception in this matter
> remains as skewed as ever, but at least it has the
> merit of honesty.
>
> In the interim, though, don't forget the adage
> that "even paranoiacs have enemies". There's a
> distinct difference between being paranoid,
> over-sensitive, etc., and having a finely tuned
> "crap detector" (Hemingway's phrase).

Talking of admitting things, didn't you just admit to being a 'paranoiac?' Which certainly adds weight to my crude textual diagnosis of your 'persecution complex,' no?

Anyway, I admit nothing of the sort. My observation is hardly an insult or not solely one. And even if it is , it hardly ranks up there as being particularly insulting. However, it does fall into the sort of half-baked psychoanalytical rubbish that I have previously criticized... but as I also said, it's hard not to fall into that trap with some people who wear their psychologies so proudly... Even that isn't necessarily an insult. Anyway, we must both be bored by this conversation... Let's think of something CAS related to chew on instead...

Jojo,

The only thing "immature" and "pathetic" is coming to a site devoted to CAS, and gratuitously (and repeatedly) telling people that you "despise" them, that they are "CAStrioti", etc. So for you to even suggest that this is merely a matter of intellectual "disagreement," rather misses the point!

But if you don't like the term "troll," I'll be happy to settle on something else like "vulgar exhibitionist."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Nov 11 | 01:14PM by Dexterward.

Abby from Ottawa wrote:

> Is that really the best that this person can do
> after six (!) edits?

<chuckle> Your irony meter needs adjusting. The six (!) edits weren't necesSARily not disuninsubstantive.....

Quote:

...in improximally to un-Freudian terms, they are so anally retentive as to be able to conduct ultrasonic petomania or convert coal to diamond by a means not suitable for exposition on a family forum...

> For the rest:
>
> Rede me and be nott wrothe,
> For I saye no thynge but trothe.
> I will ascende makynge my state so hye
> That my pompous honoure shall never dye.

I despise people who quote William Roy.

more l8r -- tho' i'm startin' t'feel not unlike a bully, i haftadmit.....

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 28 Nov 11 | 04:15AM by treycelement.

Dexterward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree in principle with the people here who are
> calling for a bit more civility in these
> exchanges. At the same time, you have to admit
> that it's quite a hoot to think that no less a
> personage than "The Esteemed and Venerable
> Two-Time Punctuathon Gold Medalist" holds us all
> in serious contempt! (Heh heh, I probably should
> have put another comma in there somewhere, no?)

It's easy to mock, DW; much harder to stand up for civilized values, shoulder to shoulder with the R.C.S.P.P.P.E.* But I don't hold any of you in contempt. "Paternalistic" is one way of describing my attitude. No doubt other ways may come to mind.

*(if acronym obscure, see 'royal canadian' earlier in thread. -- o.t.v.)

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.