tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post2379392092404693339..comments2024-03-07T12:57:35.296-05:00Comments on Varieties of Unreligious Experience: ClemencyConrad H. Rothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-85553622518098627792007-05-09T22:27:00.000-04:002007-05-09T22:27:00.000-04:00This is certainly a valid perspective on the issue...This is certainly a valid perspective on the issue, and in fact I don't think it's entirely incompatible with my own analysis. As I said in an earlier comment, "she makes appeals to both [elites and non-elites] at the same time. It's a mark of anxiety, of trying to cover all bases"--which is equivalent to your "double bluff".<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't have gone so far as to say 'great intellect', just reasonable intelligence combined with first-rate education: I said that she wants us to <EM>know</EM> that she is intelligent or well-educated (while being coy at the same time), you say that she wants us to <EM>think</EM> so. Either way she isn't being honest about her intentions.<BR/><BR/>Whether she really is a 'hoot', I can't say. She thinks (correctly, no doubt) that her daily doings are inherently interesting to her readers (not to us) for the mere fact that she is hovering on the outskirts of glamorous celebrity.<BR/><BR/>And perhaps 'outskirts' is important: readers can 'relate' to her because she isn't a <EM>real</EM> celebrity, but on the other hand they enjoy peeking into the world she represents. The papers are full of this sort of person. So in a sense we can agree that hers is a 'hinterland': unfortunate to us, but rather more fortunate to others.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-11743824864594923822007-05-09T21:55:00.000-04:002007-05-09T21:55:00.000-04:00Conrad: I think that, despite the somewhat exagger...Conrad: I think that, despite the somewhat exaggerated length of your original analysis, you have managed to miss the real point about Miss Burton-Hill's style.<BR/><BR/>It is not that she is feigning a chatty naivete to hide a great intellect and knowledge about which she is embarassed; rather, she hovers between chatty naivete and high discourse because she is not capable of excelling in either. It is a double bluff: a posture designed to make you think that she could be a hilarious, saucy hoot if she wanted to be, as well as hold her own with the great thinkers of the land. As neither of these is true, she is consigned to this unfortunate hinterland.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-84182323858230807632007-04-20T16:58:00.000-04:002007-04-20T16:58:00.000-04:00Well, the Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford say that ma...Well, the Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford say that <I>mannered</I> in this sense means <I>artificial, affected, or over-elaborate in style</I>, and that's exactly how all three of your quotations strike me: they bear signs, as Thurber said of Woolcott's insulting letters to Ross, of the sweat of rewrite.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this is merely something about British culture I don't understand (and you are my master there), but I don't see how anyone could see any of the three passages as natural, simple, unaffected. Nonono. This prose is derivative to the last degree; <I>je maintiendrai</I>.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-33312583237188515702007-04-19T18:01:00.000-04:002007-04-19T18:01:00.000-04:00Conrad, I think this is my favourite so far. It wo...Conrad, I think this is my favourite so far. It would make a great play, on radio, TV or stage. A one act play in which the commentors, “Muppet like” in their theatre box, rant at the players with waffly moustaches. The “striptease”, and perhaps an intuitive Mrs Roth.<BR/>As for the player, her sins are immaturity and vanity. We love them surly? As for beauty in all her assets we must but gape!Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00533678970029159873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-56842068083938474242007-04-19T15:50:00.000-04:002007-04-19T15:50:00.000-04:00Chris: "aren't all of her intellectual concerns tr...Chris: "aren't all of her intellectual concerns trumped by her preferred role of sexy young thing ?"<BR/><BR/>It's a nice melting-pot, I think.<BR/><BR/>Sue: "should a blog be so transparently destructive?"<BR/><BR/>Why not? Less 'destructive', I think, more 'analytical' (<EM>ana-luo</EM>, I break up). My blog is not a diary, Clemmie is not a comrade, and I've stabbed her (or tickled her) fully in the front.<BR/><BR/>Steve: "attack on her as a person". It <EM>was</EM> an attack on (I'd prefer to say 'criticism of') Clemmie personally, but I wouldn't have made it, or been interested in doing so, if it hadn't had wider implications for me.<BR/><BR/>"your enthusiasm". My enthusiasm, hmm. You won't believe this, but I didn't much enjoy writing this post.<BR/><BR/>"deeply jealous". I think it's necessary to be honest in the matter, to prevent giving the impression that I see all this (or want you to believe that I see all this) with some detached, coldly superior air. I am jealous, in truth, but not resentful--and it is resentment (even <EM>ressentiment</EM>) that is the mark of pettiness, not jealousy.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-35697684371743125992007-04-19T10:09:00.000-04:002007-04-19T10:09:00.000-04:00I would suspect that my dear Conrad is simply usin...<I>I would suspect that my dear Conrad is simply using Clemency to make a larger point about his environment and that this post should not be construed as an attack of her as a person... I think he's primarily interested in what she represents.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, no doubt, no doubt. But were I Clemency, I would certainly construe it as an attack on me as a person. I guess if I felt like attacking what she represents, I would give her a false name that might perhaps be transparent to the old gang from school but that would prevent unnecessary Google-grief. But we all have our own ideas about internet etiquette (interquette?).<BR/><BR/><I>As so often when I criticise others, you read me too one-sidedly.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe. But maybe I'm just pointing out a side that you perhaps neglected to give sufficient consideration to in your enthusiasm for your idea for the post.<BR/><BR/><I>I missed that this was what Steve L. had been suggesting</I><BR/><BR/>No, actually it wasn't. I was just going by your "deeply jealous" remark.Languagehathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285708503881129380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-91291093276137969982007-04-19T09:44:00.000-04:002007-04-19T09:44:00.000-04:00i liked this post. Clem's garish style is just the...i liked this post. Clem's garish style is just the sort of thing to bring on the shudders in me.<BR/><BR/>i see no reason why anyone should apologise for being well-read or intelligent. Maybe in Cambodia back in the Pol Pot days, not now, in the 1st World.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-31488120306250954842007-04-19T09:42:00.000-04:002007-04-19T09:42:00.000-04:00I know you said you were "deeply jealous" of the y...I know you said you were "deeply jealous" of the young lady, but should a blog be so transparently destructive? I'm thinking of William Soutar's wise words; "A diary is an assassin's cloak which we wear when we stab a comrade in the back with a pen" Also part of the title of an excellent collection of diarists incidentally.Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115480385819082165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-71115944991397416782007-04-19T09:32:00.000-04:002007-04-19T09:32:00.000-04:00Maybe I'm thrown off by her exaggerated interest i...Maybe I'm thrown off by her exaggerated interest in old guys -- but aren't all of her intellectual concerns trumped by her preferred role of sexy young thing ?<BR/><BR/>(which, of course, I want them to be -- as I would much rather spend a moment savoring the African landscape with her rather than fretting about some dismal racial politics)chris millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575033275184403015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-62386255690464859272007-04-18T23:30:00.000-04:002007-04-18T23:30:00.000-04:00"a bird Conrad once sort-of fancied"Ha! The very i..."a bird Conrad once sort-of fancied"<BR/><BR/>Ha! The very <EM>idea</EM> of it... Sadly, in my shortsightedness I missed that this was what Steve L. had been suggesting. Believe it if you want to, readers.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-45539016989674079352007-04-18T19:13:00.000-04:002007-04-18T19:13:00.000-04:00To those reading the Clem post as a kind of diary ...To those reading the Clem post as a kind of diary entry about a bird Conrad once sort-of fancied I say: dull beans. What's "petty" about doing a certain kind of conclusion-drawing character study? Are surfaces inviolable? And is it difficult to grasp that people (or types) have traceable etymologies, so to speak, as well? <BR/><BR/>Anyway, what the hell. Did he call her a "nappy-headed ho"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-67290826214966228882007-04-18T18:35:00.000-04:002007-04-18T18:35:00.000-04:00If I might add my opinion here, I would suspect th...If I might add my opinion here, I would suspect that my dear Conrad is simply using Clemency to make a larger point about his environment and that this post should not be construed as an attack of her as a person...I think he's primarily interested in what she represents.<BR/><BR/>Mrs. RothMrs. Lily-Plum Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113658106052915152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-37317244542938349822007-04-18T16:51:00.000-04:002007-04-18T16:51:00.000-04:00"Clemency's overt appeal to non-elites is less off..."Clemency's overt appeal to non-elites is less offensive to me than overt appeals to elites."<BR/><BR/>But she makes appeals to both at the same time. It's a mark of anxiety, of trying to cover all bases. That's my point.<BR/><BR/>"I think I would have liked her."<BR/><BR/>No doubt you would have. Everybody did, including me, and I suspect everybody still does. As I said, she's very likeable.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-44391784342176167152007-04-18T16:48:00.000-04:002007-04-18T16:48:00.000-04:00I disagree with you on this.I think a significant ...I disagree with you on this.<BR/><BR/>I think a significant percentage of academics "write abstrusely so as to disguise lack of argument, not merely for the sake of bombast", especially when they are trying to impress other academics. <BR/><BR/>When they are writing for the public, less so. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins is more of an exception to the rule here. And I am obviously thinking mostly of the social sciences and humanities where obscure language appears to be a competitive sport.<BR/><BR/>And again, Clemency's overt appeal to non-elites is less offensive to me than overt appeals to elites. That was my point.Pretzel Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499362737998089533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-41465321139940782252007-04-18T16:32:00.000-04:002007-04-18T16:32:00.000-04:00"Clemency's writing is merely the opposite of the ..."Clemency's writing is merely the opposite of the deliberately remote and high falutin' "I'm cleverer than you" academic prose that is the common coin of the realm in academia."<BR/><BR/>PB, you miss the point. Academics, when writing to each other, almost never write in an 'I'm cleverer than you' style. When writing to the public, for instance with Richard Dawkins, they often make a fine attempt of expressing themselves without being patronising. The Butlers etc. of the world write abstrusely so as to disguise lack of argument, not merely for the sake of bombast.<BR/><BR/>What's wrong with Clemency's writing is not that it is self-effacing--it is that it is <EM>not really</EM> self-effacing. It lacks perspective. This doesn't make her a bad person (let me stress that again)--rather, it reveals how she sees herself, and how she wants others to see her, in a particularly candid manner.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-25618134666890708102007-04-18T16:22:00.000-04:002007-04-18T16:22:00.000-04:00Clemency's writing is merely the opposite of the d...Clemency's writing is merely the opposite of the deliberately remote and high falutin' "I'm cleverer than you" academic prose that is the common coin of the realm in academia. <BR/><BR/>Is it better to pander to elites than non-elites inherently?<BR/><BR/>Why?<BR/><BR/>I think I would have liked her. She was nice to you when she didn't have to be. <BR/><BR/>And I wish deliberately self-effacing (in the aim of getting people to connect with my writing) were the worst thing people could say about me.Pretzel Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499362737998089533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-51683455134888341862007-04-18T15:47:00.000-04:002007-04-18T15:47:00.000-04:00John: "a highly mannered style"That's my point. He...John: "a highly mannered style"<BR/><BR/>That's my point. Hers is <EM>not</EM> a mannered style, it's a relaxed one, which is exactly why she shows herself so clearly.<BR/><BR/>Steve A: "down-angled mediaspeech"<BR/><BR/>Yes, that's what I was saying, only Clemmie's is a particular form of it, which not only self-effaces but also shows you clearly the self it is effacing.<BR/><BR/>Steve L: "as petty as this"<BR/><BR/>As so often when I criticise others, you read me too one-sidedly. I never suggested Clemency was an 'appalling' person: she's quite the opposite, bright, charming and accomplished. I have no personal grudge against her whatsoever. It is her <EM>one</EM> failing that interests me, for what it says about the environment I myself grew up in.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-73851902668524637622007-04-18T12:17:00.000-04:002007-04-18T12:17:00.000-04:00Oh, and Hat: it's time to call Conrad an exile in ...Oh, and Hat: it's time to call Conrad an exile in <I>that</I> context when he has not seen London for forty years.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-64720810322220571522007-04-18T12:14:00.000-04:002007-04-18T12:14:00.000-04:00You mean you don't fancy older men, Conrad? I'm c...You mean you <I>don't</I> fancy older men, Conrad? I'm crushed, crushed.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't put too much weight on that comma before "too"; it's an Idiot Copy Editor God rule to always put one before any sentence-adverbial "too".<BR/><BR/>Finally, in my opinion, what a highly mannered style tells us about "us" is that "us" wants to write in a highly mannered style, for whatever reasons, and has succeeded in learning to do so.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-85186919674793460582007-04-18T10:17:00.000-04:002007-04-18T10:17:00.000-04:00Language,I rather liked it. It is like a slow, co...Language,<BR/><BR/>I rather liked it. It is like a slow, controlled striptease, in which we are distracted from the artfulness by the flashes of naked flesh.<BR/><BR/>Read it a few more times, and it reveals itself to be a parody of (or homage to?) the confessional blog.<BR/><BR/>Clemency attempts to hide and downplay her talents. Most bloggers and the goal of blogging (me included) tends toward exaggerating our own talents.<BR/><BR/>A small correction should be made about just how low-brow Clem's acting career managed to be. She didn't appear in the original Dungeons and Dragons movie, but rather in the 2005 straight to DVD sequel, Dungeons and Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon Lord. Actually, having seen it on the Sci-Fi Channel, I actually think that it was somewhat better than the original, in the same way that The Godfather II was better than the original, if the original had been total drek.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-75630623530267774082007-04-18T09:21:00.000-04:002007-04-18T09:21:00.000-04:00And Nabokov would never have indulged in anything ...And Nabokov would never have indulged in anything as petty as this. Really, this is the sort of thing that belongs in one's handwritten journal, unless your goal is to have smug Clemmie read your putdown and think "Oh God, what an appalling person I am, I should have paid more attention to that Unreligious chap and learned from him the art of silence, cunning, exile, and decent prose!"Languagehathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285708503881129380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-59917670021426120852007-04-18T08:09:00.000-04:002007-04-18T08:09:00.000-04:00If Clem weren't female, though, I'd suspect her of...If Clem weren't female, though, I'd suspect her of rehearsing the important technique of down-angled mediaspeech used by the Uppers to their Lowers. It's a special language (deliberately banal, self-effacing, hoary with received opinion and from time to time bathetic) providing an interface between mutually exclusive sets. This interface is a class-esperanto and a salve. What are politics and advertizing but this interface language writ large? <BR/><BR/>Again, Clem's gender complicates parsing her exact place in all this, but the active distinction is between the initiated (the cream of Clem's class) and the serf-naif (comprising the work-herd she is playing to). The hackneyed literary style is also called "democracy" and the Americans are spreading it to all corners of the planet, I hear. <BR/><BR/>The Uppers will continue to use this language until they lose entirely their dwindling habitual fear (spectacularly vindicated in 1789 and 1918) of the Lowers. The time is coming when they won't bother talking to the Lowers at all; the technology isn't quite there yet.<BR/><BR/>Nabokov is known for two things, chiefly: his extravagant literary style, and his naked elitism. Clem would never indulge in anything nasty as that. <BR/><BR/>(There's a dystopian comment for you, Conrad!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com