[email protected] wrote circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM: > Having > myself come to the conclusion that _The American > Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least > part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have > good reason to conclude that he's not a very > good editor, pretty good reason (I think) > to discount what he has to say about the value > of a "literary education", and very good reason > (independent of such discounting) to conclude > that his taste and mine differ a great deal.
Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject of a non sequitur. The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and, indeed, is destructive and petulant. The latter is, at least, somewhat respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work might be a waste of time for that person. And it's always helpful to know where your time might be wasted. I suppose the former is _useful_ in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more attractive. I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship. Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative" political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed beneficiary. Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of "blowback"? Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads. For the most part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my curiosity in Joseph's work. The more others insult the target and make empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out" with no real justification for their own position. Those expositions that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked. In any case, it's an interesting dynamic. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
