Strange Brouhaha

Monday, March 28, 2005

More about that horrible narcissistic Salon columnist

Her first column is up over at Salon. I didn't read it, but it was going to be all about her seven-year-old son (again).

What burns me up about this obvious exploitation is the number of people who wrote in to the Salon letters column to defend this author, among them another author with a national reputation. The defense generally ran along the lines of, "I guess all you goody two-shoes mommies out there can't handle a mom who's imperfect and real! Well, grow up!"

No. We can't handle a mom who repeats, on the internet, things that her very young child has trustingly told her.

I hope everyone (and they all seemed to be women) who defended this columnist all wake up to discover that their husbands have started a blog.

"Hi! This is [Real Name] of [Real City]! My wife [Real Name] had another episode of stress incontinence last night. God, I hate that. It really smells, and plus, the thought of her distended urethra really squicks me out. Not to mention the other thing. It's like throwing a pencil down a mine shaft these days. And did you know she has rape fantasies? Every month when she's getting near her period, I have to hear her go on about how she wants two 25-year-old gangsta-rappin' black guys to chase her down in an abandoned parking lot and have their way with her. This, while she's leaking on me. Well, I've got an extra twenty bucks, so I'm going down to [Real Street] tonight, if you know what I mean. I need a break! Besides, I still have muscle tone. How can you expect me to be satisfied by some squishy 45-year-old with bladder control problems?"

Hey--he's being real! Grow up! Right?


  • Do you really hope that these people have their private details published all over the internet? Didn't you just argue against that? Seems like it would cause an awful lot of pain for quite a number of folks to have personal details splashed all over the internet - as your exposition rightly and passionatly argues. It is a violation of trust -- a nice defensible moral position to take. But dig in, and defend all -- unsuspecting incontinent and loose housewives as well as children, hypocrites and the ignorant.

    Seems like a selective morality, otherwise? No? Violation of one moral to support another? Only when it suits your ends? Seems like it must be applied always and when nobody is looking. Or is it not absolute?

    Maybe you could hope that all the Republican Senators' children die fighting in the Iraq war... That'd sure show 'em, now wouldn't it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:12 AM  

  •, Anonymous, I do not really hope that these people have their private details published all over the internet. It would be incredibly cruel and wrong. That was my point. I meant to show that anyone who could defend a woman revealing her seven year old son's personal confidences--along with his real name--was obviously not thinking things through very carefully. How would they feel if they woke up to discover that someone had done that to them? They would feel betrayed and humiliated--which is exactly what's going on with the child. He is being betrayed and humiliated.

    By Blogger Savannah, at 12:26 PM  

  • (Matt) Some people just don't get sarcasm. Either that, or Anonymous needs to take a chill pill.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:22 AM  

  • I see. The old 'misinterpretation of sarcasm.' No doubt, the fault of the reader. It has the ring of a Don Adams routine.

    Sarcasm is not always so easily identified. Those with reasonably good command of language can recognize it fairly readily, but it is not always so plainly evident. It is much more easily detected through vocal communication, coupled with some knowledge of and personal history with the author. It is easily confused with anger without care and context.

    The response was much more on point and had considerably more clarity.

    Mr. Matt is correct is his assessment that some do not get sarcasm. Or rather it could be that some are less adept at detecting it within written prose than others. Are these unfortunate folks not to be accommodated? Isn't the widest audience the goal? Or is this an exclusive club for those intimately familiar with the author's style? These terms are at the author's discretion, of course, but what is an ususpecting blog surfer to assume when he stumbles upon this Strange Brouhaha?

    To the other point, Anonymous will check with his local chemist and assess his inventory. This 'chill pill' sounds like a rockin' good ol' time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:28 AM  

  • (Josh) Anon - I hear what you're saying, but Savannah's post was about as obvious as one could get. Maybe they want the "widest possible audience" that has some modicum of a sense of humor and can detect sarcasm.

    I'm being sarcastic, by the way.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:10 AM  

  • Mr. Josh, your sarcasm is as evident as Ms. Savannah's always was.

    My point is merely to encourage clarity to avoid externalities. There are many for whom the active practice and wish of 'outing the outer' is a delicious one; a reprehensible position, as far as I'm concerned. Seeing something and misinterpreting it in print and assuming tacit encouragement only fuels it.

    Cheers to all.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:42 AM  

  • (Josh) I leave for vacation in a few hours, and I think my head's already checked out, but I totally don't get that.

    Not being much of a blog-junkie, I always think of this as the place where I can see what my friends Rob and Savannah are up to. It never really occurs to me that anyone on the planet could, or would, read it and respond. Just don't take anything I say particularly seriously and we'll all be just fine.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home