I wound up in an e-mail exchange with Bill Marx last night in which he called me "the master of ad hominem." I was struck by this because it's a slur that's been bouncing around the web about me; Isaac Butler said much the same thing here [correction - the term actually appears in the comments to, rather than the main body of, that post] and J. Holtham has tossed the claim around, as have other bloggers.
But one can only assume from this that Bill Marx, et. al., don't understand the meaning of "ad hominem." So in the spirit of education, I thought I'd run a post about the term.
An ad hominem argument (meaning "argument against the man") is defined as something like this:
Person 1 has made claim X.
There is something objectionable about Person 1.
Therefore claim X is false.
A good example would be:
Bill Marx claims that the Huntington Theatre should have done a play other than All My Sons.
Bill Marx is pudgy and unpleasant.
Therefore, his claim is false.
I never make arguments like this - even when, as above, all the separate statements may be true. I think to lazy writers like Isaac and Bill, "ad hominem" has become a synonym for "insulting." And of course I've insulted them plenty of times - but always because of what they've said, not because of who they are. I'm constantly saying things like "Isaac Butler is a dishonest careerist because he said X, which is untrue but opens up a possible job opportunity," and "Bill Marx is a pompous ass because he said X, which doesn't help local theatre but only buffs his own ego." You see that "because he said X" part? That means the statement was an attack, but not an ad hominem attack.
Likewise, if I say "Lydia Diamond R. has distorted the historical record in two different plays to match a consistent psychological profile, and therefore is neurotic," that is not an ad hominem argument. It could be false, but you have to prove that with a statement that has a "because" in it (but does NOT have the name "Thomas Garvey" in it). You have to say something like "Lydia R. Diamond may tailor history to her own psychological profile but this is not neurotic BECAUSE . . ." I'm not sure what would come after that "because," but that's what you have to do - the argument stands separately from me, personally, and it has an inner logic that you have to address.
What's funniest about those who claim I resort to ad hominem attack is, of course, that they themselves are far more prone to the practice. The retort to my assessment of Diamond, for instance, has often been (and I'm not making this up) "Thomas Garvey is a troll!!" In the past, other bloggers have replied to my arguments with "Thomas Garvey is a coward!" "Thomas Garvey is an old queen!" And, of course, "Thomas Garvey is a racist, no wait, he is a BIGOT instead!"
This, of course, brings up something very tricky for the identity politics crowd: many of their claims are hard to distinguish from ad hominem attacks, as they tend to work backward from broad social characterizations. The whole circumstance of a white man criticizing a black woman, which is what has happened here, is fraught for these folks, and many of them immediately jump to the essentially ad hominem argument of "You're racist (and sexist)!" And if that claim doesn't match your profile, it morphs to "You're unconsciously racist!" or "You're structurally racist!" The target floats, but remains essentially the same, and it is, potentially, an ad hominem attack. Of course you might argue from this that therefore those who "dialogue" about identity politics should be especially careful about indulging in this kind of thing. That would seem to be a reasonable admonition, but it's likely to fall on deaf ears.
Because of course I agree heartily that there are some arguments that are racist, and some that are unconsciously racist. Maybe even some that are structurally racist. But the thing is, even if you're going to make that argument, you still have to begin it with a sentence that runs "Lydia R. Diamond tailors history to her psychological profile, but that is not neurotic BECAUSE . . ." (Or, in the case of RVC Bard, "Feeling unworthy of white people's presence is not neurotic BECAUSE . . .") You have to source your attack in the topic at hand. You can't begin with a general argument about the existence of racism, and then work backward to Lydia R. Diamond and RVCBard; this is a form of deductive fallacy, because while racism certainly exists, these two people could still be neurotic about it.
And yet so far no one in this blogosphere imbroglio has written any analysis at all about Lydia R. Diamond or her plays (and of course RVCBard hasn't stopped crying since I ran my post, so no one's going to go near her with anything but kleenex). But until they do, those who attack me are guilty of - yes, wait for it - ad hominem attack.
Nicely put. Isaac and his crowd are more marketers than bloggers anyhow.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. "Your theatrical choice for every stripe of identity politics!" Yet they still can't seem to get work.
ReplyDeleteJust btw, you have to check out Isaac today - he's actually apologizing for opposing misogyny from a masculine perspective. I swear, you can't make this stuff up.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jack Worthing, broadcasting from a different channel. Now then:
ReplyDeleteHand-wringing over Madison Avenue? Really?
Did you hear that people often kill in the name of religion, and that gays have a hard time growing up?
What's really being said here? Bond, Miller, Brecht, Pinter, Kushner, Kane, etc. all made political statements with terrifying clarity. Pinter defended Slobodan Milosevic, for God's sake. If nothing else that's brave. Commenters recently asked me about my experience working in literary offices, and I'll add this: so many new plays lack bravery. They're full of shuffling, facile, back-scratching liberal guilt. There's no risk, no thrust, and no room for points of view beyond more over-educated squawking.
I went to drama school with a certain element who wanted to turn the place into a semiotics seminar. I finally exploded and told them to turn it into work, or leave. Quit loving your (possibly imagined) victimhood, crack the surface and say something about the world. If you never want to offend anybody, go get that job on TWO AND A HALF MEN and have a nice life.
I'm staying away from Parabasis until Isaac stops ranting about the Superbowl and gets back to talking about theatre. I never cared for football, and so have no interest in football blogging.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Thom, I apologize for opposing homophobia, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
Isaac never describes your attacks as ad hominem anywhere in the article to which you linked. Nor are the attacks he's made on you ad hominem in nature according to very examples you cite. He's basically drawn certain conclusions about you based on the way you conduct yourself in the blogosphere. Therefore it's irrelevant and silly to lecture him about the meaning of a term or a line of attack he doesn't use.
ReplyDeleteSo based on this post alone, at least two of his observations about you - that you aren't very bright and that you argue in bad faith - have substance.
Hmmmm, I think I have to check that with the LGBT Are-We-Offended-Yet Caucus Alliance! Just a sec - hold on - ok, you're forgiven! ;-)
ReplyDeleteNothing brave about Pinter's defense of Milosevic. Extremist demagoguery, and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteFunny how he could have written so many plays about the horrors of torture and then defend a dictator who authorized rape-camps, but I guess that torture victims only matter if they were tortured by the correct political regime.
ok, you're forgiven!
ReplyDeleteOh goody, I knew you could find it in your big gay heart.
And you are forgiven too, for being an Irish guy opposing antisemitism.
Actually, beachill, you have a point about Butler! I googled my name and "ad hominem" and that post came up, but I can see now that the term "ad hominem" came up in a comment attached to that particular post. Still, it would be hard to argue that the commenter was disagreeing with Butler, and Butler did call me "a garden variety troll," and said that I'm "not particularly bright," etc. - a steady stream of ad hominem attack - all while never addressing, or even mentioning, the arguments in my post about Lydia R. Diamond and RVCBard. But by all means, ignore this correction and continue telling yourself that I'm stupid and argue in bad faith. I also advise you to stop reading this blog, it will only trouble you!
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't agree with Pinter/Milosevic either. But it's a definite and very contrary point of view. It stakes out ground, which is more than this lot gives us.
ReplyDeleteJack W.
I'd also like to note that my chief accuser, 99 seats, today opines that
ReplyDelete"The experience of being a black person in America is so total, so invasive from birth, so pervasive in every aspect of my life, I can't escape it. But most white people simply can't see it. My daily life involves a constant and complex form of trigonometry that gets me from A to B while keeping my soul intact, from the smallest interactions on the subway to writing this blog to making my way in a field dominated by white people. It is exhausting and painful and totally invisible to even my closest friends. Every single time I deal with someone, I'm wondering, "Are they treating me this way because I'm black?" Whether it's good or bad. And that's just an experience that a white person can not grasp . . . You can not speak to it, you can't understand it, and, really, on some level, you've benefited from it. You have an easier life because I have a harder one. There is hurt and anger and frustration there, behind that."
But just an hour or two later he's musing on the fact that he hasn't actually, been writing about theatre much:
"I love my down time, even more. And for me, down time means TV, semi-trashy crime novels and potboilers, and catching the occasional show . . . Expect some posts about TV shows I like, books I'm reading or looking forward to read, what I think about some other stuff, too."
Gosh, it must be tough watching your soaps while you're so tormented . . .
So, fallacies:
ReplyDelete"Indeed. "Your theatrical choice for every stripe of identity politics!" Yet they still can't seem to get work." (Non sequitir: an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. Your argument: Isaac engages in identity politics, which is invalid because he isn't getting work." Hmmm. Logical? Not so much.)
"Lydia Diamond R. has distorted the historical record in two different plays to match a consistent psychological profile, and therefore is neurotic,"
We tend to associate "neurotic" with a personal smear, and so the ad hominem characterization, but the definition is: "a functional disorder in which feelings of anxiety, obsessional thoughts, compulsive acts, and physical complaints without objective evidence of disease, in various degrees and patterns, dominate the personality." So I guess you are making the argument that history is being distorted to reflect personal anxiety without objective evidence of disease. OK -- so the real argument is about whether history has been distorted.
That said, you are falling victim to the Intentional Fallacy, which interprets a work in terms of authorial intent and biography. This applies as much to blogging as to works of literature.
Scott, Scott, Scott! I'm beginning to think your salary should be docked for every bad blog post or comment you make! First, your claim that my little joke was a "non sequitir" is itself obviously flawed (there's not really a premise or a conclusion in there).
ReplyDeleteAs for Lydia R. Diamond - she has written plays about the life histories of both Saartjie Baartman and Harriet Jacobs. If you knew the plays, and knew the life stories, you'd agree that the two biographies have been distorted in a similar way. The question is, why did Diamond do this? I took the fact that both stories were twisted in a similar way as evidence of the author's buried emotional issues. This guess could be wrong, but it is not a form of the intentional fallacy, which is, in criticism, the use of the artist's biography to explain his or her "intent." I'm working purely from the works of art, however, and at any rate my impression is that Diamond's themes are unintentional. Now there may be some other explanation for the odd similarity in those respective plays. Perhaps you could supply one rather than cast aspersions.
And you know, Scott, I've got a question for you. To my mind, your best writing has been about privilege, not identity politics. So doesn't it bother you that your acolytes seem to both be so privileged? We know Isaac has a trust fund, and seems to live on the Upper West Side, and jets about from conference to conference, while 99 seats doesn't seem to have a job - he often talks about spending his days watching TV and reading trashy novels, and has admitted, as I recall, to an "upper middle class background" (in my experience, "upper middle class" always means "lower upper class"). He's even currently writing a Philip Barry knock-off. And he and Isaac are quick to call you "Professor" and subtly set up the dynamic you're used to in class - that is, lecturing from an elite perch in an elite university to the children of the elite. Does it ever worry you that there's a devastating critique available of all this mutual back-scratching, that your identity politics might just be a diversion from, or even a disguise of, an economic politics that you're complicit with? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteYou are, indeed, correct -- the Intentional Fallacy tends to project the author onto the work of art, and is less about reversing the flow. Good catch.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are engaging in is psychoanalytic literary criticism, which interprets a work of art in the same way that a psychoanalyst interprets a dream -- as indications of inner dramas and conflicts. It doesn't have many proponents these days, but it was hot in the 60s and 70s. It usually helps if the body of work examined is large enough to be representative. Freud's analysis of Hamlet as indicative of Shakespeare's Oedipal issues is generally regarded today as reductive and simplistic. It also helps if the analyst operates from a sympathetic position, rather than using psychoanalytic techniques to hammer authors, which is kind of ethically suspect. But you are right that your criticisms are not ad hominem, but simply hostile.
Scott, you're closer this time around, but still not quite there. Freud was wrong about Hamlet because (among other reasons) Shakespeare didn't keep returning to issues of a hesitating son and a possibly guilty, sexually active mother. But when an author keeps returning to a certain set of conflicts, or twists the historical record to set UP those conflicts, then we generally agree that those conflicts are, indeed, the author's psychological material rather than the surfaces of his or her respective narratives. If it helps you to say something like, "These issues are NOT Lydia R. Diamond's psychological issues, but they ARE what she is actually drawn to write about instead of her heroines and their histories," that's fine with me.
ReplyDeleteGood questions, Thomas.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I don't really consider Isaac or 99 as acolytes. They really don't agree with much of what I write, and often say so -- in fact, not many bloggers do. They call me The Prof because Don Hall started calling me that and it stuck. I don't think Don started calling me that to make me comfortable.
As far as my teaching at an elite university -- well, not so much. UNC Asheville is a public liberal arts campus of 3,000 that is poorly funded compared to the flagship Chapel Hill and NC State. My salary is pretty modest as academic salaries go, my teaching load is heavy, and many of my students tend to be first-generation college students. But increasingly, the class of the students here has gotten higher. I think the administration would like us to be an elite school, but we're not, and I'd prefer we were less elite than we are.
I am the first person in my family to go to college. My mother left school (and home) in 8th grade, and my father got through high school and became a bookkeeper in a small gun factory, and ended up working as a clerk in a retail store until he got too sick to work anymore. My grandfather was a lumberjack turned power house worker at J. I. Case Corp. who was cheated out of his pension when he retired due to heart problems because they subtracted from his time at Case the time his union was on strike. All of which is to say my experience of the effects of privilege or the lack thereof is pretty firsthand.
Anyway, I'm not certain what the devastating critique is. If you could fill me in, I'd be appreciative.
And I'm OK with that rephrasing. I don't know the plays, so I can't comment on the accuracy of your analysis. I would, however, say that two plays does not a corpus make.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'd say that Shakespeare DID keep returning to a troubled son's rocky relationship with his father (Henry IV pt 1 and 2, in some ways Macbeth and Duncan), which is also Oedipal. Not many mothers in Shakespeare -- which might be an indication of a neurosis, right? The dog that didn't bark?
I think the "critique" would run something like this: when a person repeatedly says things like, "My life has been made immensely harder by white people, and I can never escape that. I wonder what's on hulu? No one can understand how I suffer. And yesterday I spent the afternoon reading Jacqueline Susann," then there is a disjuncture in their "narrative," as it were, that bears examination. One senses the possibility that a life of relative ease may be disguising itself (perhaps unconsciously) in a narrative of subjection. At the very least, it's not a very compelling picture of oppression. Yet I rarely feel you pressing back skeptically on these claims of oppression, even though perhaps there may be a great deal of "disagreement" among your acolytes (yes, I'm afraid I'll keep on calling them that) along the lines of, "The Professor thinks we should learn to listen to each other THIS way, but I think we should learn to listen to each other THIS way! But I think we can all agree that it's time we began to listen to each other about how to listen to each other, so how do YOU think we should learn to listen to each other?" Somehow these don't really play out to me as disagreements. As Jack Worthing pointed out, they're monotonous in their homogeneity and fecklessness. And while I appreciate your personal story does not, actually, set you in an elite - still, your own analyses would lead one to the impression that yes, most colleges offer a life of relative privilege, for the privileged. Indeed, identity politics as practiced on campus seems sometimes to operate as a kind of psychological compensation for that unstated awareness.
ReplyDeleteAs for Shakespeare - uh, if the relationships between mothers and sons AND fathers and sons are all Oedipal, then a whole lot of other playwrights are Oedipal, too. It would be hard to write 37 or more plays without several of them falling under that rubric, it seems to me.
And I'm struck by how vehement you've been in picking apart an analysis of plays which it turns out you haven't even read. The only explanation available would seem to be a loyalty to the political matrix that I am, admittedly, intentionally undermining.
Actually, I don't think I've been vehement at all. I think I've been commenting on what qualifies as ad hominem, Intentional Fallacy, or psychoanalytic criticism. I think I'm talking about a certain approach to making criticism, not the plays themselves, which I believe is what this post is about, right? That's why I didn't get involved in the original post. I'm arrogant, but I know when I don't have enough information to participate intelligently in a conversation. I think you're mistaking me with my so-called acolytes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as identity politics, it doesn't take much reading (or much imagination) to understand that economic privilege doesn't remove one from suffering the effects of racism. Human beings stand at the crossroads of many different privileges and prejudices. It is possible to be wealthy AND discriminated against racially.
It is late in the day, so I confess I don't really understand the "we must listen to each other this way" thing you described. Sorry.
"Fecklessness"??? Really? "Ineffective and incompetent"? I'm afraid jack Worthing will need to get more specific with that criticism in order for me to respond.
Colleges offer a privileged life in the sense that I cannot be fired once I earn tenure, and my pay, while not commensurate with my education as compared to other professionals, makes me comfortable. Again, this doesn't preclude one from recognizing the intersection of social factors such as race. In fact, I would venture to say that it is precisely my security that ALLOWS me to be aware and critical of pwoer structures, speaking for those who are less secure. You are assuming that one can only speak for oneself, which simply is not true.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteyou said Isaac wrote..."a steady stream of ad hominem attack - all while never addressing, or even mentioning, the arguments in my post about Lydia R. Diamond and RVCBard".
However, he began his piece by linking to a post from 99 Seats. That post did address and mention your arguments, so in that context his description of you as a "garden variety troll" is not ad hominem.
Generally speaking, if you use insulting and inflammatory language in your arguments, it's understandable that one might conclude that you're more interested in insulting and inflaming people than in the integrity of the argument. That conclusion may be wrong, but it's not ad hominem.
Ian,
Pinter defended Milosevic only in the sense that he didn't believe NATO had the moral authority to give him a fair trial.
From an interview on Australian radio:
"Ramona Koval: So if hes found guilty as a war criminal by a court that you think is properly convened, you wouldnt have any bad feelings about that?
Harold Pinter: If it was a properly impartial and objective trial. But I repeat, however, I think that NATO is itself a war criminal, if you understand, as much as Milosevic is."
Saying a dictator is entitled to a fair trial is hardly a defense of his dictatorship.
And in regard to your comment:
"I guess that torture victims only matter if they were tortured by the correct political regime".
Which regime is that exactly? No regime is mentioned in One for the Road, and Vaclav Havel praised him for his "solidarity during the struggle against communism":
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/havel-hails-pinter-for-solidarity/story-0-1111118411459
No, sorry, beachill - calling someone a "garden variety troll" is always an ad hominem attack, period. And 99 seats did not really address my arguments.
ReplyDeleteI find your other arguments similarly specious. Who, exactly, was in a position to try Milosevic, if not NATO, or some other Western power that Pinter would have disapproved of? And I don't think Ian was referring to the plays when he made that comment about "torture victims."
Thomas was correct; I was sarcastically referring to the fact that, based on the several short works I have seen performed (I am not an expert on his ouvre) torture, including use of rape, appears to be recurring theme in Pinter's plays, and I was generally of the impression that Pinter disapproves.
ReplyDeletePinter is also a.) either willfully dissembling; or b.) ignorant (possibly willfully) of both international law and the facts of the Milosevic trial. Milosevic was tried by the World Court in the Hague based on an indictment issued by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia which had been convened by the UN Security Council. He was extradited to the ICTY by the rump Yugoslavian government after he was forced out of power by a series of demonstrations. NATO did not try him; NATO merely disabled the Serbian genocide apparatus and enforced a safe-zone for the Kosovars.
Pinter's argument that NATO was equally guilty of war crimes amounted to his attempt to make the bombing of a genocidal regime in order to make it stop committing acts of genocide (i.e. massacres, government sponsored rape camps) is morally equivalent to genocide.
This is a sophistic trivialization of genocide and mass-rape. Pinter was merely ingratiating himself with a radical-left fringe of British politics instead of being a voice of intellectual and moral integrity.
GloryVic IngSoc!
At the risk of offending my myriad acolytes, I don't happen to think you are a "garden variety troll.' You are someone, like I am, whose opinions are not shared by the majority, and whose writing style (like mine) can be seen as abrasive. Issues surrounding race, like issues surrounding centralization, class, and New York, are fraught with strong feelings. I think it is possible to disagree with a conclusion or express oneself passionately without marginalizing those with who one disagrees. I don't happen to agree with you about race, which you call "identity politics" -- OK, so what? We can have an intense discussion about it and then, as Don Hall points out in a recent post, we can have a beer together. Until we can all start to converse with passion and logic while assuming the good will of the person with whom we disagree, we will be condemned to our current polarized, thin-skinned culture. And I believe I said as much on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm not clear as to why labelling someone "a dishonest careerist" is not ad hominem if made within the context of a reasoned justification, but labelling someone "a common garden-variety troll" is "always" ad hominem, even if it's made within the context of a comparable justification.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to whether there were alternatives to how Milosevic should've been tried was not the point of my disagreement with Ian. I took issue with how he characterised Pinter's position on Milosevic. Pinter believed that Milosevic was guilty of atrocities and that torture committed by Serbian police was horrific. To suggest that he believed some torture victims were more worthy of consideration than others is not supported by anything he said.
No, beachill:
ReplyDeletePinter made an argument of equivalency between Milosevic's campaign of genocide and NATO's use of military force to stop a genocide in-progress. Where's the logic there? And why does he have to tell lies about the International Criminal Tribunal?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/26/warcrimes.balkans1
Of course, then Pinter throws in the irrelevant claim that the war crimes should actually be blamed on one of Milosevic's deputies-- which doesn't really make his opposition to NATO any more sustainable.
It's sophistic, morally and intellectually dishonest, and the quotes you cite are equally damning. Pinter's argument is that Milosevic was "ruthless and savage" but should have been allowed to continue being "ruthless and savage" and not be demonized for being "ruthless and savage." On top of that, he argues that Bill Clinton should have prosecuted for trying to stop Milosevic's "ruthless and savage" behavior.
Don't worry, it's not the first time an artist I admired has turned out to be an apologist for atrocities and I doubt it will be the last. I'm used to it.
I'm cool with principled abrasiveness, but in Pinter's case, anti-Americanism had long eclipsed what principles upon which he had built his reputation.
Remember also, that if Vaçlav Havel had praised Pinter for his support during the struggle against communism, then it was for Pinter's activities prior to the revolutions of 1989, not for Pinter's later support of Milosevic. So please don't sully Havel's name without some stronger evidence.
I'm getting a little tired of debating this, but will add that my characterization of Issac Butler is based on several instances of his cutting ethical corners - if you feel like going back through the blog, beachill, you can find them for yourself. Meanwhile, proving that someone is a "troll" would I think at least require a bridge and a few billy goats gruff.
ReplyDeleteAnd to Scott I can only say - who would want to have a beer with Don Hall, especially after being kicked in the balls? That had to be the most bizarre compliment to himself (out of the many he constantly proferrs to his own awesomeness) I've ever read - "I'm happy to have a beer with you after punching you in the balls." To which I can only say, hey, I'd be happy to have a beer with him, too, after I'd punched him in the balls - although on second thought, I'd just as soon skip the beer.
What's odd about your little clique is how fragile everyone in it is, btw. Your friends literally scream things like, "Fuck you! FUCK YOU!" and "You are a troll and a suckhole!" and then somehow expect to be treated seriously - even forgiven - within a few hours. But why? Why should that happen?
And if you imagine that these bloggers' crudeness and shriekiness is due to their passion, think again. Us Boston Bloggers are certainly passionate, and certainly disagree about things - Ian and I are in very different places over a Palestinian homeland, for instance. But somehow we keep that in perspective, and our interactions are generally touched with humor. Maybe that's actually the difference. You guys trade praise of each other, and ridicule of others, quite well. But do any of you really have a sense of humor about yourselves? Somehow I don't think so.
Ian and I are in very different places over a Palestinian homeland, for instance.
ReplyDeleteYou might be surprised. I suspect that we are probably closer than you think on that issue.
But nonetheless, your point is taken.
I am fascinated to find myself named as part of a little clique, after feeling as if I have been an outsider so long. I'd encourage you to go back and read some of the Nylachi arguments that have occurred over the years -- you think you've gotten bashed! Well, Ok, enough "my bruises are bigger than yours." I agree that some of the bloggers can be aggressive, even abusive. On the other hand, I have found some of the Boston bloggers to be polite, yes, and humorous, yes, but also dismissive and high-hat, which is actually just as aggressive as Don Hall, but with with a smirk instead of vulgarity. He who bashes last, bashes best, I guess. Don calls for a brutal honesty, an openness of motive that he feels creates a safety. Others want a more polite dialogue -- as long as nobody proposes anything that deviates from the status quo. Others want to whine about being misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteI'm also finding it ironic that I am being bashed on one side by Isaac and 99 for taking your contributions seriously, and here for being part of the opposing clique!
Well, dunno. I see some truth in what you say about The Clique. Sense of humor? Sometimes.
Well, I'll give you that much - I too was amused to watch them turn on you on that silly "Wicked Bitchy Stage" blog, or whatever it is. Maybe that should tell you something! But sorry, no, can't agree with you about Don Hall and 99 Seats - they're abusive, insecure personalities by any definition. "High-handed and dismissive" may not be ideal, but it's not the same thing as repeated emails saying "You are a coward and a suckhole!" Surely you can see that they long ago ended any chance of real dialogue in the blogosphere. Their latest tantrums are just more evidence that debate will not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteWell, I must admit that I only engage Don when I agree with him these days. Things very quickly escalate to namecalling. But I can't really say that your style encourages dialogue any more than Don's does. And I say that as someone whose own style isn't exactly shrinking violet either.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, very few people can write good dialogue.
ReplyDeleteIs that an ad hominem attack?
ReplyDeleteFunny: apparently after reading discussion, somebody was conducted a Google search on "Ian Thal, Palestinian Homeland" as well as one on "Ian Thal, Iraq War" yesterday. Inquiring minds want to know!
ReplyDeleteThat said, Thom, I think you may have extrapolated a political disagreement from our disagreement regarding Caryl Churchill's "Seven Jewish Children."
Oh, sorry if I've set another crackpot on your tail, Ian! "Beachill" has been sending in more about Pinter, btw, but I've kind of given him the heave-ho.
ReplyDeleteYep.
ReplyDeleteBeachill just posted to the comments section to my post about my February 14th gig, but I told him that it was so off topic that he was getting one response from me and that's it.
Even funnier is this comment from this thread on Parabasis:
ReplyDelete"Ian has been spending too much time around Thomas."
I think that qualifies as ad hominem.
Okay, buddy, we'll keep it on the down low from now on! ;-)
ReplyDelete