From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #287 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, August 3 1999 Volume 08 : Number 287 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Gene's JfS review [The Great Quail ] Re: everyone's a critic [warning: spoilers] [Ken Ostrander ] Arrgh. Warning. Time malfunction! [The Great Quail ] Re: how's alice? - Lynch [delia winthorpe ] whee! [dmw ] Re: Eyes Wide and South Perk [four episode lesbian ] boring admin stuff [four episode lesbian ] Re: how's alice? - Lynch [hal brandt ] Re: whee! [hal brandt ] Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a PC thug [edoxtato@intent] sheesh. (was Re: whee!) [dmw ] Re: EWS, Whack-An-Eb(tm) game for fun and profit [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #285 ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: whee! [Joel Mullins ] Unsolved Mystery ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: Critics Revisionism [delia winthorpe ] Re: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a PC thug [Joel Mullin] ADMIN: smoe.org move this weekend (8/7-8/8) [four episode lesbian ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:21:27 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Gene's JfS review Gene Hopstets, >As for the cover, I like that too. I don't think it's fair to assume >Robyn doesn't choose colors in a painting as carefully as he chooses >chords for a song, so I don't see any reason to fault his choice of >colors on the cover. Sure, the colors are garish, but they are fun, >as though Robyn just felt like having a laugh with the paint brush. Just a note . . .the painting is actually Michelle's, not Robyn's. Makes me *really* want to see Adoration of the Cities! - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.rpg.net/quail/libyrinth "Countlessness of livestories have netherfallen by this plage, flick as flowflakes, litters from aloft, like a waast wizzard all of whirlworlds. Now are all tombed to the mound, isges to isges, erde from erde . . . (Stoop) if you are abcedminded, to this claybook, what curious of signs (please stoop) in this allaphbed! Can you rede (since We and Thou had it out already) its world? . . . Speak to us of Emailia!" --James Joyce, Finnegans Wake ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:41:47 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: everyone's a critic [warning: spoilers] >PS I have no idea what 'Blue Velvet' was about. think of it like an r-rated scooby doo episode. those freaky kidnappers would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids. here's to your fuck, frank. >Inhuman and "feel-good romance" are hardly antonyms. funny, that's what my dominatrix says... >After seeing the first half of the film, I guessed that it would be >"Fidelio." And obviously, her saying "Fidelio" would've been a major >revelation. ooh, that gave me goosebumps. the word she used just made me laugh; but this was juicy. i agree that it doesn't really signify any new insight into her character. her drug-addled confession earlier in the film gave us that. though the film was a tad predictable and slow-moving at times, i did get drawn into the story. the visual effect of the film was intoxicating and the sexual tension and sinister implications that followed were delicious. have to say that the end was pretty anticlimactic. in particular, sidney pollack's bland "explanation" left me feeling like i was watching a michael moore interview. can't wait to see it without those pesky digital figures blocking the way. that's not the way they do it in amsterdam. oops. did i say too much? ken "roman sex slave" the kenster np. transient random-noise bursts with announcements - stereolab ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:05:14 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: EWS Hal, Patron Saint of Weenie Idolatry, offered: >Eb, that is just pathetic. Grow up, please. Please! We don't agree on >some things. That's all. Be more civil. It's a discussion, not a war. Umm...I'm not the drooling fanboy who is SO fervent about Eyes Wide Shut that he couldn't bear to read ONE negative comment about it, without going into an indignant tizzy...even though that negative comment was enclosed within an otherwise VERY enthusiastic review. And it's the same hysterical behavior you exhibit again, again and again, whenever someone dares to question one of your sacred cows (see subsequent David Lynch protests). Blecch. >> After seeing the first half of the film, I guessed that it would be >> "Fidelio." And obviously, her saying "Fidelio" would've been a major >> revelation. > >Your alternate ending wins no Pulitzer. In my opinion. I was so hoping that you would approve. OK, let's stick with the rimshot/titillation/soundbite ending, then. Incidentally, I can't even be sure if my alleged hero Ebert directly agreed with me about this. His comment was that he was disappointed in the ending, because it was "conventional." Kinda vague...so he *might* be talking about some other detail(s) of the closing minutes. *Possibly*. >If I wasn't acutely aware of your sarcasm, I would agree with your >statement. "Wild At Heart" is a great example. I'm thinking of the scene >where Sailor and Lula are driving with the radio on. They hear bad news >on every station. Finally, out of frustration, Lula screams for Sailor >to "find me some music on this radio, RIGHT NOW!" He tunes the radio to >some fuck-ass rock 'n' roll, they pull the car over to the side of the >road and do a passionate, wild dance with each other as the camera pulls >back to capture a Panavision sunset. Inhuman? Yep, pretty much. Rings hollow. It's all about the symbolism, the subtext, the big picture, the cinematic archetype. Not about Lulu and Sailor themselves. You yourself mentioned the "Panavision sunset" -- you shot your own argument in the foot, right there. Oops. >All of Elephant Man? I do concede that The Elephant Man is probably Lynch's most "compassionate" work. >-Markg >(Who...takes some joy in maintaining his opinion that South Park is the >most enjoyable movie he's seen this year.) You know, I find this comment very telling. I think this sort of attitude explains a lot of the South Park film's critical acclaim. Critics love a chance to "let their hair down," and embrace a Silly Film. Look at the raves for There's Something About Mary last year (which I actually thought was very good myself, and miles better than the SP film). I think South Park has reaped the benefits of this psychological loophole, as well. It's *comforting* for someone who's normally forced to prove how highbrow and esoteric he is, to turn around and defy everyone by saying "Heh heh...here's my guilty pleasure." Which is not to say that Mark spends most of his time trying to prove he's esoteric and highbrow, but you see my general point. Aside, to LJ et al: I heard today that Luna's delayed album is now coming out on a new indie called Jericho? Huh. I figured they'd end up on Beggars Banquet, like they are in the UK. Never heard of Jericho, before today. Eb np: crummy stuff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:27:55 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Arrgh. Warning. Time malfunction! Just a warning. Probably due to the switch over from panix.com to libyrinth.com, my emails have been delayed in hitting the Feg List, and they are coming in at weird times. I am sorry if my Ebert posting was somewhat redundant, as it vanished and I thought it lost . . . *then* I posted my views on criticism. So if my posts seem more time-scrambled than usual, no, you are not still having a flashback reading one of Livia's posts. Thank you, - --The Great "I still liked Titanic" Quail +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:50:58 -0700 (PDT) From: delia winthorpe Subject: Re: how's alice? - Lynch doea anybody know of the new david lynch film since we are on the topic? this is what i heard just this weekend... it's rated g and it's a true story about a guy who drives across the county on a tractor. called "driven to it" - or that's what the imdb calls it, but no other info. and he's currently filming another tv show called "mulholland drive." ??????????????????????????????? a friend of mine works in hollywood now and then told me this story about dl when he was filming a japanese tv commercial. dl was haranging the heck out of his personal assistant - she was in tears. craig says to david "you shouldn't be so rough on her" and david comes back with something like "you should see me on my bad days." what a dick!, but it's still funny. i generally imagine his assistant as some sorority chick from ucla who's got looks, rich parents with money, a keen sense for picking fashions out of the latest trendy magazines, and artistic integrity to match the above. oh well! d _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:01:44 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: whee! fegz, ah, is there any pleasure in life quite like watching eb rip someone a new asshole? and, as if that's not enough, the cantankerous-pro-crit-in-residence on the scott miller list is also making up a fine batch of human flambe (with an ague). oh frabjous day! i chortle in my joy. joel, i was mebbe too flip: cronenberg does some neat stuff visually -- i really did like _naked lunch_ quite a bit, and have a soft spot (urk) for _videodrome_ -- but i don't think he's big on thematic complexity. virtually everything of his that i've seen has a strong anti-technology component, and virtually everything has some pretty uncomfortable things going on with flesh. i think his talent is centered more around the metaphors he comes up with for these things than around what they actually *mean.* -- he tends to put things on the surface: the symbols tend to be obvious, and i've never gotten the sense that their meanings are especially layered. apropos the discussion about the role of the critic vs. the role of the reviewer/consumer guide: _like a hole in the head_, by jen banbury. if filmed it will probably be terrible. and i can't possibly tell you why i thought it was such a fine novel without damaging the experience of reading it. just trust me. and not that you care, but i finally found a vinyl storefront, so i bought it -- i was underwhelmed enough by the cd track list that i never bothered, but the big gatefold thingy triggered some long-dormant reflex. $20, sheesh. since no one has told me to shut up about it yet, and since feg band confluences don't seem to happen all that often, i'll mention that feckless beast and number nine line have confirmed that they will both be occupying the same space at almost the same time, this saturday in baltimore, and next friday (the 13th!) in washington dc. feel free to e-mail me for more details. - -- d. - - "seventeen!" cried the humbug, always first with the wrong answer. - - oh no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net dmw@mwmw.com - - get yr pathos:www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:04:18 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: Re: Eyes Wide and South Perk MC 900 Ft Andrew D. Simchik rapped: >Blair Witch, by the way, is a film that improves as you think about it >afterward. no shit! while it was very well done, i came away disappointed since it didn't spook me as much i was hoping it to. then, this morning, i noticed how much the shower curtain looked like the wall of a tent and became extremely hesitant about drawing it back after finishing in the tub... looking at the blariwitch.com website after the fact has also magnified the post-viewing spookiness of the film too. there's a lot going on just under the surface that doesn't really get touched upon by the characters as they interact with the people of burkittsville and, later, with each other in the woods. i think i'm going to go see it again. woj p.s. thumbs up for "run, lola, run" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 21:51:42 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: boring admin stuff since a lot of fegs have been sending html-formatted and enriched text mail to the list lately, i guess it bears pointing out that non-plain text posts are universally blocked for all lists at smoe.org. while not as bad as sending attached files to the list is a bad thing -- sending an encoded binary file to every subscriber puts an extra load on the server, never mind wrecking havoc on the digest -- html-formatted and enriched text messages usually mean duplicate copies of a message in a single posting and can discombobulate the digest. more over, not everyone has (or chooses to use) a mail program capable of handling the formatting instructions. if you do post such a message, it will end up languishing in my owner-fegmaniax mailbox until i get home from work and get around to reformatting it and reposting it (that's why, for instance, the quail's message about cronenberg, while sent earlier today, didn't get mailed out until a little while ago). the big culprits for this kind of thing are netscape mail, outlook, outlook express, eudora 4.1 and those web-based things like hotmail, yahoomail, etc. some info that might help you out include: * the e-mail formatting faq * precious-things posting info (down at the bottom) * smoe's out-dated guide to anti-social mailers if you're having trouble setting your mailer to only send plaintext (or aren't sure if things are messed up or not), drop me a line and i'll help you out. woj n.p. jewels for sophia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 20:14:56 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: how's alice? - Lynch delia winthorpe wrote: > > doea anybody know of the new david lynch film since we are on the > topic? > > this is what i heard just this weekend... > > it's rated g and it's a true story about a guy who drives across the > county on a tractor. called "driven to it" - or that's what the imdb > calls it, but no other info. and he's currently filming another tv > show called "mulholland drive." The new movie is "The Straight Story". More info at: http://www.mikedunn.com/lynch/sstory/ The finished 2-hr. pilot for "Mulholland Drive" has been axed at ABC post-Columbine. A distraught, disgruntled Lynch is interviewed about it in the latest issue of MOVIELINE magazine. /hal, the drooling fanboy weenie posting about one of my sacred cows ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 20:30:41 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: whee! > > fegz, Should be 'fgz'. > > is there any pleasure in life quite like watching eb rip someone a new > asshole? i > chortle in my joy. I'm amused by Eb's groupies, myself. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 02:45:14 GMT From: edoxtato@intentia.com Subject: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a PC thug I'm sorry I said anything about Mr. Ebert and his Pulitzer and so forth. I'm gonna respond and then I'm gonna shaddup. Miles, I never ever said that thinking was a bad thing. I never ever said that criticism was a bad thing. What I said was (in my own thumb-fingered fashion) too much emphasis is placed on it. It's only natural for people to discuss thoughts, ideas, expressions, etc. James Burke said when people get two ideas togehter, it's only natural to get a third idea. I'm not at all opposed to this. I don't think I'm anti-intellectual, Miles. In fact, it sorta fucks me off you'd think so. You're reading a little too much in, without asking too much about, I fear. What's been my gripe is that a good many folk simply substitute critic's opinions for their own thoughts. In fact, the opinions are solid enough that they don't bother to check out the film or play or whatever. It's also my gripe that there are critics who are simply so far up their own arseholes that it's impossible to make sense of the review (like the Chicago Reader's own Johnathan Rosenbaum). Living in Chicago, I've read Roger Ebert's stuff. Susan's right inasmuch as he's a good writer. I mistakenly took the idea that he was awarded a Pulitzer for his opinions. I stand corrected. He was awarded a Pulitzer for the expression of his opinions. However, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of other people who don't specifically know how the Pulitzer is awarded would say that he got a Pulitzer for writing good reviews. And the part that leaves me agog is he got a PULITZER FOR WRITING MOVIE REVIEWS. Not for a great story, not for a unearthing a tremendous scandal in local, county, state, or national government, not for fighting human rights violations or making Mark Gloster a household cleaning product, or investingating illegal tox-c waste dumping, or anything else I'd deem newsworthy, but for FOR WRITING MOVIE REVIEWS. Yeah, OK, they're well written but he's essentially been given a fat check and a nice bomp on his resume for HELPING TO PROMOTE A FILM. I know, I know, I know. Why didn't I say so in the first place? My own fault, and I apologise for that. I promise now to never post to the list before 3PM CST. I'm just too cranky otherwise. OK, on another topic, why do we need to see all the home movie/video footage of the day trader in Atlanta who killed his family? Look after yerselves... - -Doc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:59:48 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: sheesh. (was Re: whee!) On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, hal brandt wrote: > > is there any pleasure in life quite like watching eb rip someone a new > > asshole? i > > chortle in my joy. > > I'm amused by Eb's groupies, myself. oh, i forgot, the great tag in the sky was closed, wasn't it? which means everything i say needs to be taken at face value. oops. - - "seventeen!" cried the humbug, always first with the wrong answer. - - oh no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net dmw@mwmw.com - - get yr pathos:www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:06:27 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: EWS, Whack-An-Eb(tm) game for fun and profit >>-Markg >>(Who...takes some joy in maintaining his opinion that South Park is the >>most enjoyable movie he's seen this year.) >You know, I find this comment very telling. I think this sort of attitude >explains a lot of the South Park film's critical acclaim. Critics love a >chance to "let their hair down," and embrace a Silly Film. Look at the >raves for There's Something About Mary last year (which I actually thought >was very good myself, and miles better than the SP film). I think South >Park has reaped the benefits of this psychological loophole, as well. It's >*comforting* for someone who's normally forced to prove how highbrow and >esoteric he is, to turn around and defy everyone by saying "Heh >heh...here's my guilty pleasure." Which is not to say that Mark spends most >of his time trying to prove he's esoteric and highbrow, but you see my >general point. Re: Markg: oh, but I am highbrow. I've only got one, but it's up there over my eyes and nose and stuff. I thought the Mummy was a better flick, but South Park made me laugh _a lot_. Something About Mary was good the first two times I saw it in a theatre, but really most of the laughs had been squeezed out of it for me by the time I saw it at home with my sweety. I imagine I'll see South Park a couple more times and like it better the second time I see it. I'd say Mystery Men, Blair Witch, and PeeWee all have a shot at knocking off SP for me. Based on real human guinea pigs, critic-generated input, and oh-wow-that's-the-highlights!-trailers, I don't think I'll see Inspector Gag-it or Wild Wild West, to which I had previously been forwardly looking. - -=-=-=- rant 2213 (again): Here's something that continues to escape me. Eb doesn't like a lot of things. He even has a low opinion of some of my musical deities. He writes with THE chosen one's perspective. But after all this time it is hard for me to believe that people can get really upset when he craps on a piece of work they like. There shouldn't be any surprises and he's just a guy. It might actually fuck me up pretty bad if he ever started gooing up about a Robyn tune the way he did about Jr. Wainwright Some of my favorite on-list people are considerably taste-challenged in some areas (from the golden eyes of sharkboy), but that doesn't ruin my discourse with them. Eddie Fuckin' Tews is probably listening to Journey (Mymymymymymyyyyoooo oooo ohohohhhh) play their collaborative works with Shaun Cassady and The Friggin' Quail is groovin' in the corner of the Libyrinth to the Ian Anderson tribute to Starland Vocal Band and Air Supply right now. Mark Floogin' Sharkboy has the rare boxed set of Toto and the Banana Splits (BananaTo Splitos) supergroup CDs. I mean Sharkboy _likes_ Toto and thinks Elvis Presley is a dead, fat, tone deaf, wanker (albeit one with that certain something.) Face it, Eb is probably just a little too kooky over Claudine Longet- think about that when any of us say with the voice of complete authority that your gods are clods. What I'm saying is that maybe we shouldn't get too worked up about other people's tastes- 'cause probably nobody has it right except the reader of this post, and I'm practically illiterate, so it's not me. Happies, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 20:31:04 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #285 >> By the way, are we all in agreement that this is the most nerdy, anal >> retentive thing we've ever discussed on this list? > >Well, no, I would have said that the great "How do you file your albums?" >thread, which reappears periodically, had the edge. I disagree. Granted, the filing of one's albums could be considered nerdy and anal retentive in and of itself but I think discussing the merits of the various forms of filing is actually sort of interesting and possibly somewhat useful to some. But discussing which albums "count"? Why, even if we did manage to come to an agreement as to which ones do and which ones don't we'd still need to convince the rest of the country before it became law. Of course arguing over which argument is the most nerdy, anal retentive argument we've ever had probably tops even those two. But we're heading for Monty Python territory here... - -rUss np: Dylan/1966 live bootleg, RH/JfS, Byrds/Greatest Hits, Dylan/Blood On The Tracks, XTC/Apple Venus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:38:24 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: whee! dmw wrote: > joel, i was mebbe too flip: cronenberg does some neat stuff visually -- i > really did like _naked lunch_ quite a bit, and have a soft spot (urk) for > _videodrome_ -- but i don't think he's big on thematic complexity. > virtually everything of his that i've seen has a strong anti-technology > component, and virtually everything has some pretty uncomfortable things > going on with flesh. i think his talent is centered more around the > metaphors he comes up with for these things than around what they actually > *mean.* -- he tends to put things on the surface: the symbols tend > to be obvious, and i've never gotten the sense that their meanings are > especially layered. I get the feeling everyone has gotten the idea that I'm some huge Cronenberg fan. I'm not even close. I don't really remember defending him either. IMHO, Naked Lunch was about as unwatchable as the book is unreadable. And Crash...well it was a somewhat decent movie but I had already read the book and I just didn't think the film did the novel justice. Even with all that NC-17 sex and nudity, it was still nowhere near as erotic and sickening as the book. This past weekend, I saw Videodrome (only the 3rd Cronenberg film I've seen), and I liked it quite a bit and was interested in hearing people's ideas about it. So, that's how this whole thing got started. - --Joel, who does have respect for some critics but thinks many of them are just assholes like me pretending to be an authority on something they know nothing about, as opposed to myself, who claims no such authority. I know what I like, but I can't always say why, and I apparently can't always make my pronouns agree either... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 20:44:59 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Unsolved Mystery So, in light of the Staynor confession the FBI is looking unto other unsolved killings involving the decapitation of women. If I were O.J. and I was pretty sure I didn't do it I'd sure be all over this. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:46:06 -0700 (PDT) From: delia winthorpe Subject: Re: Critics Revisionism ugh-re criticism - so says isn't this just the whole point to college (besides the vacationing part) - to learn these "critical thinking" skills so we can be critics. it's a means for differentiating ourselves from the "not-me's." with a college degree one is given full license to poo-poo anything. i remember reading an essay by ---- jon donne?! ---- about how to become a good critic. and basically it boiled down to doing tons of research, learning and mastering the pertinet forms of criticism, hanging around with all the best intellectuals at their dinner parties and finding all the best things to critic upon. something like that. i would love to hear somebody explain in as much detail as possible why their criticism is best. it's like making your own t-shirts. then you've got your own click and nobody can touch you. just like celine dion, sting AND james taylor. i have no idea what i'm talking about, but i know i'm 100% fucking right. smiles o---> d ps: i officially will shut up now np: os mutantes pps: personally, i think the best critics hate EVERYTHING with a passion. i was never able to ingest people like siskel and ebert because they were just so friendly. _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:41:48 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Dis week, I'm anni innelectual, next week, I'm a PC thug edoxtato@intentia.com wrote: > OK, on another topic, why do we need to see all the home movie/video > footage of the day trader in Atlanta who killed his family? $$$$$$$$$$$$ Violence, as well as sex, sells! It's that simple. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:04:31 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: ADMIN: smoe.org move this weekend (8/7-8/8) fgz, this coming weekend, smoe will be down for the count as it is moved from boston to the washington, dc area. mail will get queued upstream and will be delivered as soon as the system gets back up and running. all websites, including fegmania.org, will likely be off-line during this period. i'll send out another notice on friday, but be warned... woj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:50:27 -0400 From: michelle wiener Subject: Re: Critics Revisionism delia winthorpe wrote: > isn't this just the whole point to college (besides the vacationing > part) - to learn these "critical thinking" skills so we can be critics. > unless yer attending a pseudo-liberalarts school like MU, which pays lip service to critical thinking while continuing to funnel graduates to P&G, clearly a no thinking-required institution.* > i remember reading an essay by ---- jon donne?! ---- about how to > become a good critic. and basically it boiled down to doing tons of > research, learning and mastering the pertinet forms of criticism, > hanging around with all the best intellectuals at their dinner parties > and finding all the best things to critic upon. something like that. > that and developing your own academese so that only a select few (or better yet, no one) will understand what you're trying to say...which, with very few exceptions, is usually nothing original. this is one of my peeves about graduate school. if i want a job, i need to talk the talk. but why the fuck do we need words like "posit" and "reify?"** > i would love to hear somebody explain in as much detail as possible why > their criticism is best. > i believe it was barthes who said, "cuz i said so."*** > i have no idea what i'm talking about, but i know i'm 100% fucking > right. and there you have it. all you really need is conviction and you can argue anything. cheers, pseudo-academic (longhand for PhD) michelle * i mean, really. any company that puts a "we're friendly to animals" picture of a dog on bottles of Febreze, which has been known to make birds and dogs sick, which makes absolutely no sense because they so blatantly test products on animals...puh-leeze. ** and yes, both of these words, along with many other fucking ridiculous terrorizing "academic" words, appear in numerous papers that i've written. like i said, you gotta talk the talk. no one's said anything to me yet about walking the walk, though, so as long as i'm never asked what the fuck i just said, i think i'll be ok. i tend to swear a lot more when i complain about work. that and i just saw south park again. i could footnote this footnote about *that*, but instead i'll just say that rather than being a highbrow that delights in viewing a hearty romp through depravity (not that there's anything wrong with that), i find south park staggeringly and refreshingly smart. most of the time. granted, the series has suffered since it started. have i mentioned yet that i've had alcohol tonight? *** only in french. and academese or no academese, i fucking love footnotes. now *there* is a underappreciated art form. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #287 *******************************