Echoes in a Hollow Space

Random quote of the day:

“ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.”

—Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary



Disclaimer: The views expressed in this random quote of the day do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, her immediate family, Bert and Ernie, Celine Dion, or the Band of the Coldstream Guards. They do, however, sometimes reflect the views of the Cottingley Fairies.

Random quote of the day:

“At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look; at forty-five they are caves in which we hide.”

—F. Scott Fitzgerald, “Bernice Bobs Her Hair”



Disclaimer: The views expressed in this random quote of the day do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, her immediate family, Lucy and Ethel, Justin Bieber, or the Kardashian Klan. They do, however, sometimes reflect the views of the Cottingley Fairies.

Random quote of the day:

“Even if because of your book people do get ready to reconsider something, they don’t know it. And if they do know it, they don’t admit it. And if they write me a letter saying, ‘Your novel has changed my life,’ I don’t believe them.”

—Amos Oz, interview, New York Times, December 13, 2003

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this random quote of the day do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, her immediate family, Siegfried and Roy, Leonard Maltin, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. They do, however, sometimes reflect the views of the Cottingley Fairies.

Mirrored from Better Than Dead.

Random quote of the day:

 

“Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.

—Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, Aphorisms

 

Disclaimer:  The views expressed in this random quote of the day do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, her immediate family, Siegfried and Roy, Leonard Maltin, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. They do, however, sometimes reflect the views of the Cottingley Fairies.

Mirrored from Better Than Dead.

Random quote of the day:

“In America we can say what we think, and even if we can’t think, we can say it anyhow.”

—attributed to Charles F. Kettering

Disclaimer:  The views expressed in this random quote of the day do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, her immediate family, Siegfried and Roy, Leonard Maltin, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. They do, however, sometimes reflect the views of the Cottingley Fairies.

Mirrored from Better Than Dead.

I hate mannered prose. Every time I read some oh-so-overly-tinkered-and-twisty piece of writing I think, "You better show me some Fine to make me wend my way through all this clap-trappity stuff." Often this kind of prose is labeled "poetic," which it most certainly is not. Often, it's pretentious. Sometimes I find myself reading one of these mannered stories or books and they actually do show enough Fine that I finish it. I might even enjoy it in the end. Most times, if I don't see sufficient evidence of Fine soon enough, it gets added to the recycling pile.

Yet I try to always remind myself that one person's pretentious clap-trappity stuff is another person's "poetic," and another person's "poetic" is yet another person's "pedestrian," and so on and so forth, and I think, "It's all good." Because it is all good, even when it ain't, only some people always have to be thinking their way is the only way, their taste the only Important Taste.

The one thing I've noticed about taste in literary manners is that it often has some of the same characteristics as religious mania: "Our way of worship is infinitely superior to all others and anyone who appreciates what we consider low brow are knuckle-draggers. When the Literary Armageddon comes"—(the passage of time and the sorting out of reputations after everyone here and now are dead)—"we will be proved Right and Virtuous, and all those other sinners will be laughed at and shunted to the Lower Realms of Literary Hell."

Even when people nod and say, "Sure, it's all good, and no one taste is superior to another," what they're often thinking is: But in my case, it really is superior. I am not immune from this effect. I just try to remind myself on a regular basis that nothing I think is the Ultimate Last Word Indisputable Fact on anything. I remind myself how often works considered low brow and pandering to the masses in ages past are now regarded as masterworks, while those thought the pinnacle of literary achievement in their times have fallen into utter obscurity.

Reputation is a funny thing. It changes over time like a living organism, it falls into the pit of doom only to find redemption and a second chance, sometimes falls between the cracks and deserves to, other times falls when it should have risen...But there's that word "should" again. Opinion. Which is as slippery and ever-changing as Reputation, it's sometimes bastard child.

(From my journals, September 1997.)

(This was written just after Princess Diana was killed, when everyone was saying how the paparazzi hounded her to death, and it was part of an ongoing online discussion. The only thing I'd change about it would be to add certain blogs and websites to the list of sleazy things to be avoided.)



I'm a news junkie, I admit it. But that doesn't mean I don't bring a healthy dose of cynicism to everything I see, hear, and read. The media is limited by its prejudices and worldview, just like all of us. At bedrock, we are the media, for good or ill, because the media are only as good as the society in which they exist.

Anyone in this society who doesn't understand that the news is manipulated and slanted—even with the best intentions—is naive or fooling themselves. But we're not as dumb as we look. We do "get it," most of the time. That doesn't mean we don't occasionally get caught up in events, go along for the ride for awhile, lie back and think of England—or whatever. Sometimes it's nice to be seduced. The morning after, we wake up and realize that as fun as the fantasy was, there's an underlying reality that's not quite as attractive as the night before.

Not all journalists participate in the sleaze. But I'm afraid a substantial number of "legitimate" news providers, including the vaunted New York Times, jump on the bandwagon at one time or another, if only to print the same sleazy Di&Dodi-like pictures to say how "awful" they are. It's a broad brush saying all journalists are bad, and I wouldn't support that statement, but you can't lie down with pigs and not get dirty. There's plenty of culpability to go around. Even right here in our own hearts.

We, the people, need a free, vigorous, and adversarial press to keep The Powers That Be in line. Too often these days, this vigor and zeal are turned on people who haven't got a goddamned thing to do with keeping government, et al., honest. These "innocent" people are persecuted as much or more than if they were stealing money from the till, dumping toxic waste in suburban neighborhoods, or waging illegal, undeclared war in "obscure" (from a Western-centric p.o.v.) parts of the world. No one is completely innocent, but I really don't see that sexual pecadillos, or just trying to live one's life, ranks up there with these crimes.

I am the staunchest of First Amendment supporters and would resist any effort to modify that Amendment—or any of the Bill of Rights, frankly. But I do believe people have a right to privacy. It's not just Diana and Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's us. We can have that media frenzy turned on us at any moment, quite unexpectedly. And I won't even get into government snooping for fear of sounding like Mulder and the Lone Gunmen.

I don't really know how to reconcile a free and vigorous press with the right to privacy. The two are in basic and essential conflict. It's one of those damned imponderables without a clear, easy answer. Or rather, any "easy" answer to this question will probably negatively impact other, essential rights and privileges of living in a free and open republic.

The media is the media is the media . . . and so predictable and so necessary and the product of the society in which it lives. Everyone needs to think about that one real hard. As long as we keep buying the sleaze, they will provide it for us. So if the media offends thee, stop watching those offensive shows, or reading those offensive tabloids, or listening to those radio programs. You can't pick and choose in this. As long as one sleaze merchant makes money, it leads to more breeding of the sleaze.

We are the media. We should demand better of ourselves.