It ain't no fun, if Imus can't have none.
The point is that Imus is not a rapper, and by borrowing that particular patois to seem more relevant it has bit him in the ass. The guy should be tag teaming with Larry King, not trying to be Howard Stern.
Okay, let's give Snoop a political radio talk show.
"Imus in the Hood" would make a great reality show. Just drop him off in Compton and have him wander around trying out the terms "jigaboo," "nappy-headed ho," "dogg" and "my nigga" on the people he meets.
The basic distinction is that Imus was calling specific people a specific insulting thing. Rappers' vileness is generally more free-floating, so we don't take offense on behalf of particular individuals.
That said, one of the reasons I've never been able to get into hip-hop (aside from the fact that I can't tell what they're saying most of the time) is that hearing "bitches" "hos" and the like makes me squirm. So I think Atrios has it right in his latest post: sure, let's talk about rap, but that doesn't let Imus off the hook.
3: Oh, hell yeah.
God, that would be so awesome.
I'm going to be daydreaming about that all day.
Borrowing what patois, though? His comment didn't resemble a lyric or a turn of phrase, it wasn't a citation, it wasn't funny (so we know it wasn't a joke) and it didn't apparently do any other work, either, except as a slur. I don't think Imus borrowed "nappy-headed hos" from anyone (well, except racists or white supremacists or whomever).
I can't tell what they're saying most of the time
Wait, dude, are you white?
The first paragraph of 5 is not a satisfying explanation, I think-- though I left this out of the post for the sake of brevity-- because Imus ranting about nhh's would prompt a reaction from SDD's content-identical rant.
6: Somehow I think the idea sounds a lot better than the reality would be. But then, I've been really disappointed by the Rollins show so far.
Also, women's college basketball teams are composed of people that society generically assumes to have overcome great obstacles to get where they are now.
The generic woman referenced in rap songs is usually despised by society.
It's not a complete explanation, no, because it's true that whitey can't say the same things, but I think it explains why what Imus said is so upsetting, rather than just stupid.
Wait, dude, are you white?
No.
Oddly, I have little trouble with old-timey blues and modern black speech, but hip-hop: no clue.
The generic woman referenced in rap songs is usually despised by society.
A lot of hip-hop is pretty over-the-top about women, but I don't know that a) it's referencing a "generic woman" or that b) "society" really cares all that much what it's referencing.
FL brings up Walton's analysis of silly questions. Some modes of expression are just built into their genre. It would be a silly question to ask how Mercutio manages such a great speech while dying of a stab wound. Ophelia reacts to Hamlet's madness, not the fact that he's speaking iambic pentameter.
I'm not sure this works here. The sorts of examples Walton has in mind tend to be matters of style, not content, and while obviously hip-hop has a style, I'm not so sure the rough language used is wholly divorced from content in the way, say, iambic pentameter is from Hamlet's soliloquies. It's not just style to call someone a ho.
All this is to say that if Imus' defense is "but I was just borrowing from hip-hop" he's not in the clear both because he's not working in that genre and because the genre itself isn't just a neutral framework.
I think Labs is right here about the rhetorical situations of rap. Beyond the "history of rap culture" and beyond the "race of the speaker" issues here, there's the important fact that there's a difference between the rhetorical position of a rap song (a competition of self-aggrandizement and insult that is understood already to be unrealistic and insincere in its claims) and the rhetorical position of a talk radio host discussing his own personal opinions about basketball. One could argue that Imus often employs what might be seen as a rap-like rhetoric, in that he is self-aggrandizing and deeply insulting, but that would be like confusing any old madman for an artist.
The basic distinction is that Imus was calling specific people a specific insulting thing. Rappers' vileness is generally more free-floating
This is what distinguishes Eminem. And his songs bother me a little for it—it's hard to maintain a polite fiction that he's merely obedient to the form and the oneupsmanship tradition when he's blasting a woman by name.
14 - I'm just saying that most of America others the woman-object in rap songs, and assumes on some level she's asking for it.
I've been trying to find a decent online track of Sarah Jones's "Your Revolution" (Ninja), which is an excellent response to a lot of these concerns. This requires Real player, which I don't have, so I can't tell if it's a good sample.
Even before this episode, my reaction to Imus was always bleah. He's old and boring and his "shocking" stuff is predictable and lame. It's like somebody gave Ralph from the Citgo station a radio show. On the other hand, I suspect that Howard Stern could get away with a comment like that more easily, because his guests are porn stars and freaks while Imus has senators and A-list journalists. That's also why the "but rappers do it too" argument falls flat. Tim Russert and John McCain aren't angling to do guest appearances on Raekwon albums.
Tim Russert and John McCain aren't angling to do guest appearances on Raekwon albums.
Though they should.
4 gets it right. We also should consider the importance of things like "context" and "implied audience" and "narrative point of view" and "medium." A song--i.e., a form of creative art--is not the same as a talk radio show, which is primarily exposition.
Plus white people defending nonsense by saying "well, but they get to say that word!" is just tired.
21: As much as I hate Howard Stern, I do agree he's fundamentally different from Imus, in part because the "shocking" things he says are obviously an act, meant to provoke rather than express. There is an archness to his delivery that lets you know he is performing the role of someone being as foul and offensive as possible, not merely spewing his own personal bile. I still hate him, but Imus is the real pig.
21: Yes, Stern could get away with it partly because his performance is more ambiguous: it's not just who he has on, but the way that he also (successfully, I think, though I hate him) can slip in and out of different discourse communities while both he and his audience know what he's doing. If he were to say "nappy headed hos" he'd do it in such a way that you'd hear the scare quotes.
19: most of America others the woman-object in rap songs
Depends on the woman-object. Of course it's pretty obvious that most people don't see themselves in the various "bitch" and "ho" references, though whether that's othering the object or just not taking the speaker seriously is hard to tell.
17 is right about the specific venom of Eminem, which is different from and crueler than the norm.
It's like when that idiot teacher tried to justify calling a kid "nig-AAAAH" because he hears the kids use it all the time. Granted, but you're not a high school student, you're a high school teacher. The two positions come with very different expectations and standards.
15: Cala, you have failed to convince me. I think content can be a part of the standard-property repertoire: consider "how interesting-- this blues singer repeats lines throughout, and seems unusually keen on relating what happened after he woke up this morning."
because it's true that whitey can't say the same things
Jeebus. How hard was that? The "ho" issue is different. But I think it's all clearly based around guestimations of relative power in society of the person speaking and the group being spoken about.
Eminem gets a pass because he manages to turn his personal animus into art. Like a great portrait, his attacks on his ex reveal as much (arguably more) about the artist as they do about the subject.
29: I think Cala's right. In the Waltonian picture of the content of representational art, when something becomes part of the "frame" (I forget what term Walton used), such as speaking in iambic pentameter, it's no longer part of the content.
Labs, how does establishing that "hos" is a standard part of rap help Imus at all?
C'mon, Sifu, I'm not talking about live performances. I think a good producer could manage to take a few soundbites and turn them into something interesting, just as Serge Gainsberg managed to produce compelling noises out of starlets.
I'm not selling this idea very well, am I.
Plenty of African Americans dislike the language of hiphop and find it demeaning. But since that language is identified with a worldview that basically = "fuck alla you motherfuckers", criticism isn't going to make a big impression on the performers--it's not really a gangster thing to be responsive to criticism.
It's far more annoying from Imus because he doesn't have outsider standing--he's positioned, in fact, as a friend of the powerful (so I gather; I've always hated the sound of his voice), so that kind of comment coming from him has all the weight of the white establishment behind it. I suppose that like so many aging boomer men, he still imagines he's some kind of wild outlaw, and that if he met Snoop, they would totally be best friends.
A lot of the rap that gets radio play has swapped out "bitches and hoes" for "shorties". Fair amount of misogyny in the narrative, still, but less abusive language.
Slate has a list up of some of the nastier things Imus has said on the air (maybe someone has already linked), especially about black people. It's pretty clear that, whatever else he is, dude is also a racist. Most of his slurs are not "rap" slang, but just old-fashioned racist shit.
pwned by B in 31. But let me redundantize obscurely! Eminem's self-loathing makes it hard to see his misogyny as aspirational.
Is too hard to say that "ho" in hip-hop gets 1 point taken away for misogyny, and "ho" per Imus gets 1 point taken away for misogyny and 1 point taken away for racism? Start your discussion there. I don't think it's controversial to say that hip-hop cocksmanship is pretty anti-feminist, and the exceptions are interesting but don't excuse the very broad, sucky aspect. But Imus is still down one more point.
(Hey, did you see how I snuck in an apologia for the white rapper? Pretty sneaky, sis! God I'm an ass.)
Labs, how does establishing that "hos" is a standard part of rap help Imus at all?
Ogged, you're assuming, oddly, that I'm out to defend Imus. Not all white people stick together, you tribalist. I'm not out to defend Imus at all. My curiosity is about the different reactions I-- and a lot of others, I expect-- have to different instances of bad language.
like so many aging boomer men
And we will eat them, one by one.
What I don't get is why *this* comment got Imus in trouble, when his whole career seems to be about saying stupid racist things on the air, and he belongs to a whole genre of people who say stupid racist things on the air.
I'm not saying its ok for them to say these things on the air, I'm just wondering what made this remark give the MSM the reaction that people like me have been having to this dreck all along.
Also, can we take down Michael Savage next?
Yeah, I wish I remembered where I read the piece about how the issue with Imus is more misogyny than racism, even. I think that's correct.
"Also, can we take down Michael Savage next?"
Absolutely. How on earth is he still on the air>?!?!?!
Maybe we're just entering a time when hate-mongers speech to their own audiences is no longer being treated as a private communication. Why did the MSM suddenly feel empowered to blast Coulter? It might have something to do with George Allen and macaca. The MSM was totally pwned by the outrage of Youtube watchers and now they want to get in on the ground floor of righteous indignation.
29: There's too much hip-hop—and not just sappy stuff by Common, either—that doesn't involve misogyny whatsoever for hos to count as part of the structure. Self-aggrandizement, certainly, but not strictly hos. Consider Del tha Funky Homosapien:
Upgrade your grey matter, cause one day it may matter
Hey, I reduce the game
When I boost my brain
What you used to sayin
I loosen the frame
With shock announcements
T-Minus and countin'
Effects control and bouncin'
Star studded and flooded like fountains
A new machine
Real artists are few between
What I don't get is why *this* comment got Imus in trouble
I'm sorry to have to say that I think the answer is the flip side of his misogyny: his comments were directed against young *women*. That seems, to most of us (me included) extra mean. The fact that it seems so is, of course, sexist, but there you go.
40: The Rutgers women's basketball team? He should have just choked a puppy to death on tv.
29: Think of it like this. You're giving an exam on Hamlet, and you ask your students to argue whether Hamlet is really mad, or whether he's faking it. One of your students writes "Hamlet must be really insane, because everytime he leaves a room, he rhymes his last two lines. I conclude he has OCD."
The distinction is between what's true in the fiction (that Hamlet is a melancholy prince) and what's true of the fiction (that it's written in iambic pentameter, that it was written by Shakespeare, etc.) I think "ho" is closer to being in the world of the fiction, rather than a part of its structure, like the rhyme and the rhythm. It still has content, unlike the fact that Hamlet rhymes at the end of acts.
40. Blogosphere, baby. Hiscomment was about to disappear down the memory hole, but some blogger (Media Matters?) blew the whistle. It was still ignored by the powers that be, then Sharpton took it up. Now it's important, and so MSNBC caves.
blogs and youtube. The ability to send the offensive comment to all of your friends so that they can express their outrage.
like so many aging boomer men
And we will eat them, one by one
Starting with the worst or the most accessible?
50: I don't think that distinction really holds. Jay-Z, Budweiser Select–endorsed media mogul: gangsta rapper?
46, 47: Also, low-profile athletes. In the context of pure coverage of their athleticism, rather than off-the-court misconduct, it's hard to come up with a "they were asking for it" justification. It can't be based on a reaction to their public personae, because they haven't really got individual public personae.
(I would guess that he wouldn't get in the same amount of trouble for saying exactly the same thing about the Williams sisters, because they're public enough figures that lots of people would come up with some rationale that their public presentation justified it.)
53: Well, admittedly I really don't listen to high profile rap much. But surely the whole "endorsed media mogul" thing is partly about a flashy performance of the "gangsta" role. At least, that's my sense of what a lot of popular crappy rap is like.
54: Look at those short skirts they wear while playing tennis.
Oooh, here's a real winner from Imus: "Boner-nosed ... beanie-wearing Jewboy."
Serious question, because I'm way lazy: in what context *did* Imus say that? My initial thought was that he had to be saying that they were overrated as players, or that they'd really muffed a game or something, but apparently that's not it (I know, I feel bad that I don't follow women's basketball). What was the (ostensible) reason for the remark?
his comments were directed against young *women*
Not just young women; young black women enrolled at a university that is highly regarded for its academics, and who were pulling off a great underdog athletic story. He managed to insult a group that almost couldn't be more sympathetic.
Yeah, misogyny is definitely common to popular crappy rap.
58: He was saying that the Tennessee team was physically attractive and the Rutgers team was not.
59: Yeah.
57: I didn't even get that one. Boner-nosed? Huh?
you tribalist
This is going to be a lot less funny after I mail you the severed tongues of three generations of Labs cousins.
61: Ah. Well then, yes. Let's focus on the misogyny.
Also, I am SO going to point to Imus the next time we have a "hot women athletes" thread, as evidence for why that kind of thing is obnoxious.
58: I know that he was talking about them in contradistinction to the articulate & clean Lady Vols.
48: Cala, we're talking past one another, because my sentences have as their referent the True, while yours are tied to the False. I think the question comes to whether "ho" is just a conventional ornament in certain subgenres of hip hop, or whether it's meaningful in some aesthetic sense. (The original question is whether this might explain the difference in my reactions-- it might even if I've misunderstood the cognitive value of "ho" in the Dogg oeuvre.) I think, still, that "ho" functions sort of like stock characters in other genres, that is, as just something that's there in virtue of the work being of type x, rather than something that's important in making sense of that particular piece. Example: it would be an error for a scholar to think that the key to understanding SD Dogg lies in noting that that he uses the word "ho."
Do you know what's even more offensive than Imus? Having to plan an office baby shower.
it would be an error for a scholar to think that the key to understanding SD Dogg lies in noting that that he uses the word "ho."
"The" key? Maybe. But it would be as big an error to look past it entirely.
"Having to plan an office baby shower."
On behalf of all men, be as sexist as possible and do not invite the men.
67: Email list in order to send out an announcement/invitation, order some cake. Bring punch. Voila.
Order cake, do no other planning, invite the men out of spite.
"Bring punch."
Insert large volumes of alcohol into said punch.
Sometime back, Ogged asked for people to recommend really good books in their respective academic fields.
I don't think it was mentioned in the thread, but Kendall Walton's Mimesis as Make-Believe is an excellent philosophy book.
Insert large volumes of alcohol into said punch.
will: Objectively pro-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
66: We're not talking past each other. We're disagreeing.
Poor Becks. That sucks. You should invite the male co-workers and make them play annoying shower games, and when they complain, explain that it's their own fault for sticking you with it.
"You should invite the male co-workers and make them play annoying shower games, and when they complain, explain that it's their own fault for sticking you with it."
That isnt even funny.
Only thing worse that co-ed baby showers and co-ed wedding or engagement showers.
"oooh that ladle is so nice! Thank you SO Much!"
Suppose we grant that "ho" is just part of the gangster rap landscape; choosing to be a gangster rapper is then a choice to express oneself in that style. So even granting the first point doesn't get you to the kind of neutrality that you get with armless busts or iambic pentameter.
78. Making men attend baby and/ or wedding showers causes sexism. There be dragons.
Worse, it's a combined shower for 2 weddings and 1 baby. And I have to keep it a secret from all parties. So, the two wedding people think it's a baby shower and the baby person thinks it's a wedding shower. It's like one of those plays that involves someone (me) running between rooms switching jackets.
Making me attend baby and/or wedding showers causes misanthropy.
How on earth did this get to be your problem? I think your best percentage play is to screw up the secret-keeping in a big way, 'accidentally' spill the beans, and order a cake for everyone to share with no surprises. Bonus points for ordering a nasty cake (pineapple has a lot of potential here) so no one asks you to ever do this again.
Wow, that totally sucks, Becks. Maybe at the next NY meetup, you can all enact some baby-killing ritual.
a combined shower for 2 weddings and 1 baby
Actually, that makes it easier. You just throw a party, with cake and Sprite and bottles of water to augment to beer. Then, I dunno, break out the Twister set.
I'm wondering when is the appropriate age to just say, "Hey, family and friends, I'm not getting married or having a damn baby, so I'm just going to go ahead and register for some things at Crate and Barrel."
How on earth did this get to be your problem?
One of the guys who works for me offered to plan it and then he realized whoops! I'm on vacation for the next 2 weeks. As his team lead, it got put in my lap.
(And, unfortunately, we can't wait until he comes back because the mama's gonna pop before then.)
From your and my background, AWB, I'd say about 30.
Bonus points for ordering a nasty cake
You can even stick with the theme: placenta cake. As a bonus, you will never again be asked to plan one of these.
77: We're not talking past each other. We're disagreeing.
I'm in tears that you didn't like my Frege joke. Ho.
Remind me to tell you about my APA session, btw.
At my cousin's shower, I wasn't sure which mortified me more: that there was a 'game' based on naming name-brand household cleaning products that the bride should know, or that I, um, yeah, knewalltheanswers.
How are wedding showers and baby showers ever a surprise? Aren't you supposed to buy them things they want and need?
Completely OT, but NC's Attorney General just dropped all charges against the Duke lacrosse players. I feel guilty for my first thought being (neutrally) that Nifong's career is just so completely over.
Also, Becks, that totally sucks. Screw the Sprite and cake. Just carry in a couple of cases of PBR and start throwing cans at people.
I did like the Frege joke. But I am humorless today. So, tell me about your APA session (for some value of 'your', I suppose.)
How are wedding showers and baby showers ever a surprise?
When I say that the baby could be mine and demand a blood test be performed once it's born, you should see the surprised looks.
How are wedding showers and baby showers ever a surprise?
I believe the standard colloquialism for this sort of occasion is "shotgun wedding."
It's not a surprise that one's likely to sneak up on you, but it's supposed to be a surprise when it actually happens. (Or at least orchestrated by someone other than the bride/mother.)
For a combined wedding shower/baby shower, bring lots of contraceptives and your local child support guidelines.
Make many jokes about contraceptives preventing pregnancy. Use terms like "Preggers" or "getting knocked up."
Make many jokes about child support guidelines preventing divorce.
These simple steps will result in your removal from any future invite lists.
"But NC's Attorney General just dropped all charges against the Duke lacrosse players."
And said that he thinks they are actually innocent.
Hand out napkins that look like pre-nup worksheets!
80, 83: Nonsense. Have a coed babyshower, buy some cheap cotton onesies, fabric paint, and brushes, and have an "inappropriate onesie" contest. Most offensively decorated baby shirt wins a pack of condoms and sample sizes of lube. Shower favors are a mockup fake cover, featuring the pregnant mama in various poses with plastic guns, of a fetish mag called "KUNT: Knocked Up N Totin'."
Of course, you can't do that at work, so I repeat: cake and punch. The gifts people bring are what makes it a "shower." Everyone can buy baby clothes, but the true winner will give nursing pads and a tube of Lansinoh.
AWB:
That is fabulous. Include divorce lawyers cards.
There were some cute onesies at one of the geek t-shirt sites that said 'n00b' on them.
Does anyone have a link to the clip? I'd really like to know if Imus was saying this just to be funny (for some adolescent value of funny in which being deliberately offensive is in and of itself funny). I mean, I don't like the guy, but I have to think that's the case. And if so, in this context it doesn't bother me. Comedy is often offensive to someone. But I haven't heard the clip so I could be way off base.
I've seen the text of the clip in context, although not heard it. It's clearly meant to be 'funny' in the sense of being jocularly offensive, but it's not a joke.
my reaction to Imus was always bleah. He's old and boring and his "shocking" stuff is predictable and lame.
Everybody's upset about what Imus about the Rutgers womens basketball team, but did I hear any of you say anything the time he complained for more than twenty minutes straight on the air about the bagel his assistant brought him that morning? No, I did not.
I think 'nappy-headed' was what really made this out of line, rather than 'hos'. It's the same as saying "These women are ugly because they're black" and that's a league beyond any of these other things people have caught Imus saying.
I'm so doing 106 if I ever have a kid. I offered to buy my Ramones-fan friend a "beat on the brat" onesie but he told me his wife would kill him.
111- thanks. Having watched, this was obviously intended humorously, and while offensive, I don't think it's materially more offensive than things he (or Howard Stern, or ...) says almost every day.
114: It was a big hit. Strangely, some of the most hilarious onesies, however, I couldn't bring myself to actually put on PK once he was born.
115: So? Everything Ann Coulter says is "intended humorously." That doesn't make it okay.
Brock, there was a memo out in, what, 1969: 'just joking' is no longer an approved excuse for inappropriate behavior. Did you not get the memo?
But he says inappropriate things every day.
And every day, they're a little bit more inappropriate, until one day, the scale tips...
111: Holy crap, that's worse than what I'd heard. Why do this man and his co-anchor have jobs?
119: Again, so that's all right? It's okay to be a racist fuckwad as long as you're consistent about it?
I don't think that estops people generally from being offended by him. Avid fans of his other offensive statements would look silly jumping on the bandwagon now, but just because he hasn't been hounded from the airwaves yet, and should have been years ago, doesn't mean he's entitled to say anything he likes without anyone taking offense.
offensively decorated baby shirt
Start here, though for my money, you can't top this one.
Who said it was alright to be a racist fuckwad? I just said, more or less, that 40 gets it exactly right.
Why do this man and his co-anchor have jobs?
Big-time advertisers are starting to drop the show now, and that's the only thing that motivates management when all is said and done. I'd say it isn't clear how much longer he'll have a job.
Maybe they just aren't very thorough, but Slate and Media Matters have a couple of roundups of Best Of Imus Shooting His Racist Mouth Off, and honestly, this latest one does seem to go above and beyond.
123: Some of those are great; I kind of like the second one you linked.
The stuff I got was things like a giant, rather terrifying demon face, "condom baby" with little baby-blue squiggly sperm (me), and the winner, which was an enormously huge, quite detailed erect cock seemingly pushing out of the bottom of the onesie and ending up just beneath the baby's chin (Mr. B., who is a little scary sometimes).
Although 24/26 are right, too. And that creates a problem: if he didn't actually mean it to be anything but humor, are we basically saying he's a fuckwad just because he has poor delivery?
No, we're saying that the "it's funny!" argument is an excuse for saying really offensive crap, deliberately.
I expected to feel the way Brock does about the clip, given that I usually am not as outraged at these types of "newsworthy" celebrity offenses as some.
But this one really just felt wrong to me. I think it was that it was such an utterly baseless thing to say. As was said above, it's not the case that these woman have off the court legal troubles, or foul mouths, or in-your-face-tattos, or anything that might provide the seed for some ill considered insult that went a bit too far.
Even Kramer got heckled first.
the "it's funny!" argument
Which might have more weight if anybody except Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk found it funny.
129- I'm assuming both that (1) you meant "isn't" and (2) you don't really believe that. An awful lot of what I bet you find funny, plenty of people would find "really offensive."
132: No, I meant "is." An excuse doesn't mean a justification. It means just that: an excuse.
And sure, a lot of what I find funny *in some contexts* is offensive in others. I sure as shit wouldn't make some of the jokes I make here anywhere but in a place where I was surrounded by people who already knew me and knew that I was making them ironically. I.e., I wouldn't say that shit on a national radio/television show.
132: It works without the 'isn't' where 'excuse' is 'making an excuse', not 'something which validly excuses'.
And this is one of those I-know-it-when-I-see-it issues. Some things are just so funny that you forgive their offensiveness, and you believe that the speaker saw the potential for humor, and wasn't deterred by the possibility of offending people. Other times, you look at what someone said, and it's obvious that they're saying offensive things with the intent of offending (or of seriously expressing the offensive thought) and are using "Just kidding" as a defensive shield to keep from being called on it.
This really looks like the latter, and not the former.
The "I was trying to be funny" defense only works if what you were saying could be considered funny, and even then, there's a limit on what teh funny can pardon. Imus wasn't even funny, just an asshole, so whether this was beyond the pale never comes up.
128: To rephrase 117+129, I think the difference is that some people really are aiming for humor, while others are using "it's humor" as a plausible-deniability mask to say things that they honestly mean, and want their listeners to take at face value, not ironically. You can usually tell the difference -- like with Ann Coulter.
And further, 'but it was really funny' isn't a defense against someone who points out that what you said was evil, it's a plea to be allowed to get away with it. Even if they are 'really' funny, some things are too shitty to say. 'But I meant to be funny' isn't a defense at all.
You are sounding like a feminist, LB.
134/135- but that's really very ssubjective. So, here's a (very close to real life) example: you, a white person, hire an new assistant who is black. After one of his first projects, on which he did a great job, you tell him that his work was "pretty impressive for a negro." Funny? I say yes. But obviously only if you didn't actually mean it sincerely.
I understand I have a fairly dark sense of humor. I laugh out loud watching Happiness.
But I totally and completely agree with 136. It's just not self-evident to me which side of the fence Imus is on here. Maybe if I listened to him more often I'd have a better sense.
140: The funny from that example obviously derives from a shared awareness of the boundary that's being violated -- from the absurdity that someone might think that was an appropriate thing to say. I think Howard Stern uses that sort of humor a lot, although I don't listen to him much so I'm not sure.
For the Imus example, no matter how I look at it, I can't see anything pointing at any awareness of a boundary that's being crossed. It seems that the shared awareness that's supposed to generate the funny is the awareness that black women are ugly. I think this is why Imus is getting hit so hard for this joke -- the premise is racist, not the delivery.
140: See, I think the way that one plays out is that you're not entitled to have a crack like that taken good-humoredly. If you're funny, and sensitive, and good with people, you probably can make jokes like that and people mostly won't be offended, but the only thing that makes it okay is if you're skillful enough not to be offensive when you're saying offensive stuff. Throwing knives at people is a very impressive stunt if you have perfect aim -- if you don't, the fact that you meant to miss doesn't make accidentally stabbing someone okay.
I laugh out loud watching Happiness.
I love that movie. And lord knows I'm sympathetic to people who make jokes that fall flat and offend people. But I don't really see the difference between what Imus actually said and just calling the Rutgers team a bunch of bull-dyke niggers.
143. I think that's it. Striving nobley and failing is all well and good in some venues, but offensive humour is not one of them.
Nope. Telling the inappropriate joke is always like driving 80 mph on the highway. You might do it every day for a year and never get caught. You might go blowing right by a cop who's got other things to think about. Whatever: get caught, you don't have an excuse. You especially don't have an excuse if you've been driving 80 every day for a year.
Actually, let's say in the case of a public figure with mainstream aspirations, it's more like driving under the influence. You can do a whole lot of that and get away with it, if you're lucky. Get caught and you lose your license.
Never heard of Jimmy the Greek? Earl Butz? Those were meant to be jokes, but it doesn't matter at all 'cause the idiots hadn't read the goddam memo.
Playing dumb about the memo doesn't work either.
I don't think Jimmy the Greek was joking.
I know some folks are too young to remember Earl Butz, and I just love the idea that his joke was too offensive to be published. Here's a bit of text snatched from the ether:
In 1976, Butz became the center of a controversy when it was revealed that he frequently told jokes that demeaned various racial and religious groups; he reportedly ridiculed Pope Paul VI for his stand on birth control, quipping that "he no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules," drawing fire from Roman Catholics, and especially those of Italian American heritage. Butz also allegedly uttered the following comment while on board Air Force One during Ford's 1976 re-election campaign: "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit." American newspapers and news magazines wanted to cover this, but they felt that the statement was too obscene and offensive to print. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Associated Press sent out the uncensored quotation but only two newspapers printed the statement verbatim: the Madison Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin and the Toledo Blade of Toledo, Ohio. Some paraphrased, saying for example that Butz had commented on the desire of black Americans to have "good sex, comfortable shoes, and a warm place to go the bathroom." Others stated that he had said something too obscene to print, and invited their readers to contact the editors if they wanted more information. The San Diego Evening Tribune offered to mail a copy of the whole quotation to any who requested; they filled more than 3,000 requests.
Negative publicity from the statement forced Butz to resign from his Cabinet post on October 4, 1976.
Let's sum up and clarify: I'd never actually say what's I wrote in 140, because I'd be too fearful of offending everyone involved. But it isn't too far from a real life example that I witnessed and found hilarious, as did the involved parties. Although another witness was mighily offended, an offense which I'm not sure later efforts to smooth over really ever remedied. And Imus is probably just being an racist, sexist asshole. I certainly don't get any other impression listening to the clip. All I was saying is that this isn't self-evident to me, that this wasn't just his regular shtick, a joke on which his listeners would pick up.
Again, the example you witnessed was mostly inoffensive because the speaker was funny, and mostly judged his audience well. No one had any obligation to let him off the hook on those grounds
First of all, do not invite any men to any baby showers (exception: if a gay male couple were "having" a baby and the guest list included lots of gay men, well, I could see that turning out pretty fun). If you must have men at a baby shower, then there absolutely must be alcohol. (see: baby shower, gay men) Thus, the idea of a coed baby shower at any office which does not feature a majority of gay men and loose rules about drinking on premises sounds like nothing less than employee harassment. Contact your union representative at once and put a stop to this abuse.
149 -- OK, I see an interesting 'talking past' thing here. You seem to care about Imus' status. That is, that it is importna t whether or not he is a racist and/or mysogynist. I'm just interested in his conduct. He can think anything he wants so long as he behaves in an appropriate manner. If he behaves in an inappropriate manner, I don't care a fig about what he thinks.
As for Imus, did anybody hear Lehrer's interview with the woman who wrote a book about black people's hair? She and BL both informed the audience that "nappy-headed" was nearly as offensive a thing to say as "nigger," which for all I know is true, but damn was that a surprise to me. I realize there's a long history of class/intraracial discrimination surrounding hair among African-Americans, but still, I always thought that "nappy-headed" was at the level of a schoolyard taunt. Offensive coming from an old white guy, for sure, but not the same sort of offense as dropping the N-bomb.
Anyone?
But doesn't his "status" affect the appropriateness of his behavior? Again, certain jokes can be funny when told by Chris Rock that wouldn't be funny if told by an overt racist.
155: No. His 'status' is only relevant if it actually does induce people to forgive the offensiveness and think the joke is funny. Where people are actually offended, his status doesn't come into play at all.
Funny and appropriate are measuring different things. The idea that 'funny' trumps inappropriate has been rejected long ago.
The question isn't whether it's funny for Chris Rock to tell a joke, it's whether it's appropriate for him to tell it. I'll grant you that explicitly self-deprecating humor falls into the same category as joking upwards -- looser rules of propriety. You're free to make fun of your own gender, shoe buying habit, race, religion -- tastefully -- but not someone else's, especially not if they are lower down on the social scale.
It would all be easier if you'd just read the memo. Didn't anyone explain society to you when you were, like, 10?
154: Look at all the trouble Napster got into.
I call 100% not fair on you whiny men who want to escape from the showers. Why should the rest of us have to suffer alone on your behalf?
Anyone?
I read an article a couple of years ago, maybe by the same woman, about how sensitive a topic "nappy" hair is. I doubt Imus knew that; not that it matters.
Not my fucking idea! Suffer, I say unto you, you too must suffer.
And one more: Coming from a family of southern racists, and understanding that racist = bad person is far too simple an equation, I'm not inclined to get overexcited about offensively stupid racial comments (as opposed to overt hate speech). And in this case, to be honest, I have none of the appalled reaction that I'm hearing from everyone. Sure, it was stupid and racist, and exactly why I don't listen to Imus. But his "nappy-headed hos" comment strikes me as idiotic "white-guy-talkin'-jive" humor rather than meanspirited bigotry.
Having said that, what I really DO find appalling about Imus is his sitting there at the mic, day after day, year after year, feeding his audience a steady diet of low-grade, race-based, "shock" humor. It's the normalization of this bullshit that actually hurts people over the long run, feeding the audience's worst and laziest instincts and marginalizing the target of the jokes in such a low-volume way that it's hard to use outrage as an antidote.
When I hear stuff like Imus's patter, I feel like I do every time some gay rights issue is treated in the press as a "two sides disagree" story. The problem is the entire contour of the conversation, not the details of the insults.
154.---I have curly, not kinky hair, and one of my best friends growing up was black, and we used to call each other "nappy" all the time. But we stopped doing so at about 15 when she started to get really conscious about how people treated her because she was black.
163: Which is why, having found a charge that will stick, it's time to go ahead and hang the guy, not worry about why this charge stuck when others didn't.
159: The first time I hear a roomfull of men say "awwwwwwww" in unison when a tiny pastel article of clothing is held up, I may be more receptive to your position.
I always thought that "nappy-headed" was at the level of a schoolyard taunt.
Nappy-headed means you're a bad person because you have kinky hair, nigger means you're a bad person because you have dark skin. They're both childish taunts. It seems like they would be equally hurtful.
165: agreed
164: I also have curly hair, which has also been described as nappy by both white and black people, and I never perceived it as an insult, even though it was always said in a joking context. Of course, I'm not black, which may make all the difference to how I perceived the "joke."
157. But the reason that Imus, and Howard Stern, and Leykus and the rest have an audience is because their audience did get the memo, and is pushing back. The whole PC thing has been rejected by a large segment of society, who while not necessarily racist, resents the denial of their privileges, like telling offensive jokes.
166: No, see, the point is that you should also have to suffer in the same way that I do if office comity requires it, not that I think you will magically come to find it a joy. I don't enjoy the spectacle either, and I'm not alone over here in womanville. The pain will contribute to your personal growth!
169: And there are enough people who disagree that it's becoming unprofitable to exercise those 'privileges' anymore.
167: I completely agree with your logic here, but it doesn't seem to describe the reality of how these words are perceived. All racist/xenophobic/sexist slurs get their power from simply identifying the stigmatized group or features that distinguish them from the ingroup; if you don't buy the stigma, then the word loses its power. But surely you'd agree that "nigger" seems to have a special status among slurs in America?
redfoxtailshrub:
I think you are alone in womanville. Every single other woman coos at minature clothing. (Except my gf, which is why I love her.)
Cooing at miniature clothing does not equal enjoying idiotic baby showers. I've got a certain amount of cooing in me, but I don't want to go to showers at work.
170: All the more reason why an "office baby shower" is a completely bad idea.
Hey, it's easy for me to imagine women not digging baby showers, because it's easy for me to imagine ANYONE not digging baby showers. I'm just saying, not inviting men is a good way, in one fell swoop, to spare a large portion of the people who don't dig baby showers.
171. I think still profitable, in re Stern, just not mass market. Imus loses because the advertisers don't want to be associated with him any longer, no matter the size of his audience, because of spillover to their other buyers who threaten boycott, or whatever. So he goes subscription, like Stern.
169: What Imus is discovering is that there's a certain threshold at which the stuff marked off by so-called "PC" is also just really unimpressive rather than funny and maverick.
(Of course, there's a certain randomness to the fact that he's getting pasted now of "nappy-headed hoes" rather than any of his past comments.)
177: Also questionable whether Imus could replicate what Stern did. There was a certain "sticking up to the Man" appeal to Stern's defiance of FCC "indecency" regulations which people across the political spectrum find baffling and absurd.
Maybe we could all sit around at our computers and call it a "buy your own fucking crap" party.
some features are just built in (or ruled out) in virtue of an artwork's being of a particular type, and this fact is relevant to aesthetic evaluation.
irrelevant, surely?
The fact is relevant, which makes the particular features often irrelevant. IYSWIM.
Office baby shower is a bad idea. Co-ed baby showers, on the other hand, can be a lot of fun if done as a brunch with lots of good food and mimosas and/or bloody marys and a minimum of cooing.
I had one of those, and it was actually fun. Friends, drinks, food -- the presence of tiny garments doesn't necessarily kill a party. But not at work, and not required.
159, 160: Now now, sexists. The point of baby showers, traditionally, is to help young *couples* having babies by providing some of the startup items for them. Being as men contribute to the baby-making, and also benefit from not having to go out and do all the shopping--and being as, ime, the person who does the *vast* majority of shopping for not only babies but children is usually, ahem, the mother--y'all are simply not entitled to bitch about baby showers or pull some nonsense about how women invented them, so we get to suffer with 'em. Women invented baby showers because you guys were ignoring the facts of life. Time to suck it up.
And if y'all start, you know, *planning these things yourselves*, then you can do them in ways that you find appropriately non-foofy.
Like I did.
(That said, I'm down with the idea that work-related mandatory "parties" are to be avoided at all costs. Just not on gender grounds.)
Women invented baby showers because they're fun. People give you things and make a big fuss over you and the baby, and you get to have good food.
I don't get the worry about having to coo at a onesie. If the party's done well, that's about half an hour to an hour out of a three-hour brunch, with no mandatory cooing. You can even give toys for the baby, or gifts for the parents if you're really anti-baby. You will not turn gay.
(but omg little booties and socks!!!)
MSNBC, which carries the Imus show on TV, just said it was dropping it.
187. It's not the gift giving, or the food, or the "cooing". It's the games. I seriously thought that these women, who normally I respect and admire, had turned into raving lunatics. Like I said, if I weren't sexist before watching that spectacle, I would be after.
The games are pretty evil. But can be skipped.
if I weren't sexist before watching that spectacle, I would be after.
Therein lies the root of a lot of soft misogyny. Including the misogyny of intelligent women who don't want to be "like that."
189: The games are evil, but I've never actually seen them at a baby shower. Wedding showers sometimes have silly games but not all of them do, and it's the sort of thing that it's pretty easy to decide you don't want to do. (Hear that, calamom? They can't annul a wedding if you don't wear a hat with bows on.)
No one's denying anyone the privilege of telling offensive jokes. But I reserve the right to call the offensive joke teller a fucking asshole, should I be moved to do so, and the right to refuse to buy the products of companies whose advertising supports fucking assholes, and the right to write to those companies and tell them so. I hate it when people try to infringe on my rights.
There's a difference, dear JM, between hating "stupid shower games" as such and using stupid shower games to make generalizations about all or "most" women.
I read a really great piece by Patricia Williams once that made the point that freedom of speech isn't an XXXtreme sport. That pretty much sums up my attitude toward the "right" to be offensive.
Wolcott makes some excellent points about the whole blow-up.
150: I think Butz was talking about the Persians.
Kendall Walton has a famous discussion of what he calls standard, contra-standard, and variable properties of artistic genres: some features are just built in (or ruled out) in virtue of an artwork's being of a particular type, and this fact is relevant to aesthetic evaluation.
This seems relevant to yesterday's discussion of Frank Miller and misogyny. I'd say that scantily-clad, big-boobed women in distress are to superhero comics what sexist/racist slurs are to rap music. (Yeah, not absolutely all rap music, and not all comics; work with me here.)
29: I think Cala's right. In the Waltonian picture of the content of representational art, when something becomes part of the "frame" (I forget what term Walton used), such as speaking in iambic pentameter, it's no longer part of the content.
This is orthogonal to Cala's argument, though. Cala was saying that Walton's claim applies to form, not content; you're saying that something moves from content to form when it becomes part of the, uh, form. (I don't think that works, actually; it could be part of the form that something of such and such sort happens, but that this thing of such and such sort happens can't be merely formal; it's part of the content, too, and attempting to maintain a strict form/content divide is silly anyway.) The question then is whether some form of derogatory speech has become part of the form. Saying that Walton's claim only applies to the form leaves unsettled what is a formal element, especially since such things can change as the, you know, form changes.
I see now that Cala talks about something's being "wholly separable", but this is a nonstarter, since hylomorphic questions are relative. That there should be rough language is a formal element, that it should be this rough language material.
My apologies if this point has already been made.
Example illustrating my point: it would be a mistake to conclude from the fact that homeric epithets tend to serve metrical functions that Achilles is not swift-footed.
Also, Cala, did you get my note?
I agree with 202. If you don't work within your genre, you stand out, often in unwanted ways. It's kind of like that crack about how a reasonable man adapts himself to the world, but an unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself, so only an unreasonable man ever changes anything. (the Ralph Nader here being Lupe Fiasco or...some comic-book person)
Snoop Dogg weighs in on the all-important ho issue: "It's a completely different scenario... [In hip-hop] we're talking about hoes that's in the 'hood that ain't doing [bleep], that's trying to get a [bleep] for his money. These are two separate things."
IOW, rap hos deserve it; Rutgers basketball players don't.
But wait, Magpie:
"First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls."Subject-position!
Snoop makes a good point. "Hoe" is a derogatory term for a particular type of woman who the majority of people agree do exist, although it would be hard to get a consensus on which people the term best describes. Much like "douchebag", or "dorkus malorkus". The problem arises when you apply the term to specific people who exist in an objective reality. Then, you know, it's easy for people to disagree with you because their opinions differ with yours.
Well, there it is. Imus and Snoop, totally not going to be best friends after all.
208: Get that man his radio show.
204: Right. But it would likewise be a mistake to conclude that ancient Greek warriors spoke in verse all the time. (My 48 might say this more clearly.)
205: Yes, I did. Biggest fucking indiscretion error ever, don't you think? No worries, but jesus. Did you get my note? I left you one in return. No, you did not, methinks, unless you came to the Sunday sessions.
This guy appears - or so the tags suggest - to be a hip-hop violinist.
Thursday, wasn't it? Too bad about the lack of meetup. SF is a great city with a lot of fog.
I agree with 202. If you don't work within your genre, you stand out, often in unwanted ways.
This isn't going to fly. You're basically saying that if all comic book authors are sexist, then none of them are. No, all of them are. See my 81 or Ben's 203: we're not talking about strictly formal elements, we're talking about formal elements that have some content; you can't dismiss the content because it's not distinctive within the genre: it's still distinctive.
Wait, what? Cala, you were in town? And we didn't meet? WTF?
Thursday, right.
I didn't think what I had to say was all that indiscreet, either.
I don't know; ben and I mentioned it here a couple times and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of interest. Assumed people were busy, as it was Easter weekend, or didn't care to meet up.
I thought Cala and Ogged had a plan to meet, and I wasn't invited, and then they said I looked like Mr Bean, so I cried myself to sleep, and now it turns out there was no meet-up after all. You all suck.
218: Don't be coy. It did make me chuckle, though.
Labs was in town too?!! I'm going to fucking kill you people.
No, I wasn't in town. I was thinking about going to the convention, but no one invited me to the meet-up, so I sulked at home.
I don't recall there being anything to be coy about.
I didn't really realize when the APA was until it was hard upon us and then I had no time.
208: True, but two separate arguments.
I saw Cala's conferency comments a few times but assumed she wasn't available for a meetup after all, since no one started/hijacked a thread about it and she never said, "Hey, I'm in town from (day)-(day); howzabout that meetup?" IOW, I'm just a sheep waiting to be led to the correct bar and fed a nice handful of hay.
ben mentioned in the middle of the whole Armsmasher's-coming-to-SF-maybe-in-four-weeks thread, and it didn't go anywhere, so I didn't bring it up again as I figured the holiday weekend was probably a bad time to get anything going.
I'm Muslim, Cala. A peeved Muslim. At least one bird is going to lose head over this. Maybe a small mammal. I haven't decided.
Think of it like this. You're giving an exam on Hamlet, and you ask your students to argue whether Hamlet is really mad, or whether he's faking it. One of your students writes "Hamlet must be really insane, because everytime he leaves a room, he rhymes his last two lines. I conclude he has OCD."
The distinction is between what's true in the fiction (that Hamlet is a melancholy prince) and what's true of the fiction (that it's written in iambic pentameter, that it was written by Shakespeare, etc.)
I don't think that distinction can really do the work you want. Now, I haven't read Walton on anything in a while, so I don't know what he has to say about this sort of stuff specifically, but consider these lines (actually spoken by Claudius): My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: / Words without thoughts never to heaven go.
We'll ignore the fact that Claudius is a putative Dane since it's easier that way and we could have been talking about a play set in England with English characters and all that. So if the reason that a student shouldn't adduce Claudius' having rhymed as an innerfictional reason for some conclusion about Claudius (that he must be really disturbed in this scene, say) is that that's something true of but not in the fiction, what are we to say of that line? That, in the fiction, it doesn't rhyme? So how did Claudius pronounce it? Or did Claudius really say something else (I'm uttering the words of a prayer, but my heart's not in it, so it'll be inefficacious
)? That's crazy. (I guess you could claim that the characters just have no concept of rhyme, but that seems going a little far.) Clearly what Claudius said rhymed in the fiction, and moreover he spoke in iambic pentameter too (we're given no reason to believe Claudius stresses his words in unusual ways). What you might want to say is this: it's true in the fiction that having rhymed in that way, or speaking in iambic pentameter generally, is utterly unremarkable (and that fact, too, is unremarkable, and so on ad infinitum). But that's a reason in the fiction why Claudius' having rhymed doesn't support concluding that he's stressed or whatever.
There might also be reasons why Claudius' having rhymed is a reason to make that conclusion, though; say if Claudius only rhymed once, Hamlet were the only other character who ever rhymed, and Hamlet only ever rhymed when he was worked up emotionally or exhibiting special instability. Rhyming might be the way characters talk in those circumstances, without its being the case that this fact is apparent to anyone in the fiction, or its being the case that anyone finds rhyming noteworthy at all.
Wait, Cala, could you say that (187) again for Bitch (185)?
Women invented baby showers because they're fun. People give you things and make a big fuss over you and the baby
See, that's what I'm talking about. I LIKE babies just fine (when they're not crying/smelling) and I like buying my breeder friends crap for their babies and I wouldn't mind having/buying one myself someday. But a baby is NOT a fun thing to have a party about unless you're already excited about babies. Men are not excited about babies. About fatherhood, perhaps, but it ain't the same thing.
Women invented baby showers because they're fun for women. Men certainly have responsibilities with respect to fatherhood, but painting on a smile through forced-fun events shouldn't be one of them.
Or maybe you do want to say that there's no such thing as, or no concept of, rhyme in Hamlet, the way knowledge of the conventions of genre fiction is barred from generic characters. It would be odd, after all, if some of the instruction Hamlet gave the actors concerned how to make their rhymes sound natural, or something like that, while he gave no indication of noticing that he himself rhymes occasionally. But one could imagine verse plays in which the characters simultaneously spoke about verse and appeared entirely ignorant of the verse they were themselves speaking. After all, it's possible to talk about novels without realizing one's speaking prose.
235.---Then what do you do with the sonnet sequence when Romeo and Juliet meet for the first time?
If you're Cala Walton, something very complicated, I imagine.
If they know they're rhyming then, what about on other occasions? One could imagine a director having the characters deliver their rhymed lines in an arch manner.
234: The idea is that the fact that Hamlet is rhyming doesn't count as part of the content of the story, that it's just the medium through which the content is conveyed. It's been a while since I've looked specifically at the Walton (it's the silly chapters question), but I think that your answer in the second half of 234 can't be what Walton has in mind. It isn't true, in the fiction Hamlet, that if someone starts rhyming, that's taken as unremarkable (witness Ophelia.)
I think what Walton has in mind is something like the following. In the world of the fiction projected the painting of the Mona Lisa, the woman isn't made out of paint. It's true that the painting is made of paint and canvas but the content isn't. With Hamlet, the same sort of thing applies. It's not true in the world of Hamlet that he speaks in iambic pentameter any more than it is true in the play that he's been created by Shakespeare. In the play, he's a prince.
At least one bird is going to lose head over this
At least you didn't say "ho".
I expected South Park to make fun of 300. But to equate Mexicans with Persians is outrageous!
Directors usually do have actors deliver those sonnet-lines in an arch manner. And sometimes other lines are obviously artificial within the universe of the play: songs (like in 12th Night or Lear) are set in shorter lines, and their rhymes are more insistent.
It's not true in the world of Hamlet that he speaks in iambic pentameter any more than it is true in the play that he's been created by Shakespeare.
Uh, but it's true in the play that he speaks, right? And that he speaks the very words we hear him speak when we attend the play. And ... those words rhyme, occasionally. How to extend the painting example to accomodate this is non-obvious.
242.--I feel like a dork admitting that I bought that Cafepress t-shirt.
So love's sweet wings fly combat missions?
I'm focusing on rhymes more than iambic pentameter because the latter depends a lot more on the concept of a line of text, which doesn't really obtain in non-artificial speech, than does the former.
I think a better visual arts example would be those paintings that are set in (eg) ancient Greece but depict people wearing (eg) armor that was modern at the time of the painting. But then, I think in that kind of case I'd want to say that the ancient Greek is wearing a steel breastplate and devil take the hindmosthistorical accuracy.
Hammer down is how the hard girls kiss.
246: but you went up in my esteem.
248.---I don't entirely understand what you and Cala and Labs are arguing about---I spent a good deal of time at one point worrying about moveable bits of genre that show up in different modes, but the terms were all very imprecise and, well, literary---but it seems to me that Shakespeare might be a problematic case because of the performance aspect. In the voice of a good actor, the meter is audible. Not sing-songy, but pleasingly regular. Shakespeare did write occasionally in honest-to-god prose, and it should sound different from the blank verse.
How serious are y'all about this form/content distinction? It's a fine first bloggy cut at trying to understand things, but it doesn't really hold up. It's not like "in the play" or "in the painting" are real things apart from the audience and its understanding of representational conventions. In some circumstances we understand that certain "formal" elements like rhyme are less important to interpreting a scene or understanding a character--we judge that importance case by case. But the fact that Shakespeare wrote plays that are in rhyming iambic pentameter is always relevant in a larger sense, at least insofar as he expressed himself that way and not, say, by painting.
How serious are y'all about this form/content distinction?
I called it "silly" above, so that might give you a clue.
Ben misunderstands "y'all".
Walton calls the section 'silly questions', i.e., things he doesn't need to worry about in his theory of fiction.
In the voice of a good actor, the meter is audible.
Does that include the end of a line? That's what I was worried about—that Hamlet is speaking iambically is (pace Cala) incontestable; what makes it pentameter is that there are five of them to a line. But if you're just speaking, you're not necessarily speaking in lines. (Especially not when you have the first seven syllables of a pentameter line and someone else the last three.)
things he doesn't need to worry about in his theory of fiction.
While I'm all for philosophers identifying silly questions as silly and then not bothering with them after that, I don't see how it's a silly question for Walton. Silly question generally, sure. But given his theory you'd think he should have something to say about it.
I don't see how it's a silly question for Walton.
It's a silly question of Walton, but not in Walton.
The distinction's pretty well accepted. Pretense theories of fiction took off.
Does that include the end of a line?
I think the best answer to that is "sometimes." I'm personally persuaded that a lot of the metrical play in older dramatic work has become undifferentiated to modern ears. In 1830, a crowded theater in Paris rioted over enjambments---though it should be admitted that classical French theatrical meter is much more formal and end-stopped than English pentameter ever really was.
Pretense theories of fiction took off.
"fiction" s/b "everything under the sun".
Hehe. "of..." should be "ate the rest of philosophy."
There was a talk here recently on the subject of being a fictionalist about truth. The guy said that he thought he had found a way to be a fictionalist about everything, including fictionalism.
I think that rap's hos are genre elements to be accepted and tolerated as standard fixtures in precisely the way that the old-time office practice of calling every secretary a girl regardless of her age is: which is to say, not at all. Yes, it is a common practice. Yes, there are both literal whores and women who've lost most desires except a narrowly focused jealous lust for money and goods in ghetto communities. However, a lot of the poor minority women who've been called hos over the decades weren't either of those, and pop culture that encourages young men to think of lots of the women around them as hos is toxic culture in need of change.
(For counterpoint, there's an often-neglected example of genuine positive reclamation that I find fascinating. When I was growing up on the edge of the NW Pasadena black community, "homeboy" was a fighting word. Around the time I graduated high school in the early '80s, a variety of folks in different parts of black society set out pretty deliberately to neutralize it as an insult. For a long time now it's been a term of affection - a thing you say in referring to one of your buddies. I don't know what replaced it as a fighting word, but that particular one really did go away, and not in a way that involves saying "oh, yeah, I get to insult you too"; its implications changed.)
And, of course, what goes for young men being given the social shaft in so many ways goes extra for middle-aged possessors of great privilege.
Men are not excited about babies. . . . Women invented baby showers because they're fun for women.
Stuff and nonsense. I know men who are plenty excited about babies, and our own JM, along with other women in this thread, have indicated that the standard baby-shower type activities are not especially fun for them.
Frankly, we are fast becoming the epitome of a Jerry Springer society. It seems to have become more important to have an audience and notoriety when confronting conflict than it is to attain resolve and mutual respect. That model seems to serve the needs of the exploited and those who seek to exploit; reinforcing all that relegates objectivity to the outhouse while making the frailty and imperfection of the human condition a spectacle that harkens back to the Coliseum.
This situation isn't and shouldn't be about whether liberals or conservatives, this race or that race, hip hop or honky-tonk, one group or another, are more offensive and therefore more responsible for all that is wrong with America. I am not capable of judging the whole of Don Imus nor am I capable of crafting a recipe to fix all of America...and neither are the countless pundits and partisans who have sought to frame it so.
I'm not a religious person...but I often find kinship with the imagery surrounding the portrayal of one called Jesus and his teachings of understanding and forgiveness. For all the banter I hear about the Bible and Christian values, it certainly seems to me that we are fast abandoning what many view as the sacred "tablets" in favor of the sacrosanct tabloids. If I'm right, all I can say is heaven help us.
Read more about the dynamics that lead a situation to become larger than the sum of its parts...here:
266 is very thoughtful, thanks. 268 should be deleted.
267: I know men who are plenty excited about babies
You can believe that if you like, but I don't.
our own JM, along with other women in this thread, have indicated that the standard baby-shower type activities are not especially fun for them.
And this, I never denied. My assertion is that no men like baby showers, not that all women do.
270: Oh, I totally love babies. Mesmerized by them.
But I do not enjoy baby showers.
Oh, I totally love babies. Mesmerized by them.
My assertion is that no men like baby showers, not that all women do.
So your (and/or Will's) answer is to throw the women who hate baby showers under the bus by insisting they be women-only? Next you'll be telling us to buy our coworkers' Amway.
When you take the racist and sexist slurs out of rap, you end up with this. (via Apostropher)
I've wasted a good half hour or so watching Billboard's most popular rap videos, handily collected here. Sadly, the top hit, Mim's "This is why I'm hot," is not a good song. Good beats, terrible, terrible refrain. Malkin completely misunderstands R. Kelley's song about being a flirt, which I've got to say was well put together, and Young Jeezy's song about being a "go-getter" I thought was almost sweet if you can ignore the fake gangsta nonsense. I suspect that the women slithering around could perform somewhat more interesting choreography, though.
Oh, I totally love babies. Mesmerized by them.
I said "excited." Not the same thing. I think they're interesting to watch, especially the uncoordinated facial expressions. But try to tell me you think a baby's a good thing to throw a party about.
A goodly part of the point of a baby shower is not "Oh boy! This will be so much fun for the guests!" but "Let's make the baby-having person feel loved and supported, rather than isolated and sad."
As usual, Chris Rock puts it best.
275: Hey. No dissing the squirrel. (Also, some counterexamples.)
169 -- Sure, and there are a bunch of 3 year olds who like to call people 'poopy-head' precisely because it's taboo. It's a losing battle, though, to keep doing so after age 3, as Greaseman and now Imus can tell you.
Imus won't get syndicated because he's not funny enough.
The NYT story about how the poor dear got caught up in a 24 hour news cycle he just couldn't get out of brought on a 'boo-fucking-hoo' from me: as if Imus hasn't participated in his own share of such things.
Imus is gone, but what about the Germans?:
BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- A video showing a German army instructor telling one of his soldiers to envision African-Americans in the Bronx while firing his machine gun was broadcast Saturday on national television.
The video, coming after scandals involving photos of German soldiers posing with skulls in Afghanistan and the abuse of recruits by instructors, seemed likely to raise more questions about training practices in Germany's conscript army.
"We can no longer talk about an isolated case," said Lt. Juergen Rose of the Darmstaedter Signal, a group of current and former army officers and sergeants who independently review military procedures.