Anonymous asked: I read that Tyler piece more or less the way you intended, but your writing about him has a strange kind of ambiguity. I keep having to reread bits to see that you end up on the side of not excusing his flaws.

I dunno, do you identify with him in slight ways that would make totally excoriating him feel like protesting too much? Or disidentify with him so much you forget not everyone knows he's a jerk? I mean... I'm not trying to diagnose or accuse you, just brainstorming. It feels like SOMETHING along those lines is going on.

Two thoughts here, both of which are about writing, not OF:

Online writing and criticism tend to really lead the reader around by the nose — dragging horses straight to the water of the author’s opinion. It’s partly just the format. And I think it’s partly because of the way people read online, which can be skimmy and ungenerous: The average comments box is full of people who have clearly read the text mostly in search of something to be critical or superior about. So it helps to be explicit, which I am poor at, and working to improve. If you quote, for instance, a vile misogynist lyric, a lot of readers will be much more attuned to the question of whether you know it’s vile and misogynist — rather than the fact that they know it and don’t need you to tell them. So I’m working on that front.

However: I sorta feel like “excoriating” pieces often suffer from the same problems of glib skimming, ungenerous interpretation, and easy superiority. Often it makes them a lot less excoriating than they want to be: They become little rallies for people who already agree with you, people who read words on the internet in order to be told what they already know. To me, it’s a hell of a lot more damning to look at something you object to, worm into its heart, bring all your generosity to bear on it, and demonstrate that it’s still shitty. Not “it’s my opinion that this is shitty” — who cares about my opinion? — but rather “if you come with me and look hard at this thing, you will see for yourself what is shitty about it, without needing me to tell you.” One advantage I like to imagine this has is the potential to sway a person or two who hasn’t been convinced by just being told they’re wrong.

I might be alone in preferring that, which is fine. And I should probably ease off showing-not-telling and be explicit more often. But this is really something I find cool and amazing about writing — not that the author will tell you an opinion, but that the author will lead you through reality in a way that lets you yourself reach that opinion on your own. Unfortunately, this method depends on styles of reading that aren’t well-suited to internet browsing.

(Also yes, I maybe forget it’s not self-evident to all that “punch a bitch” is a fucked-up lyric, and that there are certain topics one simply can’t be too clear and non-subtle about, which is my bad.)

49 notes | | May 12, 2011
  1. anewthing said: Thank you! As someone who write sometimes, I completely identify with this issue; you’re very right.
  2. asmallcity said: To call her response “ungenerous” is too kind. I’d call it narrow and self-serving, an expression of her own agenda rather than a critique of the piece on its own terms. Any good reader knows nuanced consideration isn’t the same thing as endorsement.
  3. thirtydollarproject said: please stop apologizing. honestly, you have nothing to apologize for!
  4. jrichmanesq said: fwiw the exact approach you describe is one of those particular things I love about your writing. there’s a fine line between the acheiving the goal of being understood by the most people and playing to the lowest common denom. can’t please em all.
  5. agrammar posted this