Subject:
|
Re: Reality == fiction?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:14:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
752 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> Take Swift's archetypal ironic essay "A Modest Proposal"
> http://www.sincity.com/penn-n-teller/pcc/a-modest-proposal.html
>
> Would this really retain its artistic force if preceded by a careful,
> unironic explanation of the socio-political sentiments conveyed, and the
> literary techniques used to convey them?
Absolutely not.
> Need the author have issued
> statements more unambiguously delineating his stance on cannibalism and
> infanticide? Or would it have ruined the joke?
Of course it would have ruined the "joke."
But it isn't fit for the consumption of eight year olds. At least not many of
them.
> Is this essay in poor taste, since it suggests violent acts? Would it be
> reasonable to imply that Swift was a proponent of cannibalism or prone to
> practice it in real life?
I think that people who delight in the graphic representation of infanticide
and cannibalism have problems. Trying to propogate those problems through
sharing of the material is a bad thing.
> These are High School (Junior High) level questions, people. Let's show some
> perception and get beyond them.
So, I guess what you mean is that anyone who disagrees with you, is retarded
intellectually to a state bellow normal twelve year olds. Right? Very nice.
> It's just the sort of thing that righteous crusaders have to live with...
Look, I'm not sure what it takes to get this across, but most of what happened
here was a conversation about a philosophical issue with practical
ramifications. What do you care? If you don't want to participate, then
don't. A few people have labeled this discussion with such terms as "out of
control." Maybe it's time for a perspective? This has been a mildly
interesting and almost completely polite discussion. For those of you who are
disturbed by the "heat" of this debate, check back for some of the really
lively ones that we've had.
> Sorry for the ascerbic tone.
I doubt it. Why do people say this when it's clearly not so?
> It's just that this is a killed conversation.
I'm not even sure that this means. If it means you're flogging a dead horse,
then I guess I agree, but am at a complete loss as to why.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Well, that's an even less tactful way of phrasing it than mine, but I'm afraid you're reading the statement fairly accurately. I'll rephrase: ---...--- A person who is unable to comprehend irony, and requires instances of satire to be labeled (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Clarity, of course, is subjective, and if the humor of a work involves subtlety, then the intent of the work will become unclear to the less perceptive. (...) Are you suggesting that irony requires an explanatory prefix to avoid offending or (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
