Come on, surely SOME of Stonekettle's readers are only there to marvel at the gaping masses

It seems the zombies really do come out at night.

*Your writing is pretentious, overblown, and frankly, boring. You might do well to study and try to emulate Mr. Wright's style and populist voice rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks. The blogosphere prefers his writing to yours by roughly 1,000 to one; perhaps not all of those are simply brain dead zombies.

*this writing is depressingly, hopelessly pedantic, humorless, self-absorbed and dull. how or why this writer finds it profitable to criticize others is a mystery

*You … write like every precocious 11th grade emo boy [whatever that means] whose English papers I ever had the misfortune to grade.

*I can't tell the crux of your issue, whether it's that you disagree with Mr. Wright's opinions or merely his writing style.

That's a stiff-armed, pinwheel-eyed sampling of overnight and early-morning comments left on my previous post [which, to my sorrow, were somehow obliterated in the intervening seven years], such comments reportedly inspired by what one of the magnificently disgruntled says was a "masterful take-down of Dr. Carpenter's critique of Stonekettle Station." I would read the take-down, but I gather it's somewhere on Facebook, which, I find, has blocked me. I suspect skulduggery — hurt feelings and all that, which generated a petty complaint to Facebook's censors — but since my suspicion isn't a worrying one, I can't say I care.

The only comment that momentarily hurt was the one that called my writing "humorless." I may be depressed by the screaming popularity of juvenile prose (the Michelle Malkins and Stoned Kettles) which defines the chronic dumbing-down of the political Internet; I nevertheless make every attempt to battle my dysthymia with pluck and, above all, good humor, which befits a drowning depressive. I'm also a confirmed skeptic of the Montaigne School (oh dear, is that "name-dropping"?), but of one thing I'm certain: Humor is essential to survival on this planet overpopulated in cyberprint by the popularly godawful, and let's just say I'm surviving. My hurt soon passed.

Elements of the first and last comments above were spot on. "The blogosphere" does prefer commonness; indeed, I daresay by more than 1,000 to one. A literate reader made a brilliantly apt comparison yesterday when he observed that Stonekettle is the Thomas Kinkade of the political Internet. I most emphatically don't blame its scribbler for exploiting the vulgar appreciations of a mass market, which leads me to that other comment: "I can't tell the crux of your issue, whether it's that you disagree with Mr. Wright's opinions or merely his writing style." First, one doesn't "disagree" with a style. One may find it abhorrent and jejune and thus lacking in sophistication, but abhorrence is not disagreement. David Frum once wrote one of the most enjoyable, polished political works (Dead Right) I've ever read, and I disagreed with nearly every word of it. I also read, for instance, Krauthammer regularly — not because I agree with him, but because the man can write. (A too obvious pun comes to mind, so I won't go there.) Stonekettle I've read only three times. Each has been agonizing, so I avoid it.

Second, it's telling that this commenter found my larger point unintelligible, since I made it blisteringly clear: Stonekettle's dreadful writing "is not what haunts me," I explained. "Bad writing, in its commonness, is scarcely anything horrifying. No, what haunts me is that this particular piece has, as of this morning, 44,354 Facebook 'Likes.'" See: Thomas Kinkade, and then anyone with an eye for true artistry.

One last time. It's true that I'm offended by bad writing, but I'm far more offended by the popular embrace of it. And that, gentle readers, is why, on occasion, I'm paradoxically content with the aforementioned 1,000:1 ratio. That likely underestimated imbalance confirms my "elitism," which, sadly, there isn't nearly enough of in this world.

***

postscript: Lord am I ever grateful for the regular readers of this site, and many thanks to its heroically commenting Anne Js, Peter Gs, Bobs et al. But folks, this is one battle that you, my fellow elitists, have lost. Together, we always will. Intelligent platoons of refined taste and critical thinking are no match for armies of, well, you know. As for the "writer" in question, earlier he tweeted me so that he might re-express his abject incomprehension of it all: "Oh come now, Carpenter, you wanted a spike in your pageviews, I gave it to you. Have a happy day, ya mother." Thus, once again, he reduces himself to Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man: the self-satisfied triumph of the herd.

Another regular reader emailed this: "The awful writing to which you allude is more than just 'dumbing down' or 'hysteria sells'. It's part and parcel of something larger, much more calamitous." To those of you who understand that perceptive sentiment, no interpretation is required. To those of you who don't, no explanation would assist.

 

Comments

[ohollern]

In addition to humorless, you are also dull and effete, or did you miss that part? Tsk,tsk.

Stop using big words, and what is Montaigne, a brand of wine?

If you really want to despair for the human race - and, really, what thinking person doesn't? - read the comment section on any YouTube video or article linked on Drudge. They leave you praying for the meteor strike.

[Rebecca]

I am attempting to discern why the opinions of Mr. Wright - who obviously embraces the social democracy you claim to support - are anathema to you. Is it simply that he draws a wide audience who agree with and support his views or, frequently, argue some or part of said views with a level of civility rarely found on the internet? (Granted, he moderates his blog comments, for which I am most grateful, as the internet is rife with slavering idiots, but he does allow dissenting opinions, if expressed with a modicum of sanity.)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the appeal of populist writing throughout history. The pamphlets distributed in coffee houses during periods of political unrest in England were also denigrated as being vulgar, crude, pandering, etc. but they struck a chord with those whose opinions were not expressed by the elite. That is merely one example of how writing that appeals to the masses has changed the political landscape.

As someone who expresses dismay at our currently entrenched system, I would think that you'd welcome anyone who can rally the troops for change, even if their message is pitched below what you feel is your level. Why is it that you dislike writing that actually reaches people who might vote in progressive (or, at least, not regressive) candidates or otherwise support progressive action?

[Anne J]

Personally, I never even heard of Stone Kettle until yesterday, and after reading the one article, it made me glad that I come here every day. I don't care if readers prefer that site by 1,000 to one. I like it here. I don't like being told how to think, (trust me, I am not accusing you of that) but I love a writer who compels me to think. Who takes my interests and passions and encourages me to study them more. (Where were you when I was a slacker high school student?) It's like when Fox viewers claim their view is the correct one because their preferred news network has the highest ratings of the big three 24 hour networks. I am currently reading Frank Zappa's autobiography and to quote him on why his songs didn't get a lot of radio play: "It has never mattered to me that thirty million people might think 'Im wrong'. The number of people who thought Hitler was 'right' did not make him 'right'. The same principle should be applied to anyone who has an individualistic attitude. Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?" And when writing of what he called 'THE BIG STUPID", he writes that there is more stupidity in the universe than hydrogen, it breeds easily, and is self financing. (paraphrasing) He warns that anyone who stands up and says "This is stupid" is either asked to behave or even worse, greeted with a cheerful "Yes, we know! Isn't it terrific?" To the extent that I have understood you over the years, Mr. Carpenter, I would like to thank you for individualistic attitude, your independence of thought, and I hope you do not take offense if I think of you as my own personal Frank Zappa.

[Bob]

Why Mr. Carpenter, you flatter me sir. And thank you for not pointing out that in the same comment I accidentally wrote "what Hofstadter does" when, assuming you meant Richard Hofstadter, he hasn't done much of anything since 1970. How did I know that? I opened a new tab on my browser and looked him up. Anyone not using a web browser designed before about 1998 can do the same. Maybe some are just averse to learning about unfamiliar authors or words. The strength of this blog, besides the writing style, is that it challenges one's knowledge. I read science fiction for pleasure, but am keenly aware it's an escapist flight of imagination. I'd humbly submit that, in the spirit of citizenship, politics should be taken at least a bit more seriously. Bashing is exciting in its way but so is autoerotism - or so I'm told.

[JustMe]

If AnneJ likes writers who compel her to think, I'm shocked that she *hasn't* been reading StoneKettle Station. Dismissing Jim Wright out of hand is ridiculously juvenile and shows that you do indeed, prefer people to tell you how to think, as in, you're happy to have Carpenter tell you how to think and what to like and dislike. Jim is most definitely individualistic, independently thinking, open minded, and humorous.

[ohollern]

But bashing is necessary in the decadent times we live in, and some us gleeful bashers are profoundly, deadly serious about politics. I think Mencken said something to the effect that you can't build a new house until you burn the old one down!

When we are asked to take people like Louie Gohmert or Rand Paul or Bobby Jindal seriously, I think low-down bashing and ruthless cynicism are the only rational responses.

[Anne J]

I wasn't accusing ANYONE of telling me how to think. I already know how, that's why I'm drawn to this site. Perhaps you should have read my comment in the previous posting. Now who is the one dismissing people out of hand?

[John Holder]

I'm just amazed to see such condescension and scorn directed at Jim Wright, of *all* people. I've been a Stonekettle reader for years, and I believe I have a considerably sophisticated understanding of the issues which he tends to address, as one with an MA in political science from a very good university. Stonekettle's style is indeed confrontational, irreverent populism, but he is living proof that populists are not NECESSARILY ill-informed (despite the plethora of examples of that, especially among right-wing rabblerousers).

The very notion of equating Michelle Malkin with Jim Wright is ludicrous. The former is a fearmonger, xenophobe, and oversimplifier; the latter, to employ a regrettable cliche, speaks truth to power. And the fact that he has several thousand fans on Facebook, as well as an equally significant number of people who follow the Stonekettle Station blog, is quite reassuring to me when I'm tempted to believe that only the stupid and unreflective follow *anything* in large numbers. Perhaps H. sapiens americanii isn't as dumb as I often fear it is.

I guess I just don't understand, Carpenter, why you would pick on Jim Wright when there are so many uninformed nimrods out there who are far more deserving of scorn.
I just hope it's not professional jealousy.

[Bob]

Ridicule beats bashing every time, though "bashing" is open to interpretation. On the web bashing often amounts to facile criticism from a point of ignorance.

[Bob]

And by "facile" I mean superficial.

[David & Son of Duff]

"many thanks to its heroically commenting Anne Js, Peter Gs, Bobs et al"

Er, modesty forbids and all that but despite my comments being as welcome here as a fart at a funeral, I, too, have done my best to keep up the commentary count. In fact, I think I hold the record!

Anyway, Mr. Carpenter, the fact that you put up with me and my opinions says more about you than anything else.

[Page E.]

Thank you so much for quoting me in your response, Dr. Carpenter. I am proud be be identified as one of Wright's zombie minions (zombinions?). Seriously, I and most of Jim's readers wish you no ill will; nothing but love and respect to all who fight the good fight. However, *you* the the one who disparaged a man who I admire, if from afar. You called *me* a member of a "zombie herd" when you know nothing of me. Being intentionally insulting and condescending is beneath a man of learning. A word to the wise; in a battle of wits with Jim Wright you will get your nose bloodied. Every. Single. Time.

[Nancydrewed]

Disappointing PM. I read you every day, have very rarely commented, follow you on twitter, RTing often, have the blog in my feed and have hit the tip jar on occasion. Have to say -- picking this fight seems beneath you.

Jim Wright is the rare liberal, out here in red-meat land, who writes with authority (assuming he's not another dog on the internet) on matters pertaining to gun control, the NRA, and the gun-nuts who rule the ballot box in much of the American West, where I live. When I need to point some of my neighbors to another way of thinking about the *gun-grabbing* they are convinced they are faced with, he's the link I use.

You're an academic and now-blogger writing for your audience. He writes for his. I'm a member of both. So there's that.

And the Thomas Kinkaide comparison is absurd.

[Nancydrewed]

I should add, I believe it wise to read anyone selectively, which is why your last two posts bother me. Your thoughts and opinions are read in my household at every post. Wright's are not. He's often windy and melodramatic (ever read Driftglass on Sullivan?) but he knows his stuff on post-Heller gun arguments.

[Notdeadorgone]

"A literate reader made a brilliantly apt comparison yesterday Images when he observed that Stonekettle is the Thomas Kincade of the political Internet."

I'm familiar with both Kinkade's (note spelling) and Wright's work. No one who claims to see similarities between the two can be considered familiar with either.

I can make a small allowance for hyperbole, but these works are so obviously orthogonal to one another that the consideration of "literate" is likewise ill-informed.

But I don't think that should be a show stopper in what obviously appears to be an attempt to lash out against an unfamiliar body of work.

[Bob]

Please explain why the Kinkade comparison is absurd. I was commenting on style. Kinkade commercializes the sentimental and tawdry without qualification. The Stonekettle Station piece - the one and only I'll ever bother with - is nothing if not flamboyantly tasteless. I acknowledged there's an audience for this kind of stuff and have no problem with populism. In fact I've defended democratic principles as equal to liberal philosophy here. I never argued that no one should read Stonekettle Station. But I think words matter. Arguing that overheated hyperbole in defense of populism is justified seems like arguing that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

[Anne J]

I would like to add, commenting on just the content of the piece itself, I agree it's time for a little crazy shaming in this country, if for no other reason than to stop right wing politicians from pandering to them for votes. But the writer displayed a profound ignorance of mental illness, and just because one has a mental illness, that does not make them crazy. I have a mental illness. I have bi-polar disorder. This means that I have spikes in my moods, but in no way, shape, or form, do I qualify as crazy. Crazy people don't think anything is wrong, and I know many people who on all other levels are in much better mental/emotional shape than I am, but still believe these crackpot conspiracy theories. They believe them because they WANT to believe them. Because the narrative already fits their opinions. Until ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) is added to the DSM, then please do not lump these crazy people in with those of us who deal with mental illness on a daily basis.

P.S. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter for all that you do to keep my head together.

[Bob]

Since Nancydrewed wants to ignore my question above maybe you'll do me the favor. I admit Mr. Wright's body of work is and will remain unfamiliar to me, but given the case of the single piece why am I wrong?

[Nancydrewed]

Nancydrewed has been calling her mother for Mother's Day. You'll have to excuse my absence.

Please take some time to read Wright's "Bang Bang Crazy" series of pieces which were written after some of our recent mass shootings. Maybe you'll see I think why the Kinkaide comparison doesn't work at all -- not for me anyway. If PM wants to agree with your comparison, you should be content I should think.

[Ariel]

I can't speak for others but I find the comparison absurd because while Kincaid has a certain mastery of color and light, his work does not spur either emotion or introspection. This relegates it to the realm of "decoration" rather than "art". And while decoration has its place, it soothes rather than challenges.
Jim's essays tend to stir strong emotions and frequently reveal a fact, point of view, or connection I had not previously considered. They challenge the comfortable, the powerful, and the complacent. If that is the purpose of "art", then Jim manages to do art. And sometimes, "flamboyantly tasteless" is the deliberate *purpose* or the delivery mechanism. I do believe a similar charge was leveled against the Impressionists in their day.
If he doesn't evoke emotion or thought for you, then the comparison to Kincaid may be apt. But Nancydrewed may have other reasons for that assertion.

[Bob]

I read the first in the series, 'What we need, see, are more guns, big fucking guns', but that's all I can take. Mr. Wright makes good points, seem knowledgeable and I wish him success, but his style is just too off-putting. In general I prefer to get information about guns from hard news sources. And I'll admit that from a certain angle my Kinkade analogy doesn't fit. Kinkade's works always try to inspire a sense of serenity.

[Bob]

Please see my somewhat conciliatory reply to Nancydrewed below. My complaint is that Mr. Wright relies too heavily on emotion, as does Kinkade. The choice whether that's good or bad is entirely the reader's.

[Peter G]

Rally the troops for what for pity's sake? There is absolutely nothing unconventional about Mr Wright's opinion that the best results are obtained by hurling generalized insults. It is every bit as conventional as I would expect from a man who emerged from military culture. And what progressives are these whose policies I should embrace? The nativist crowd that are sure immigration is just a plot against them? The anti-science crowd that are sure GMO crops have killed millions? The judicial geniuses who take as proof that giant round ups of all the people they despise have not taken place as proof of corruption? I know lots of people who call themselves progressive who have not the slightest idea what that means.

[Nancydrewed]

Bob, I understand about reading Wright's blasts, but it might be fair to keep in mind the temperature of the air at the times in which he wrote them. And for that I give him credit. I also admire his ability to engage and stay engaged with commenters who just know they want guns, more guns and they always knew that's what the Founders intended for them so there. His style is the only one likely to penetrate such thick skulls. Maybe.

[Peter Hockley]

Hello Sockpuppet!

[matt]

I'm now sorry I didn't check in for a day. But before I read your earlier post to learn the source of the to-do, let me offer the following:

Man, oh man, you can write.

I've never hear of Stonekettle.

[Bob]

There's reason to be optimistic, Nancydrewed. Two out of three surveys show that though the number of guns has gone up in recent years, they're in fewer homes: "The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey." ( http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/ ). These are the latest statistics I could find published in an original source. I've read the trend has continued since, but wouldn't trust the sources enough to quote them. I'm doubtful anyone can wise up gun nuts by writing about them, but we all have the right to try.

[Peter G]

Hey Alphabits (for such will you always be to me) How are you doing? Enjoying your limited release? What time do you have to check back in? If you stick around I'll give you my thoughts on your Goldilocks Theory Of Optimal Intellect. You know, the that place is too dumb, and this place is too smart but the place you like is juuust Wright. I fear if we continue though, you will heap upon me the term sheeple, for failing to adhere to your particular orthodoxy. I preemptively shudder.

[Peter Hockley]

Game set and match to me for your fist mention of "Sheeple". I still maitain you are a sockpuppet.

[William Caulfield]

As one who has been banned from his (Jim Wright's) site for objecting to his psychotic break of last year vis a vis Mike Malloy, I have to say:

Individualistic - yes, to the degree we all are with our limited handful of facts and biases.

Independently thinking - independent of what?

Open minded - here I have to laugh. One of the most closed off individuals I have ever witnessed.

Humorous - Personally? Humorless would be the word you're looking for.

Jim Wright is mentally ill. I think you all (his loving readers) know that, hence the need to "protect" him by attacking his "enemies list." Your time would be better served by reminding him constantly to get the help he needs from the VA.

[Peter G]

I am. Controlled by my own hand and none other.

[JustMe]

Why don't you let PM Carpenter reply since this is directed at him and not you.

Oh wait. Nevermind.

[[email protected]]

Peter G,

"hurling generalized insults"

"It is every bit as conventional as I would expect from a man who emerged from military culture."

You really should check your work, Peter G.

In addition, perhaps you could explain to us how coming from a military culture is a negative.

[[email protected]]

Bob, You keep soft peddling on the silly Kinkade comparison made by Carpenter.

Carpenter made that absurd comparison as a weak and transparent attempt to cheapen Jim Wright's work. His goal is to make it appear that by being popular and well-liked, that somehow has something to do with the quality of his writing.

Bullshit.

Carpenter's need to insult and degrade Stonekettle was nothing more than pure jealousy. His biggest complaint was how many "likes" Jim Wright's essays and facebook postings received. He said it himself. I'm in sales and the last objection is almost always the real reason.

Hey, don't take my word for it, go back and re-read what Carpenter said.

Yep, that was his biggest problem, the number of "likes".

When was the last time anything was considered quality because few people liked or admired something?

Please don't tell me it requires elitism to recognize talent.

As to your claim that Stonekettle Station appeals to "emotion". What exactly is unemotional about anything to do with people's well-being? What exactly is unemotional about all the fear-based propaganda coming from the right and practically forcing people into their bunkers or starting another war?

What is better than pointing out the ridiculous views coming from the fanatical right (or fanatical left), comparing them to reality, shaming them, and hopefully ridiculing them into oblivion?

Oh, and the laughs help, don't kid yourself.

[[email protected]]

One more thing, Bob, I'm sure you must have noticed that Carpenter not only compared Stonekettle to Thomas Kinkade, but he also compared Jim Wright to Michelle Malkin.

Can you not see that Carpenter is not just mildly envious, but he probably has some serious issues?

Think about it.

Now THAT's an emotion most of us can do without!