Tolerance is a buzzword without much meaning. The day it means not calling out bullshit because you don’t wish to hurt someone’s feelings… well, that day it becomes meaningless, and harmful.
Actually, all i was asking you to do is explain your system of evaluating artistic merit. Do you, in fact, believe that there is an objective measure of artistic and literary talent and value, and that it is miraculously congruent with your own viewpoint? Is everyone who disagrees with you on such issues simply spouting “bullshit”?
Apparently, so are ‘god’ and ‘superlative’.
Ah, my mistake.
Are you going to debate in good faith, or not?
One objective measure of literary talent is the degree to which text can be information rich, have a flow and feel all it’s own, and look deceptively simple. Check out the writing of Zinzer to get another idea of what it’s like.
As for why these views ‘miraculously’ coincide with mine, it’s because I’ve spent years training in literary criticism and analysis, and I’m a writer myself? I know just how hard it is to do what Hunter did with his writing, and so if it’s a miracle that I recognize talent when I see it, then I guess I’m miraculous.
Of course not. I would welcome an honest discussion on Hunter’s literary merits, or the lack thereof.
It was quotes like
that got my goat, and the reason I responded in the manner I did.
Should I have called hunter a literary demi-god?
Even if I had, he’s not.
He stood at the forefront of American literature, and will ultimately be remembered along the same lines as Twain is now.
Hunter’s works will, quite possibly, last centuries in the public consciousness, maybe longer. This is, in a very real sense, immortality.
These all look like subjective measures to me. Measures which reasonable people could disagree on.
Those sound subjective to you, honestly?
And yes, reasonable people can disagree, but reasonable people can be wrong. You can tell me till you’re blue in the fact that Mozart was a hack and Beethoven no better than John Williams. You’d still be wrong.
And, moreoever, the thing I have a problem with is not divergance of opinion (ie. I didn’t care for his writing), but out and out falsehoods (ie. he wasn’t tremendously talented). One may not like his stuff, but it is folly and it is false to claim that the man wasn’t a first rate writer.
Besides, I’ve had no problem answering reasonable disagreement with reasonable critique. It’s this bullshit that I can’t stand. I don’t know why it is that every time an American icon falls, there’s someone there who wants to piss on the rubble. The ultimate talent inherent in his craft is unmistakable, especially to anybody who knows what goes into writing.
Not quite sure how much else there is to say.
Well, if I was gonna shot myself (which I’m not) I’d wanna go out like a total asshole! Go over to someone’s house (preferably some one I don’t like too much) and paint my brains all over their walls! Think of all the crap they’d have to deal with! They’d have to get the bllod off, make sure they didn’t get blamed for the death. Man, I’d be laughing when I put the barrel in my mouth, thinkin of all the shit that guy would have to deal with!
You’re a dumbass. Objectively.
Seriously, this is one of the oldest arguments in the book and your side always loses because you’re wrong. You can tell me “till you’re blue in the face” that you’re right, but you’re wrong.
Of course, if you were “an artist or a kindred soul”, you’d already know that :rolleyes:.
No, you’re not miraculous, you’re a 24 year old kid with delusions of grandeur.
I think the problem, Finn, is that you have interjected yourself into a thread whose purpose was to criticize Thompson and the way he chose to commit suicide…and coincidentally to criticize him as a person and/or writer.
Every well-known personality has their proponents and their detractors. Thompson’s proponents have been holding forth in a thread in Cafe Society. At the time I ceased following the thread, only one poster had made critical comments and he was being roundly excoriated for intruding on the other posters’ grief. You have done the opposite and come into a thread created to offer criticism of Thompson and tried to defend him.
It isn’t so much that people “have” to piss on icons, it’s just that some people will like a ground-breaking personality while others will dislike him, and since we are all expressing our opinions and philosophies, you will hear negative things about Thompson as well as positive.
I stayed out of the Cafe Society thread out of respect for the obvious grief that the people posting there were feeling. Perhaps you should stay out of this thread for the same reason – that is, perhaps you should stay out of this thread out of respect for your own grief over his death.
Just sayin’ is all…
Regards.
I agree with that much. I don’t think suicide is cowardly and I’m not interested in the whole “attacking the dead” thing. However I do think the details of how he died contradict the idea that he went out bravely or died how he lived or whatever. I liked his writing and I’ll miss him. But I think the people who try to make something glorious out of his death are almost as wrong as the people who want to make him out to be a coward. This was a sneaky way to die.
Being Hunter S. Thompson’s kid probably has a lot to do with it.
Nope, sorry.
Recognizing that Mozart had talent does not make one a dumbass, just like being unable to recognize talent doesn’t, somehow, mean someone is talentless.
Try again schmuck.
My side, eh?
And what side exactly would that be?
Sorry dude.
No matter how many times you tell me the sun isn’t warm, you’re wrong. No matter how many you say a musical genius wasn’t talented, you’re wrong. No matter how many times you tell me a writer with a refined and elegant style wasn’t a good writer, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it…
you’re still wrong.
Hey, asshole, do you have any idea what goes into writing? Ever written a novel? An essay for publication? Do you deny that someone who does that has a much better understanding of the craft of writing than a non-writer?
Are you honestly that stupid?
Yes, writers know more about writing. Dancers know more about dancing. Accountants know more about accounting, and Cisco knows more about felching rotting corpses.
It’s all common sense man.
Right, but that coincidence was part of the thread, so I addressed it.
On certain points, yes.
But I also believe it’s customary to allow Pit threads to have two sides sometimes.
And this is, of course, a good thing.
But like him or hate him, his writing created a new way of going about journalism, and was stylisticaly elegant.
Probably some very good advice.
I’ll take my leave.
Thank you.
You’re welcome. 
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.
We’ll come back to this.
Define the following terms with relation to the arts: Genius, talent, refined style, elegant style
Your “side” being that the previous terms (esp. talent and genius) are objective terms when describing an artist or work of art.
Yes.
Worked on a few, yes.
Yep.
What’s funny is that you’re so full of venom that you missed the whole point of my post and you went straight for the throat, thinking I was attacking Hunter. I was actually very fond of him and saddened by his death.
Not only are you wrong, you’re an asshole and a - wait for it, wait for it, wait for it…jerk.
I really don’t think Finn’s a jerk. I’ve tangled with him before and he tries to keep an open mind and also to explain his POV reasonably. I think in this case he is just very deeply invested emotionally in Thompson (much as I am with certain artists cough,Picasso,cough that frequently come in for critcism) and is striving mightily out of a sense of both grief and loyalty to come to Thompson’s defense and not let Thompson’s gifts (which I believe were genuine) go unacknowledged.
Cisco, my apologies, I most likely shouldn’t have taken such a harsh tone
But you’re being dishonest if you claim you weren’t in some way trying to engage me in a fight. Your post that I was responding to wasn’t something that I should’ve “gone for the throat” on?
Starting by saying I’m “objectively a dumbass” was supposed to somehow show me that you appreciated Hunter and agreed with me that he was a good writer?
I’m more than willing to admit that I’ve gotten too animated in this thread and shouldn’t have been rude to a few folks, but I still stand by my original comments. I’m also more than willing to drop out of this thread and let everybody bash Hunter to their hearts’ content.
I’d request that you also drop it, if I do. Oh, and, simply in passing, suggesting that someone is bannable er, I mean a jerk isn’t very sportsmanly of you.
Apology accepted, and I’m sorry too if I was a little harsh and confrontational, but I really felt that you were acting like a
, which isn’t usually immediately bannable (though I don’t know your history), but often solicits a “calm down”, which you seem to have done.
Everything’s kosher as far as I’m concerned. Feel free to start a thread in a friendlier forum about the objectivity of art.
Just so I make it clear, I apologize to everybody in this thread who I’ve been arguing with. Starving was right, I guess this topic is simply too emotional for me to debate calmly or, truth be told, totally rationally.
Again, my apologies.
To be fair to that thread, which I posted to a number of times, the recently late and unlamented poster wasn’t so much offering critical comment as posting a drive-by bit of trollery: he turned up at a wake, pissed in the punchbowl, and buggered off, thus spawning a Pit thread to which KVLD never turned up to. So much for him.
As for Hunter S., as for a writer and political and social commentator, I think that as far as the last century went he was one of the greats: as to whether he was one of the all-time greats, well, only the sieve of time knows that. And as to whether he was a decent human being, well, who knows except those who knew him?
So much was obscured behind his self-created mythos and public persona {which sadly deflected attention from his writing} that it’s impossible to tell. Even if he was a total arse, though, well, so was Beethoven by all accounts: the arsery didn’t detract from his achievements, nor should it detract from Hunter’s.
Oh, and Slithy Tove? You mentioned Bierce, Twain and Mencken at the table with Hunter passing round a fat one, but left out Swift.