���Chris Green writes: >Well, now, that's hilarious. It seemed "obvious" to me that it >was intended by "Gladwell" not as a serious piece, but as as >a sendup, (just look at the joke names of the people "interviewed": >Sanjive, Guff of Malarkey College, Bunquum). It also seemed odd >to me that Mike didn't realize it was a sendup. But now Allen >informs us that it was a sendup, OF Gladwell, not BY him. Guess I got had.
Chris: I looked long and hard at both your [see below] and Mike's postings and couldn't see any sign that the article was recognised as a parody. That's why I highlighted the following: >And Christopher Green wrote: [snip] >>more to the point of THIS ADMITTEDLY TRITE >>GLADWELL PIECE…" (emphasis added) Apologies, Chris. I can only say in mitigation that you responded to Mike's posting as if he were dealing with a genuine piece by Gladwell with no indication that the subject of the discussion was a joke, and you also referred to the "admittedly trite Gladwell piece". I thought, strewth!, even Chris is taking it seriously. Yes, in retrospect I can see that by referring to the "Gladwell piece" you didn't mean to imply that it was a piece *by* Gladwell – my mistake. I would add that there *are* occasions when someone quickly glances at an article, gets the general drift, and doesn't bother with the details if he or she doesn't think it worth bothering with. So it wouldn't have been totally *impossible* that, in the light of a response from Mike with which you wanted to take issue, and following only a quick glance at the article itself without taking in the details, you had taken it to be genuine. Incidentally, I didn't think the piece by Craig Brown was at all trite. It did what good parody does, take the familiar characteristics of a person or writer and exaggerate to the nth degree. Mike writes: >you seem to be saying that he pretends to interview people >and uses the made-up interview to parody/sartirize/mock the >interviewee. Perhaps you reach this conclusion because you >are familiar with Brown's other writing where he has used this >"gimmick" (since he is a British writer and not that well known >on this side of the pond). Yes, it is not uncommon in the UK to have a satirical column such as "Gordon Brown's Week" written in diary form, with the hint at the bottom, "as told to journalist X". In my previous posting I had originally written something on these lines, then deleted it to keep my posting short and to the point. I'm sorry I omitted it now. But, quite honestly, I thought it was pretty obvious that the piece was a send-up. >Given what Vanity Fair has presented on Brown's Malcolm >Gladwell article, what either in the magazine or the webpage >on which it appears supports your contention that it is fiction? In the case of parody, it rather spoils the joke to spell out what you are doing. >I recognize that writers may write about things in a satirical style >but one often has to know both the writer and the person/thing >being satirized to realize that it is satire. I have to disagree with you there. In this instance one only has to know the person being satirized. >I concede that Brown may have written a parody of Gladwell but >on the basis of what available evidence (that is the article in VF >and on the website) would lead one to this conclusion? Okay, it helps to know that Craig Brown specialises in this kind of thing, but something *that* over the top just *had* to be a parody, and serious writers don't generally send themselves up. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- RE: [tips] Dropkicking Malcolm Gladwell: Steven Pinker Style Mike Palij Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:41:47 -0800 On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:52:48 -0800, Allen Esterson wrote: >Malcolm Gladwell discusses Christmas with Craig Brown. > > http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/gladwell-200912 Perhaps what I like least about Gladwell's writing is when he comes off like a snarky intellectual version of Larry King, as he does in this throwaway article. A greater investment of time but with a much greater payoff would be Stephen Nissenbaum's "The Battle for Christmas" which provides an interesting history of the holiday from the setting of the date of Christman in 400 AD, its manifestation as "misrule" and rejection by some Christian sects such as the Puritains (Christmas was briefly legally banned in Massachusetts), and its reinvention by a number of New Yorkers into a child centered holiday (with borrowing from other cultures, especially German) that we continue to celebrate today. Nissenbaum is a professor of history which might be interpreted as implying that perhaps he has some idea of what he is talking about though, clearly, simply being a professor (as in Pinker's case) might imply to some the opposite. Nissenbaum's book is available in snippet view on books.google.com, see: http://books.google.com/books?id=-q6BAAAAMAAJ&dq=christmas+history+nissenbaum&q=contents#search_anchor It also available in book form on Amazon (sadly, there is no version for Kindle gnawers or Kindle nibblers): http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Christmas-Stephen-Nissenbaum/dp/0679740384/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258290808&sr=1-4 or http://tinyurl.com/yzsa2vz -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu Re: [tips] Dropkicking Malcolm Gladwell: Steven Pinker Style Christopher D. Green Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:31:48 -0800 Mike, That's a little like comparing a scholarly treatise on life in neolithic times with the old Reiner & Brooks "2000 Year Old Man" routine with ("We spoke Rock." "Really, could you give me an example of Rock?" "Yeah. 'Hey you, don't throw that Rock at me'.") Of course, Mike has never had a cynical thought about Christmas, or (more to the point of this admittedly trite Gladwell piece) about the kind of overly obvious research conclusions that psychologists sometimes like to dress up as being Scientific Discoveries. :-) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- RE: [tips] Dropkicking Malcolm Gladwell: Steven Pinker Style Mike Palij Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:36:20 -0800 On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:52:13 -0800, Allen Esterson wrote: >In relation to this article: > http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/gladwell-200912 >Mike Palij wrote [snip] >> Perhaps what I like least about Gladwell's writing is >> when he comes off like a snarky intellectual version >> of Larry King, AS HE DOES IN THIS THROWAWAY >> ARTICLE. (emphasis added) >And Christopher Green wrote: [snip] >> more to the point of THIS ADMITTEDLY TRITE >> GLADWELL PIECE…" (emphasis added) >And Mike again: >> It may come as a surprise to some, however, that GLADWELL >> IS DOING A SHTICK, but this is, of course, his most >> adorable/annoying characteristic. :-) (emphasis added) > >Hey, folks. The article was a parody of Gladwell *written by Craig >Brown*. Really? The piece by Brown appears on page 206 of the December issue of Vanity Fair. At the end of the one page article it says: "--As Told to Craig Brown" The same statement is made under the headlines of the Paltrow article on the VF website (though not for Gladwell's piece, instead under the headline there is the statement "Malcolm Gladwell explains Christmas to Craig Brown"). Now, if Brown interviews Paltrow and Gladwell, I expect that Brown is the author of the printed interview. However, this is not the sense of "written" you imply, rather, you seem to be saying that he pretends to interview people and uses the made-up interview to parody/sartirize/mock the interviewee. Perhaps you reach this conclusion because you are familiar with Brown's other writing where he has used this "gimmick" (since he is a British writer and not that well known on this side of the pond). But I must ask the following question: Given what Vanity Fair has presented on Brown's Maccolm Gladwell article, what either in the magazine or the webpage on which it appears supports your contention that it is fiction? I concede that Brown may have written a parody of Gladwell but on the basis of what available evidence (that is the article in VF and on the website) would lead one to this conclusion? I recognize that writers may write about things in a satirical style but one often has to know both the writer and the person/thing being satirized to realize that it is satire. For example, being able to follow Michael Musto in the "Village Voice" often requires extra knowledge to distinguish the "phoney" statements he might make from the "real" statements. Does reading Craig Brown require such knowledge? Does one have to be in on the joke to know that it is a joke? Or is everything he writes a joke? >Craig Brown would be amazed that it led to a serious exchange >on the meaning of Christmas! http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/craigbrown.shtml I would say that if he was amazed, then he would be amazed at the statement among theater folks that "Satire is what closes on Saturday night" (attributed to George S. Kaufman who apparently was a runner-up in a "Barton Fink" look alike contest, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Kaufman ) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
