ad hominem is a completely irrelevant personal attack.
The phrase "unpopular fat girl's pathetic daydreams." is not an ad hominem because the phrase, vulgar as it may be, is relevant to the point. It may be a stereotype, and not always true, but it *is* shorthand for a more complicated situation that means "someone who suffered from teasing and dislike from her peers is likely to daydream about being popular and liked in a manner completely devoid of reality since the daydreamer has no personal experience in that subject."
And I think that's a completely accurate assessment of the story. If the author isn't actually an unpopular fat girl with pathetic daydreams, this story plays out like the product of one.
An ad hominem attack would be to say "You are wrong about your claim that vaccines don't cause autism because you're a big poopie-head and you smell bad". Which is completely irrelevant. One can be a big poopie-head and smell bad and the claim can still be correct ... or the claim can be false, but it's not false because he's a big poopie-head who smells bad.
Or, to put it in perspective of this movie, "this movie sucks big donkey balls because the writer is a big poopie-head". Being a poopie-head doesn't prevent or cause someone to be a good (or bad) writer. But, being an unpopular fat girl with an active imagination and little experience with relationships *is* relevant to her ability to write a romantic story with an attracive and popular cast because that experience will affect the writer's story.
As you said, an artist puts a little of himself into his art - he puts his experience, his feelings, his views, etc. Art is not like an empirical fact that can stand as truth on its own merits. The empirical fact is still true (or not true) regardless of who speaks of it. But a piece of art being good or not good is subjective, and who the artist is contributes to the creation of that piece of art.
Yeah, maybe if someone used the phrase in the context of an insightful and well-informed criticism of the novel and the ways in which the author's experiences have influenced it, it would be kind of acceptable, if still pointlessly vulgar.
Given that criticisms like that linked in the OP tend to be neither insightful nor well-informed, though, I think it's a stretch to view them as anything more than gratuitous name-calling.
In this case, the DC for a succesful insight check to determine "Who is Bella based on?" is about 2. From what I've read of the book and have gotten from the movie, insight doesn't enter in to it very much. XD
It should be noted that the criticisms in the linked OP tend to be more about the movie than the book ("...oh well, the script was written 2 weeks before the movie was released!"), and, in general, my own criticisms tend to be more movie-related, that being what I know.
Allthough don't get me started on shiney vampires. That is, in my own very humble opinion, the stupidest addition to vampire mythology ever. Ever ever ever.
The phrase "unpopular fat girl's pathetic daydreams." is not an ad hominem because the phrase, vulgar as it may be, is relevant to the point. It may be a stereotype, and not always true, but it *is* shorthand for a more complicated situation that means "someone who suffered from teasing and dislike from her peers is likely to daydream about being popular and liked in a manner completely devoid of reality since the daydreamer has no personal experience in that subject."
And I think that's a completely accurate assessment of the story. If the author isn't actually an unpopular fat girl with pathetic daydreams, this story plays out like the product of one.
An ad hominem attack would be to say "You are wrong about your claim that vaccines don't cause autism because you're a big poopie-head and you smell bad". Which is completely irrelevant. One can be a big poopie-head and smell bad and the claim can still be correct ... or the claim can be false, but it's not false because he's a big poopie-head who smells bad.
Or, to put it in perspective of this movie, "this movie sucks big donkey balls because the writer is a big poopie-head". Being a poopie-head doesn't prevent or cause someone to be a good (or bad) writer. But, being an unpopular fat girl with an active imagination and little experience with relationships *is* relevant to her ability to write a romantic story with an attracive and popular cast because that experience will affect the writer's story.
As you said, an artist puts a little of himself into his art - he puts his experience, his feelings, his views, etc. Art is not like an empirical fact that can stand as truth on its own merits. The empirical fact is still true (or not true) regardless of who speaks of it. But a piece of art being good or not good is subjective, and who the artist is contributes to the creation of that piece of art.
Reply
Given that criticisms like that linked in the OP tend to be neither insightful nor well-informed, though, I think it's a stretch to view them as anything more than gratuitous name-calling.
Reply
It should be noted that the criticisms in the linked OP tend to be more about the movie than the book ("...oh well, the script was written 2 weeks before the movie was released!"), and, in general, my own criticisms tend to be more movie-related, that being what I know.
Allthough don't get me started on shiney vampires. That is, in my own very humble opinion, the stupidest addition to vampire mythology ever. Ever ever ever.
Reply
Leave a comment