(no subject)
If, out of the people I've spoken to about Andrea Dworkin, I believe that any of them had read, understood and given proper thought to her essays/books then I would listen to their views. As it is, nobody I know, including myself, has done so. Then why should I listen to what they have to say?
With every single subject, that's every single one, there is a cut-off point where you should not be allowed to speak unless you know enough. Sometimes people understand this, I rarely see people sitting around discussing John Steinbeck when they haven't read anything he's written, sometimes people don't. The moments that people don't get this are when the subject is something that can be passively engaged in. Mainly music, television and film. But also in more broad subjects like politics or, more recently, feminism. I'm consciously staying out of any debates about the subject of feminism itself, I more prefer to talk about other people's views and why they shouldn't hold them, or at least, why they shouldn't say them out loud. I'm sure we can all agree that, when you know something about a subject, it's annoying to hear people talk, at length, about said subject and yet be completely wrong.
There is a whole seperate argument to go alongside this about how absurd it is that we have 'television critics' with no real distinction between the different types of television (such as drama, comedy or documentary for example). To go alongside that is an argument about just how good television is, and can be, and that anybody who says 'I don't watch television really, I think it's rubbish' is wrong.
But asides apart and in conclusion, be wary of talking about Andrea Dworkin (or anything/one else) because it's likely that you might not know exactly what you're talking about. I'm assuming (and here's my tree-climbing skills coming into play) that underneath her extreme views, she had a sound basis which is ignored. But that's all I feel I can say, and I'm not saying this comfortably because I understand that they're may not be a strong foundation underneath it all.
But other people will always know more than you, don't take that to mean you can't talk about something just because, out there, somebody will beat you down in argument if necessary. Talk about whatever you like, but please do a little bit of background reading. The internet is the largest source of information that mankind has ever had access to but it also allows people to have their say more easily. Most people do not research a topic before thinking and speaking, this is ridiculous.
While I'm at it, I have become disillusioned with what I do and what I'm striving for. Some sort of recognition for writing really, doesn't seem to be muc point. Yes, we can make all these leaps and bounds in literature but I know I will never be a strong contributer. And for those that are, is it that important? I spend my time reading classic books or television programmes for no real reason, I suppose the fact that I am interested in and enjoy them might be enough but at the moment it doesn't feel like it. It all seems so 'wishy-washy' really, quite pathetic in ways.
God knows where I'm going to go from here, probably continue in the same path I'm in. Watching and reading whilst trying to make something half-decent of my own but I don't think I'll ever really understand why I'm doing it. The other route is to stop and have some fun. I am taking steps to start doing more, f'r'nstance, tomorrow I'm going to Bradford with Colette for the National Museum of Photography, Film And Television to watch archive material mainly.
I am aware that this entire entry was written by somebody who doesn't really know what they're talking about. This rather throws the whole thing into disrepute, don't you think?
With every single subject, that's every single one, there is a cut-off point where you should not be allowed to speak unless you know enough. Sometimes people understand this, I rarely see people sitting around discussing John Steinbeck when they haven't read anything he's written, sometimes people don't. The moments that people don't get this are when the subject is something that can be passively engaged in. Mainly music, television and film. But also in more broad subjects like politics or, more recently, feminism. I'm consciously staying out of any debates about the subject of feminism itself, I more prefer to talk about other people's views and why they shouldn't hold them, or at least, why they shouldn't say them out loud. I'm sure we can all agree that, when you know something about a subject, it's annoying to hear people talk, at length, about said subject and yet be completely wrong.
There is a whole seperate argument to go alongside this about how absurd it is that we have 'television critics' with no real distinction between the different types of television (such as drama, comedy or documentary for example). To go alongside that is an argument about just how good television is, and can be, and that anybody who says 'I don't watch television really, I think it's rubbish' is wrong.
But asides apart and in conclusion, be wary of talking about Andrea Dworkin (or anything/one else) because it's likely that you might not know exactly what you're talking about. I'm assuming (and here's my tree-climbing skills coming into play) that underneath her extreme views, she had a sound basis which is ignored. But that's all I feel I can say, and I'm not saying this comfortably because I understand that they're may not be a strong foundation underneath it all.
But other people will always know more than you, don't take that to mean you can't talk about something just because, out there, somebody will beat you down in argument if necessary. Talk about whatever you like, but please do a little bit of background reading. The internet is the largest source of information that mankind has ever had access to but it also allows people to have their say more easily. Most people do not research a topic before thinking and speaking, this is ridiculous.
While I'm at it, I have become disillusioned with what I do and what I'm striving for. Some sort of recognition for writing really, doesn't seem to be muc point. Yes, we can make all these leaps and bounds in literature but I know I will never be a strong contributer. And for those that are, is it that important? I spend my time reading classic books or television programmes for no real reason, I suppose the fact that I am interested in and enjoy them might be enough but at the moment it doesn't feel like it. It all seems so 'wishy-washy' really, quite pathetic in ways.
God knows where I'm going to go from here, probably continue in the same path I'm in. Watching and reading whilst trying to make something half-decent of my own but I don't think I'll ever really understand why I'm doing it. The other route is to stop and have some fun. I am taking steps to start doing more, f'r'nstance, tomorrow I'm going to Bradford with Colette for the National Museum of Photography, Film And Television to watch archive material mainly.
I am aware that this entire entry was written by somebody who doesn't really know what they're talking about. This rather throws the whole thing into disrepute, don't you think?