| |
|
"I think the root of the bad reaction, Hallucigenia, is not so much your prose style per se., but the blatant fallacy in your rhetoric—i.e., your flaunting of your credentials in an attempt to establish the argumentum ad verecundiam with regards to your ideas, when of course the ideas should speak for themselves."
It seems you're confusing the rhetorical fallacy of argument by authority with the (rather too defensive) mention of background after an argument has already been made. Had I said, my argument is correct because I possess these degrees, then your charge would be correct. However, that isn't what happened: I made my point and then, in a lapse of taste, mentioned a mini-bibliography of sources demonstrating why I found the discussion of rhyme to be pertinent. The hinge word is pertinent, not proof.
However, belaboring me about the head with the extremely obvious point that degrees and publishing histories do not validate one's views has nothing to do with the actual words I posted. Let me state it again: the published essay on rime was mentioned in passing. No fallacy was involved. (In point of fact, I wanted to ask the mods to remove the biblio bit after posting it but refrained because I'd just asked them to allow me to delete or modify two other posts. I wasn't used to being unable to revise a post after submitting it; even so, I didn't want to trouble the mods continuously.)
Also: your remarks regarding rhyming titles suggest you still haven't gleaned my original point. If you didn't catch that, then perhaps you can agree that you might have misunderstood what I was saying.
"You can take that from me on faith, given that I *am* currently in print on three continents."
If you're suggesting it was an error on my part to have flaunted my resume ironically (and not to have committed a rhetorical fallacy, since I didn't), I agree -- though your emphasis on that point is perhaps unnecessary.
I might add that you've just done the same thing of which you accused me -- alluded to your bibliography -- and tried to mediate the effect (unless you're making ironic mention of being published internationally on Barbelith), just as I did. I also wonder if you're aware that the tone of your reply contradicts your point. How is it logical for one person to preach to another condescendingly of how not to be self-important?
"I think in time you'll find that folks here are generally pretty open-minded and open to different levels of rhetoric—but that they don't take kindly to being beaten over the head with anyone's diplomas."
Nor do I take kindly to opening remarks such as "I couldn't read that actually, all the way through." The poster might as well have accused me of fuzzy math.
We all might benefit from inverting Cicero's famous quote to fit the times. "The authority of those who teach is often a hindrance to those who wish to learn," he said, and that has often seemed true (especially in elementary school). But in these days of Murdoch-enforced populism and knee-jerk anti-intellectualism -- days in which John Kerry was dismissed as an "intellectual elitist" even as the instrument of economic segregation was championed as a regular Joe -- it might be time to conclude we've wasted enough effort railing at the Ivory Tower. Perhaps it's time to switch that quote: The authority of those who don't wish to learn is often a hindrance to everyone else.
"And I know my close personal friend Paul Auster would agree."
If you're not being completely sarcastic about knowing Auster, that might give us something to talk about later, when this urine-spraying contest has been relegated to the lint pile. |
|
|
