…or maybe just paranoid, it’s so hard to tell. Here is Mitchelmore
on RSB, commenting on Dan Green’s curious assault on
Dostoevsky, and some of the subsequent comments:
I’m glad someone – i.e. Mark – feels the same way as I do about the tone of the
comments. The Guardian’s Book blog has been the preserve of what I thought was a peculiarly English trait so it’s shame to see it
It is also a shame Dan gives encouragement in his latest blog to one prominent GBB gobsh*te whose comments there remind me of a
cross between Russell Brand and Oliver Kamm; concerned only with smart-arse superciliousness rather than debate.
It’s true, I now
have a technorati rating of 4, and it’s beginning to go to my head. I should be starved of the oxygen of publicity. (I wonder though if
Mitchelmore’s concern isn’t more that there could be an individual in existence who would quote him one day and me the next – and see nothing
fundamentally wrong in this).
I’ve been wondering for a time if there isn’t a very subtle humour in Mitchelmore’s work which a casual
reading doesn’t do justice to: – here, for instance, he takes a moral line about the “tone of the comments” – presumably, their offensiveness; and
then proceeds to launch into a random piece of offensiveness of his own. It would be too simple a reading to suggest he was merely being
As to debate: well, I’m not entirely sure, from my experience over the years, that blogs are the best place for
As to superciliousness: well, it usually occurs thus: – i am thinking to myself, shall I deride this particular poster and point out to
them that what they have said is ignorant gibberish: – no, maybe I should take a different tack here. (It is the same with religious fundamentalists:
– debating with them is not always the more productive approach). – Besides, in general, others have already indulged themselves in such ridicule as I
deem is necessary. – Actually, the only person on GU I’m conscious of being supercilious towards is Rourke, and even then it’s only a playful mock-
superciliousness which he seems to take in good part. I like Rourke, even if he is a bit crazy. – And of course, in truth, I don’t really take
literary criticism all that seriously; I have no pretensions in that area (just as well, you say; for you are no good at it); and so often it seems to
me the only possible use for studying literature is this very one-upmanship – that I know more about text x than the next man. – Anyway, if it is mere
superciliousness, no doubt it could all be swept aside by some good reasoned argument.
You can, of course – thanks to new Guardian technology – decide for yourself whether you think my comments are
supercilious and lacking in a willingness to argue by looking up Obooki’s comments. –
Only certain articles, I’d say: – the ones that deserve superciliousness.