This:
As all actual, practicing literary critics know, few sentences in critical works scream tendentiousness louder than:
What should be transparent to any literary critic is that . . .
Literary matters are only “transparent” when they’re not properly literary. If something is transparent, you don’t need a literary critic to ponder the depths it doesn’t have—any old idiot will suffice. And that’s exactly why Jack Cashillm author of the above and an idiot of long-standing, is just the man to prove that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father.
It gets better.
(via)
Xecky Gilchrist
Literary matters are only “transparent” when they’re not properly literary. If something is transparent, you don’t need a literary critic to ponder the depths it doesn’t have—any old idiot will suffice.
Wait, the sentence doesn’t say “what should be transparent” in isolation, it says “what should be transparent to any literary critic”. Doesn’t that make a strawman of “If something is transparent, you don’t need a literary critic to ponder the depths it doesn’t have—any old idiot will suffice.”?
I’m not doubting that Cashillm is an idiot, it just doesn’t look like he’s saying what the reader says he’s saying.
Or I’m misreading the claim – I don’t pretend to be all that literary or criticious.
JK
I first saw this posted on Edge of the American West. This writer really does a number on the Authorshipper Jack Cashill.
Here’s another nice takedown of Cashill http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=18811
geg6
That is a truly awesome takedown. And anyone who thinks Cashill is using anything resembling literary criticism in his fever dream rantings about how Ayers wrote “Dreams of My Father” didn’t read the post or has very strange ideas about what literary criticism is.
Comrade Tudor
@Xecky:
It’s okay, we can’t all be aware of internet traditions.
Zifnab
But if you string enough big words together, there’s no way it can be bullshit, right?
Comrade Jake
It’s almost like these people take pride in being ignorant. Wait a minute… who said that?
The best comment in that thread by far:
blogenfreude
The American Thinker is a daily festival of stupid.
DZ
@Xecky Gilchrist:
An interesting point and question, but, no, I don’t agree. Transparency is a state, not a POV. It either exists or it doesn’t, and the viewer’s profession is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not transparency exists.
geg6
Zifnab: It does help to disguise the bullshit a bit, however, if you refrain from mentioning that you don’t even know the meaning of what is in reality a rather small word like “baleful.” And let’s not even bring up the idea that eyes are a novel subject or that yellow dogs are unusual.
Dreggas
O/T (or not) but so much for “liberal Hollywood“
Morbo
@JK:
I must admit I laughed at this because it made me picture Cashill writing erotic fan fiction of various authors. Then I dry-heaved because I remembered that Jonah Goldberg is technically an author.
cleek
it’s just awesome how desperate they all are to find the next Rather memo. they ache for it.
sadly, this Ayers-ghostwriter thing just doesn’t have the zing of the Birther mythology, nor even the vague plausibility of the Secret Muslim fantasy.
Brachiator
Of course, this kind of attempt to prove authorship isn’t literary criticism at all.
handy
So Ayers being the alleged ghost writer of DFMF is apropos of what exactly?
We already know Obama and Ayers are BFFs because the former launched his political career in the latter’s “living room.” So what does this one additional piece of data supposed to prove above and beyond that? That beside being unable to give a speech without a TelePrompter, Obama can’t write, either?
Joshua Norton
AKA: Sunday morning political talk show pundits.
Dennis-SGMM
Cashill will point to Ayer’s use of the words; “you,” “the,” “it,” and “time,” in his previous writings. The fact that those same words are used in Obama’s book will prove Cashill’s thesis.
geg6
Dreggas: Hmmm. That just gives me a second reason to never see that film. Wait, make that a third. The first is that I didn’t see the first one and never felt one bit of regret over that. And second is that Transformers came on the market when I was in my 20s, I think. I don’t even really know what the hell they are. But now I know. They are wingnut robots. And I think there are enough of those already.
Ed Drone
But you’re missing the point! Ayers is the author of the fake birth-certificate, as well as the fake birth announcement in the Hawaiian paper. Don’t you get it? Ayers is everywhere! What was that Woody Allen movie about a guy who showed up in every historical photograph?
Ayers is that guy!
And he is the center of an Islamunist conspiracy going back to when Iran tried to nationalize the petroleum in their country and the brave CIA stalwarts prevented it by staging a coup against Mossaddeq. Also, he is secretly Judge Crater, but don’t tell anyone!
Ed
Tonal Crow
@DZ:
I disagree. Writing conveys information to the extent that the writer and reader share understanding of the topic, the language, and the idioms. For example, a paper on the thermodynamics of cloud formation might be perfectly transparent to an atmospheric scientist, yet entirely opaque to the average person. Or again, the Constitution — while perhaps crystalline in its day — has become increasingly difficult to interpret as our language and culture have evolved (thus, “originalism” really mostly isn’t).
gex
@geg6: Plus the thing is over 2.5 hours. One critic I listened to pointed out that his 14 year old son couldn’t even stand the length of the movie even though he enjoyed it. Do they not know who their target audience is?
Drive By Wisdom
I agree, but Cahill’s mistake is that he didn’t read the autobiography in the original Urdu.
JK
Unfortunately, I think our best literary critics are deceased. I wish Edmund Wilson, Lionel Trilling, Alfred Kazin, and Malcolm Cowley were still around to mull this one over.
@Morbo:
I’m not thrilled with the word authorshipper but it was the best term I could think of. Unfortunately, the authorship conspiracy nuts don’t have a catchy term associated with them like birther for the birth certificate conspiracy nuts. Maybe someone will come up with a snappy term for these douchebags.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Xecky Gilchrist: I think a better way to look at what the author is saying is that literary critics don’t have some magic x-ray glasses that allow them to see things as transparent that others don’t. It’s more that critics are, in their best sense, there to tease apart or compare texts with many possible interpretations.
On the other hand, supposed truths like …”the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams.” are neither interesting nor “transparent” to anyone except this idiot.
Dreggas
@geg6:
I actually liked the first movie, vapid as it was. I had hoped to see the second, but this tidbit of info gives me good reason not to.
Captain Goto
@geg6:
I’m sure that there are about umpty-fratz-million reasons to hate on T:ROTF, but several of the commenters over at WM:PoliAm have asserted that the accusations of political bias in the flick were (perhaps-too-subtle) snark on Matt Y’s behalf.
anonevent
@Dreggas: Actually, Bay used Obama’s name because he was president, nothing more. The Autobots have been told to leave because the president believes that the Decepticons are only after the Autobots. At the time, Optimus Prime doesn’t have any better information.
As for looking for Sam, the movie never actually shows a CIA person, so there is no indication of what they were planning on doing with him. If they had actually caught him, the CIA would have found out that the military would have needed to help.
In the first movie, Bay portrayed the president sitting in Air Force 1, lying in bed with his boots off, and the only thing he does during the attack on AF1 was ask for a Ding Dong in an annoying Texas-ish accent (although I have never heard it here).
Bill E Pilgrim
I liked Obama’s book “To Serve Man” best of all of them.
Though, “Klattu Barada Nikto” was a close second.
I think those who interpreted them to mean that giant robots were being summoned to carry us away and eat us are just being ridiculous hysterics.
Dreggas
@anonevent:
Hmmmm you have a point. Maybe I’ll still check it out. I hear it is one heckuva explosion fest.
Still want to see the new terminator and star trek but missed both in the theater.
Dreggas
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Obama didn’t write the Necronomicon he was the one the Necronomicon warned us about!
jerry 101
I admit it. It wasn’t Bill Ayers who wrote Dreams from My Father.
I wrote it.
My evidence? I, too, have misquote Sandburg by saying “Hog butcher to the world”
Actually, I think everyone in Chicago makes that mistake if they are quoting Sandburg. I wonder why…
Anyway, I guess that just proves that everyone in Chicago wrote “Dreams”.
anonevent
@Dreggas: The robot fights are awesome. The story is OK. Bay should have asked Bryan Singer – X-Men, X2 – to look at the script.
I have seen all three films, and, of the three, you must see Star Trek. It’s the one film you will actually want to talk about.
Dreggas
@anonevent:
I am looking forward to seeing the new terminator simply because it is the one I have been waiting for, ie enough of the time travel crap, give me robots and cyborgs vs. humans.
I definitely will be seeing the new star trek when it comes out either on dvd or on-demand since i missed it in the theaters. As much as I would have loved seeing it in the theaters, the cost of movie tickets is an expense I can’t justify at the moment.
Cyrus
I love how SEK points out that the only actual evidence of co-authorship goes the other way. That is, if among Obama and Ayers anyone ghostwrote anything, it’s more likely that Obama wrote Ayers’ book than the other way around, because of a legal term of art that appears in both.
Llelldorin
That’s just… bizarre. “Cast a baleful eye” is like literary clip-art–everyone uses it, constantly. Freaking gaming sites use it. He’s trying to build a case on that???.
DZ
@Tonal Crow:
Well, I guess we need to agree to disagree. IMHO, if a paper on anything is transparent only to a person with certain technical knowledge and skills, then the paper is not transparent. It is not necessarily obfuscatory, but it is not transparent. To me, transparency means all is revealed. In your example, the proper statement would be ‘as should be apparent to any atmospheric scientist’. That form accounts for specialized knowledge and skills but does not imply transparency.
SpotWeld
It sounds like the Ayers / Obama “connection” is about as strong as the Lincoln / Kennedy connection. In that both were assasinated and Kennedy has a secretary named Lincoln and Lincoln has a secretary named Kennedy.
Pasquinade
Someone with editing privileges should add Acephalous’ article to Cashill’s Wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cashill
The Wiki does include this article: Republicans try to use Oxford don to smear Barack Obama
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5063279.ece
asiangrrlMN
@DZ: Oooh, semantic debate! I side with DZ on this one. I would say apparent over transparent.
As for this ‘evidence’ that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book or vice-versa, well, the take-down says it all. To me, if the man does not know what baleful means without looking it up, he should STFU.
jibeaux
@Ed Drone:
Link him to ACORN, and I’m sold.
gex
@asiangrrlMN: Sometimes things that are transparent are invisible. Just ask these damn birds that keep flying into my windows.
asiangrrlMN
@gex: Heh. That’s true. I had a poor bird smack right into my transparent living room window, poor thing. Fortunately, he was only a bit dazed. He shook it off and flew away.
JMN Is Now asiangrrlMN's Official Stalker
This is Cashill’s first error. Nothing is transparent to a literary critic. Everything needs thirty pages full of jargon to really explain, including my grocery list.