Re: Credibility Gap

1

You should dress like LB and then we'd all take you as seriously as we take her.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
2

Oh, I'd need references to sell that one to people I know -- that's a story calculated to draw a "Really? Nah, not really. Really? You're sure? Really?" from anyone even halfway cautious.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
3

1: Today, orange plaid! (and I'm not even kidding about that.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
4

I think it's more an in-person versus online thing - the crazy stories here are provided complete with helpful links. Plus the patriarchy to some extent.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
5

3: That's practically the legal profession's uniform these days.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
6

3: LB is a Red Weathered Innes? Or a MacDonald?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
7

There any number of subjects that in real life that I could speak on with an authority that I would never dare to presume here. It's just the nature of the site, I think. For example, to an ordinary person I seem well-read. Here among on the world's most over-educated dilettantes, I'm practically illiterate. I would never spout off my half-assed theories of literature here.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
8

Here among on the world's most over-educated dilettantes hive-mind . . .

Always remember that, as smart as the people here ar,e, it isn't actually the case that each individual commenter is expert in five obscure fields, just that for any obscure field there are likely to be multiple commenters with interest and/or expertise in that field.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
9

And there's a fair amount of bluffing going on. I get involved in the literature conversations, despite knowing nothing about literature not derived from having read a whole lot of it in a simplemindedly naive kind of way.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
10

I consciously avoided commenting on or forwarding that story because it seemed overwhelmingly likely some important details were being elided. And thus tyranny prevails.


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
11

And there's a fair amount of bluffing going on.

Seriously! It's like a freaking grad school party! Of course everybody sobers up right quick when it's obvious that the bluffing has stopped and the "No, really, what are you talking about?" commentary begins.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
12

Seriously! It's like a freaking grad school party!

Isn't that part of the draw? I wouldn't want to be at a grad school party but having the opportunity to eavesdrop on one and occasionally interject isn't a bad thing.

Though, really, I think unfogged is less like that these days than it was.

Perhaps I am overestimation the ratio of useful information: social posturing at a typical grad school party but unfogged seems pretty good at providing useful information.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
13

The grad school parties I used to go to had way more awkward pauses and people looking like they'd rather be home chatting online.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
14

Perhaps I am overestimation the ratio of useful information: social posturing at a typical grad school party

I'm sure it depends on the school and the departments involved, but this place is pretty much exactly like the grad school parties I went to (which were populated chiefly by philosophy, political science, sociology, history and sometimes literary criticism people). They weren't dumb, not by a long shot, but there was posturing. There's not a lot of sharing information at a party at which everybody sees each other routinely anyway, is there?

But yes, sure, it's part of the draw for me; it's a comfortable dynamic.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
15

My grad school parties were more like this party. Actually, they were exactly like that party in every respect.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
16

15: I know you went to law school, Halford, but I don't think of law school and other professional schools as being "grad school."

And to follow up on Walt, dsquared is definitely much smarter than I am and more informed in more areas (often wrong about a lot, but more informed). And there are many people who are quicker and better writers.

There are others, but he's one of the people who is not an academic, about whom I ask, "how does he hold down a successful day job?"

I am depressingly illiterate on all kinds of social theory. I know almost nothing about Marx, and I only heard of Gramsci about 5 years ago.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
17

It's absolutely true that law school may have blinded me to the fact that academic grad school parties are not, in fact, very similar to the party linked in 15. My sincere apologies.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
18

There are others, but he's one of the people who is not an academic, about whom I ask, "how does he hold down a successful day job?"

I rely on my superficial charm, BG.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
19

18: You joke, ajay, but you and Alex are a couple of the others.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
20

17 - A stunning example of someone calling a standard Unfogged bluff.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
21

There are others, but he's one of the people who is not an academic, about whom I ask, "how does he hold down a successful day job?"

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you think these people are too smart to be successful outside of academia? Or that they spend too much time commenting on blogs? Or...?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
22

I think the implication was "How does someone who presumably spends a normal amount of time holding down a full-time job nonetheless have the spare attention and energy to have strongly informed opinions about obstetrics and war owls?"


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
23

19: well, Alex doesn't hold down a successful day job because he's only 11 (or something; depressingly young anyway) and I am a master of multitasking and delegation.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
24

22: LB gets it.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
25

And also manage to comment during the day. Academics can always work weekends or whatever on their own research. As long as they ultimately perform, it doesn't matter how they get there. This is less true of other professions, though it should be noted that there aren't many doctors commenting here. I suppose that psychiatrists might have an easier time doing it, since they may have a gap in their day, and they usually have a 10 minutes or so between patients.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
26

22, 24: Thanks for the explanation! Probably belonged on Standpipe's blog, but I guess Unfogged is becoming a kinder place for the not-so-bright.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
27

26: Well, no. I was not so clear.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
28

I recall having similar thoughts back when the blogospere was new (to me anyway), but now I just take it for granted that no one that works at a computer actually is doing work. Everyone is like me, except smarter.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
29

||

I have a question about the NotW stuff, which I haven't followed. I am only now finding out who Rebekah Brooks is, and am reading that before she was arrested, she was a Murdoch favorite who is alternately disliked by her targets or called a "flame-haired temptress."

My question is, is there any support for calling her a temptress besides the fact that she wears her hair down? Is this just an utter failure of thought on the part of some sychophants? A google image search doesn't show her vamping, or even looking at the camera, nor using sexual cues in her presentation. Joan Holloway on Mad Men is a temptress, as in, she is using sex to tempt men. Brooks doesn't appear to even be trying to do that. Why is anyone calling her that?

|>


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
30

the fact that she wears her hair down

That, and standard tabloid style, it seems to me.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
31

All redheads ooze sexuality, Megan. We just can't help it. On the NOTW front, they're pretty sloppy for criminal masterminds.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
32

I mean, I'm willing to believe any number of bad things about her. But one that does not show up in the first page of pictures of her is that she is using sexuality to increase her power.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
33

32: I hadn't heard that temptress bit, but I do think that by acting as the executive of a tabloid she is sort of acting as a temptress--no more than a man, of course.

I was sort of feeling the tiniest bit bad for her, sicne she worked her way up and was so close to Murdoch, but then I heard her interview naming and shaming pedophiles, and I lost any and all sympathy. Prying on the prurient appetites of people is kind of based on using titillation as a sales strategy.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
34

Not completely ugly + had a celebrity husband obviously = temptress in tabloidese.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
35

is there any support for calling her a temptress besides the fact that she wears her hair down?

Something more is required?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
36

But I also wear my hair down.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
37

I hadn't known she had a celebrity husband, and would have thought it was almost entirely her hair (which is awesome, by the way). That and the fact that there are a couple of photos out there of Brooks and Murdoch in which he looks like he has a shit-eating grin on his face.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
38

So it seems like there should be a higher bar.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
39

Megan, you ignorant slut.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
40

I'm not ignorant.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
41

in tabloidese.

This is the key, of course. If the NYT was referring to her thus, it would be different. Certainly Ms. Brooks herself would endorse this characterization herself, were she not on the business end of it.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
42

Whoops - that was me.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:09 PM
horizontal rule
43

It would seem that wearing one's long hair down is similar to the way in which you all said, years ago, that wearing dangly earrings signals sexual availability, as every woman allegedly knows, such that she does not engage in this behavior unless she intends to so signal. I can't find the relevant thread, but that's not important right now.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
44

is there any support for calling her a temptress besides the fact that she wears her hair down

I get the impression that in English public life, having red hair is proof positive (for women) that you're a slut, or (for men) a nerd.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:16 PM
horizontal rule
45

In fact, google for "flame-haired temptress" and ignore references to Ms. Brooks, and you will find that the phrase simply means "woman with red hair."


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
46

The tabloids refer to her unfailingly as a "flame-haired temptress"; the broadsheets--the more up-market newspapers that affect a disdain for the tabs--as "Titian-tressed" or "Pre-Raphaelite."


Posted by: Mr. Blandings | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
47

My own mother, in re my two black eyes, etc., just told me: "You look like H/e/dda Nu/s/s/baum." One of those NYC horror story names (like the Collyer Brothers or Eit/an Pa/itz) that will never fade from memory.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 5:56 PM
horizontal rule
48

Brooks does seem to be signalling something with the red hair, but I don't think it's sexual availability. It seems to me (in her case) more along the lines of the stupid red braces etc. that finance types would wear in the 80s, which were intended to signal powerful buccaneering 'don't-give-a-fuck'-ness. That's consistent with its being a re-purposing of something (e.g. Pre-Raphaelite hair) that might in other circumstances signal conventional femininity. Then you've got your Glenn-Close-in-Fatal-Attraction thing, which is a related but distinct semiotic deformation. And there are benign versions, as in the feminist red lipstick craze of the 80s/90s (a look still effectively deployed by the likes of Tilda Swinton).

(YMMV, of course. I'm now worried that I'm playing the Alvy Singer role in the bit of Annie Hall where Alison Porchnik tells him dryly that, no, she just loves being reduced to a cultural stereotype.)


Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
49

She looks like Robert Plant.


Posted by: OPINIONATED VIEWER | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
50

I hadn't known she had a celebrity husband

Which she beat up like a redheaded stepchild, allegedly. Made funny, for tabloid levels of funny because said celebrity husband was best known for playing hard men on the telly.

But temptress? Not with that pram face.


Posted by: Martin Wisse | Link to this comment | 07-18-11 11:35 PM
horizontal rule
51

This seems like as good a thread as any to ask how you feel about Dedication to My Ex.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 12:19 AM
horizontal rule
52

google for "flame-haired temptress" and ignore references to Ms. Brooks, and you will find that the phrase simply means "woman with red hair."

Exactly. Were she blonde, she would be "blonde bombshell Rebekah Brooks" - the point is describing a tabloid editor in tabloidese. Private Eye does this a lot, referring to "gorgeous, pouting Paul Dacre" and so on.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 1:43 AM
horizontal rule
53

"gorgeous, pouting Paul Dacre"

That's a mental image I am going to have to try hard to shake.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 4:09 AM
horizontal rule
54

If the image is in your mind, you can make him shake any way you want to.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 4:24 AM
horizontal rule
55

Were she blonde, she would be "blonde bombshell Rebekah Brooks"

But temptress is based off a verb, to tempt. She doesn't appear to be trying to tempt, which makes me think the descriptor may not be strictly accurate, and that calls everything else into doubt!

Unless the standard for 'trying to tempt; seduce' has been reduced to 'being female and wearing one's hair down', in which case I am implicated.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
56

She doesn't appear to be trying to tempt, which makes me think the descriptor may not be strictly accurate, and that calls everything else into doubt!

At all costs, Megan, you mustn't let your faith in the essential honesty of the British media be shaken.

The standard for "being a temptress", just for reference, is "being female and having red hair". If you have black hair, you can't be a temptress. You can be (I think) sultry, or exotic if your skin tone is anywhere south of Dulux Eggshell White Gloss, but that's it. If you're blonde you can be a bombshell, as I mentioned, but not a sultry one.

Men, meanwhile, can be ashen-faced, tight-lipped, or bronzed and fit. Or indeed all three, like Neasden FC's legendary manager Ron Knee.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
57

I have brown hair, worn loose. What are my options?


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
58

Death or dishonor?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
59

You really only have one option if you want the tabs to notice you at all - not death, but definitely dyeing.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
60

39 to 57.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
61

If you have black hair, you can't be a temptress.
I get 23,000 results for "flame-haired temptress" and 27,900 for "raven-haired temptress".


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
62

Murdoch Apparently Attacked With White Foam During Hearings

The hearings over the News Corporation phone hacking scandal were briefly suspended after a man apparently attacked Rupert Murdoch with a plate of white foam. Murdoch's wife, Wendy Deng, hit the man back before he was pulled away and taken away in handcuffs. Sky News identified the man as comedian Jonnie Marbles. Marbles tweeted shortly before the incident: "It is a far better thing that I do now than I have ever done before #splat."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
63

57: "Free spirit"
"Earth mother"
"Frump"


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
64

57: Wholesome?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
65

Ooh, 1,340,000 hits for "brown-haired slut". You're in luck, Megan!


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
66

61: any hits from the British tabloids, though? I am willing to admit the existence of raven-haired temptresses if presented with adequate evidence thereof.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
67

Foam seems to combine the worst of all worlds.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
68

Never mind, I assumed styrofoam, like he hit him with a tin full of packing peanuts.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
69

re: 66

A photo of Hedy Lamarr?


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
70

Raven-haired temptress.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
71

70.--I would wear the hell out of that hat.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
72

OK, "raven haired temptress" is an option. But I refuse to believe that the tabloids ever refer to brown-haired temptresses.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
73

Rebekah, Flame-Haired Temptress Of My Dreams


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
74

What about brunette? Maybe you're googling the wrong hair reference.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
75

Are temptresses still "dusky" or is that out of style, like henchmen being "swarthy" or "browless brutes of the criminal classes"?


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
76

Are temptresses still "dusky" or is that out of style

Sultry or exotic, I think.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
77

I'm working on "tawny", but the early results aren't promising.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
78

"Peeling-nosed temptress" is pretty much out of the question, Eggplant.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
79

Only two hits for bald-headed temptress.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
80

Only 643 hits for brunette temptress.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
81

In fact, google for "flame-haired temptress" and ignore references to Ms. Brooks, and you will find that the phrase simply means "woman with red hair."

Yeah, this. I mean, she's obviously flame-haired. And once you're there, temptress just automatically follows as far as the tabs are concerned. It doesn't signal anything. It's just a stock phrase.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
82

80: I guess you'll just need to buckle down and work harder at your tempting.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
83

78: I should think so. Is that a definition of tawny?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
84

83: well, you said you were working on "tawny" but it wasn't going well, so I assumed sunburn was involved.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
85

In the 1980's, Tawny Kitaen was a flame-haired temptress.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
86

On my back and chest, you can see the hand prints from when I was half-assed about applying sun screen. Fortunately, I don't think it will peel.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
87

Ah, no, I meant I was fucking an eagle. And, yes, it didn't go well.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
88

82: Some people get everything handed to them.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
89

||

What the **** is this "successful investor" idea? Who thinks this way? I know, economists. Who not only thinks this way but assumes everyone else thinks this way? Economists who live in DC.

|>


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
90

I don't see that Pre-Raphaelite hair ever signaled conventional femininity; more of a "I eat men like air". Surely that works well for a tabloid editor, especially one born with that wonderful hair.

||
My ex-PI continues to bring me the crazy. Current PI is backing me from a distance, but the shoals are treacherous.

|>


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
91

I don't see that Pre-Raphaelite hair ever signaled conventional femininity; more of a "I eat men like air".

That's really not the impression I get from looking at red-haired Pre-Raphaelite women.
Like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_of_Shalott_%28painting%29

Or this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_%28Millais_painting%29

Or this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene_%28Sandys%29


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
92

In fact, Pre-Raph man-eaters tend to be black-haired (Medea, the Siren).


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
93

Shalott fell in love inappropriately and is dead; Mary Magdalene is obviously still being sinful in that picture; and Esther is breaking her husband's rules. Those weren't proper feminine women to the Pre-Raphaelites (I'm reading _The Duke's Children_ at the moment, which is largely about how impossible it was to be a proper feminine woman.)

I shouldn't have said 'ever'; the choice of no-more-than-two of [beautiful, alive, virtuous] is, I guess, now conventional femininity.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
94

Mary Magdalene is obviously still being sinful in that picture....

"She holds an alabaster ointment cup, a traditional attribute which associates her with the anonymous sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet in Luke 7:37."

And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.... [redtextforjesus]Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.[/redtextforjesus]

Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
95

I'd say the sinful/weeping/forgiven was a big ol' sexual charge to the P-Rs. It adds that spice of suffering not available with your plain old sexuality.

Anyway, look at her face. Pouting! Heavy-eyed!


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
96

Anyway, look at her face. Pouting! Heavy-eyed!

She's not Paz de la Huerte, clew. I find your Magdalene-shaming offensive.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
97

But she's practically Paul Dacre.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
98

I think there's a Philip Kerr novel in which the murderer kills one of his victims while same is admiring some Pre-Raphaelite paintings and feels slightly justified thereby.

Note to any murderers: I like the rich light and domestic scale of Chardin.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
99

My story, and I'm sticking to it, is that anything involving swooning (understood broadly to include languishing, drowning, etc. in the manner depicted) is conventionally feminine.

While the Lady of Small Onion, Mary Magdalene, Ophelia etc. may have been unconventional in the sense of transgressive, their transgressions were of a sort conventionally associated with passion, as opposed to action, and hence with femininity.



Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
100

Private Eye does this a lot, referring to "gorgeous, pouting Paul Dacre"

NME used to have the same running joke, though the canonical formulation was "luscious, pouting".

And here's John Peel deploying it self-referentially.



Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
101

99.last: That's interesting. You're reading passion as passive? Surely it's figured as passive primarily for women -- hence the swooning. Passionate men are often active. Real men don't swoon, obviously.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
102

But there's also passion as suffering.

Next up: land-use planning in Thomas Kinkade!


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 6:27 PM
horizontal rule
103

Now you've gone too far.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
104

Yes, I was intending "passion" etymologically - "passivity" would probably have been clearer.

A passionate man, while often moved to action, is still passive in the classical sense that what he is moved by is (not reason but) emotion, which is construed as a matter of being affected (hence terms for emotion like "affect" and "the passions"). A woman's passion, in this picture, is a more paradigmatic case, however, because the emotion supposedly tends not to lead to action ("Take me, big boy!", etc. etc.). This picture doesn't make sense if we accept the doctrine (as in Hume) that all action is ultimately motivated by the passions (because then we can't distinguish passionate action from action motivated purely by reason) but it's still there in the etymological background of our talk.

None of this is news to you, I'm sure - just wanted to get my meaning out there on the table.


Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
105

75: Are temptresses still "dusky" or is that out of style

They're articulate.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
106

102: I don't know if you meant this, but passion as suffering stems from the same usage as the others. To suffer is to passively bear/endure/tolerate/allow ("Suffer the little children to come unto me", "Suffer not a witch to live"). It's just that in contemporary usage we tend to restrict it to enduring pain, evil, etc.


Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
107

it's still there in the etymological background of our talk.

It is. And it's interesting.

Big thunder and lightning here at the moment, and I'm wondering whether the power will go out, so I'm off.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
108

Real men don't swoon, obviously.
Dammit.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
109

105: But not necessarily clean.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
110

|| For those of you keeping score at home, this will annoy the crap out of our friends at Exxon. |>


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07-19-11 10:20 PM
horizontal rule
111

109: Can't believe it took over 12 hours for that shoe to drop.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07-20-11 6:08 AM
horizontal rule
112

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/20/rebekah-brooks-hair-distracts-at-murdoch-phone-hacking-scandal-hearing.html

Hair story.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07-20-11 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
113

112: Jesus, first the nod that the writer knows they are being an asshole, "It's always risky to attach politics, social status, or cultural affinity to a hairstyle--to endow it with too much meaning." and then the payoff, "That was look-at-me hair--stare at me, remember me. Me, me, me". [emphasis in the original]. Turns out it is written by the always predictable Robin Givhan, she of Elena Kagan needs to cross her legs and Hilary's cleavage. But I guess if you're the fashion editor that is the lens you see the world through.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07-20-11 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
114

I think Brooks's hair is very nice, however wrong she might be otherwise.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-20-11 9:05 AM
horizontal rule