Re: What if Your Muse Isn't Into SF?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:50:06 -0700 (PDT), Nicky
<nicky.matthews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:47=A0pm, s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jonathan L Cunningham)
wrote:
Tawdry is just another fashion choice - just another option. (Like the
fashion style grunge.) Not one of my favourites but, hey, who am I to
judge?

Only it isn't - it has a clear pejorative implication and the fact
that you read it idiosyncratically isn't really a good enough
justification for complaining that Julian was somehow being too clever
in his piece.

Aaarrgh! I'm not complaining.

Have you completely missed my point?

Curiously, JF himself appears to understand what I wrote. Whether he
agrees with it or not, he hasn't said. :-) But if you and Brian weren't
so keen on taking me to task for having the temerity not to get the
message in JF's snippet, we would be done by now.

For the fifth time, I am saying that not everybody will get it [the
intended meaning].

You got it, Brian got it, I didn't. Ergo, not everyone gets it.

I maintain that I am not unique in this respect: is that what you are
disagreeing with? You think I am the only person in the world who won't
get JF's intended reading?

If so, let's be clear about that. You think that such an overwhelming
majority of people will read it your way that it is idle to contemplate
any other possible interpretation.

I think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that JF can be too
subtle for some people, that I seriously doubt you are right.

As I have said, and I am repeating this too, I have no problem with JF's
writing. And I didn't say it was too clever. I said it was clever.
"Clever" is not pejorative, it is an accolade.

This reminds me of someone who complained that she had a problem when
I described soldiers as being 'bare headed' because she kept thinking
I meant 'bald'.
As a writer I think you have to file such quirky reactions under 'not
my problem.'

It depends how many people interpret what you write incorrectly. If you
think that level of mistake is akin to regarding religious decoration as
blasphemous, or "tawdry" as akin to "obscene" rather than merely
"gaudy", then I can only disagree.

Which also illustrates my point: we disagree on the interpretation. I
can *see* your interpretation, once it has been explained. I think
(rightly or wrongly) that interpretation is only "the" obvious one to
people who share a certain kind of background - one which I think both
you and JF share, and which I now also believe Brian shares. (This does
not surprise me, but nor would I predict it.) That, also, is not
pejorative: you will willingly concede that you share many things in
common with JF and Brian. This is just another one.

But can you even see my interpretation of JF's piece? My guess is that
Brian would agree that he can, but in a somewhat irritated and irascible
tone would add that it is not at all the most likely interpretation, and
give etymological reasons, that only he could know, why that is so :-)

Jonathan

.

Relevant Pages