« WAITASEC - HOW IS "MIA MEETS WOODY" CONSIDERED LUCKY? | Main | BUT HE DOES LIKE THAT DICKENS FELLA »

June 28, 2004

Comments

Kevin Holtsberry

Hitchens venom aside, surely you can see that Moore has a loose relationship to facts and truth? Even the local progessive alt weekly here in Columbus critized the film for its lack of accuracy and reason.

At least Edelstein in Slate felt guilty about wanting a man like Moore on his side.

Ed

Kevin: I don't think anyone's disputing that Moore is essentially presenting his opinion in the form of a documentary that collects existing information established by other sources. The film is, in part, a polemic. But surely the Lila Lipscomb footage (objective terrain in which Moore is well away from camera) and the remarkable Bush gaffes are prima facie. Or as my sister recently put it, "Anyone who walks away from it without feeling something is a cocksucker."

Kevin Holtsberry

I am not saying that parts of it aren't funny or effective or even that I disagree with all of it. All I am saying is that shouldn't Moore's inability to make a factual argument or his seeming complete disregard for truth or even for journalistic standards count against him? Is this what the left has come to?

As I noted even the lefty in the alt weekly I read this AM was willing to admit that Moore is a poor spokesmen who is unlikely to win over anyone not already on his side.

I dislike Limbaigh and Coulter and a host of others even though our political views when broken down are put us on the same side of the spectrum. I was wondering whether Mark felt this way about Moore.

Dan Wickett

It seems that if you can't put together a straightforward, factual argument to make your point, that something is wrong with your ability to make that point.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the point isn't there to be made - just that you might not be the person to be making it.

The fact is though, it's politics, the folks who spent $21.8 million dollars to see this film over the weekend went in with a viewpoint, and I'd bet 99.8% or more came out with that same viewpoint. They just came out hating Bush or Moore even more than they did when they entered the cinema.

And as for Hitchens, my reading of him is limited to the book on Clinton, the two lengthy essays on Kissinger from I believe it was The Atlantic (and I'm sure they somehow formed the book about him, but I'd guess he flushed it out), and some other essays.

I personally see how he's gotten any more biting or vindictive than he's ever been. It's just pointing in a different direction now.

bookdwarf

I think everyone agrees that Moore's movie is very loosely called a documentary. And yes, most of the people who went to see it this past weekend probably already had a negative opinion about Bush and his administration. But I think its important that this movie be seen and talked about. Bush and his cohorts have gotten away with a great deal and the media is not doing its job in reporting it. Yes, Moore is biased, but at least he is talking and making a point. Maybe some people who are undecided about the current administration will now vote Bush out in November.

The comments to this entry are closed.

TEV DEFINED


  • The Elegant Variation is "Fowler’s (1926, 1965) term for the inept writer’s overstrained efforts at freshness or vividness of expression. Prose guilty of elegant variation calls attention to itself and doesn’t permit its ideas to seem naturally clear. It typically seeks fancy new words for familiar things, and it scrambles for synonyms in order to avoid at all costs repeating a word, even though repetition might be the natural, normal thing to do: The audience had a certain bovine placidity, instead of The audience was as placid as cows. Elegant variation is often the rock, and a stereotype, a cliché, or a tired metaphor the hard place between which inexperienced or foolish writers come to grief. The familiar middle ground in treating these homely topics is almost always the safest. In untrained or unrestrained hands, a thesaurus can be dangerous."

SECOND LOOK

  • The Bookshop by Penelope Fitzgerald

    Bs

    Penelope Fitzgerald's second novel is the tale of Florence Green, a widow who seeks, in the late 1950s, to bring a bookstore to an isolated British town, encountering all manner of obstacles, including incompetent builders, vindictive gentry, small minded bankers, an irritable poltergeist, but, above all, a town that might not, in fact, want a bookshop. Fitzgerald's prose is spare but evocative – there's no wasted effort and her work reminds one of Hemingway's dictum that every word should fight for its right to be on the page. Florence is an engaging creation, stubbornly committed to her plan even as uncertainty regarding the wisdom of the enterprise gnaws at her. But The Bookshop concerns itself, finally, with the astonishing vindictiveness of which provincials are capable, and, as so much English fiction must, it grapples with the inevitabilities of class. It's a dense marvel at 123 pages, a book you won't want to – or be able to – rush through.
  • The Rider by Tim Krabbe

    Rider_4

    Tim Krabbé's superb 1978 memoir-cum-novel is the single best book we've read about cycling, a book that will come closer to bringing you inside a grueling road race than anything else out there. A kilometer-by-kilometer look at just what is required to endure some of the most grueling terrain in the world, Krabbé explains the tactics, the choices and – above all – the grinding, endless, excruciating pain that every cyclist faces and makes it heart-pounding rather than expository or tedious. No writer has better captured both the agony and the determination to ride through the agony. He's an elegant stylist (ably served by Sam Garrett's fine translation) and The Rider manages to be that rarest hybrid – an authentic, accurate book about cycling that's a pleasure to read. "Non-racers," he writes. "The emptiness of those lives shocks me."