In re: How to Win at Feminism: etc., both the linked review and the book under review:

When review author Becca Rothfeld writes that “a straightforward acknowledgement of investment is the least forgivable gaffe,” she–inadvertently?–cuts to the heart of why parody and irony are ineffective as tools for social change: it is the essence of parody and irony to call attention to phenomena without acknowledging investment.

As Rothfeld is certainly aware, “8 Brands More Responsive Than Your Boyfriend” can be read as an incisive take-down of the ways in which women involute their emotional lives in response to societal pressure, sublimating their human needs for affection and recognition into a consumerist sphere that offers products to  enhance their lovability, and finally trapping themselves in an approach/retreat cycle with–not the male object of affection directly, but rather–their own sexuality, or (worse) a reification of gender anxiety that replaces their authentic sexuality, as they pursue a false idol of The Relationship that exists only as an artifact of a femininity constructed to satisfy the strictures of a patriarchal mainstream culture.

Of course, “Your Bra Insert Is The Only Makeup Sponge You’ve Ever Needed” can be read in the same way. But I venture to guess that it generally isn’t.

It’s widely noted that parody highlights problems, rather than proposing solutions; it tears down, rather than building up. Parody, by its nature, lacks “a straightforward acknowledgement of investment” of the author in the author’s intended reading of the text, or indeed in the subject matter as a whole. Parody stands apart, pointing and laughing.

There is, however, a deeper issue with the pragmatics of parody. In parody, the author says one thing but means another. She uses the device of asserting the ridiculous to signal that a subtext is present, and the nature of the ridiculous content to imply the content of that subtext. However, as parody crucially omits assertion of any authentic opinion or worldview, the assumption that the reader can recover the author’s intended subtext relies on the assumption that the reader will accurately identify what the author intended as a ridiculous, and why. That is, the success of parody–taking “success” in the sense of conveyance of the author’s intended message to the reader–relies on the assumption that author and reader share the same opinions and worldview.

Parody, then, assumes an audience of “us.” Parody not only eschews persuasion; it is not only incapable of persuasion: it is hostile to the very possibility of persuasion, or of dialogue more generally. Parody is the walking-three-steps-behind-your-parents-rolling-your-eyes of political discourse. We all know what the right answer is, it says, and if you don’t know we’re certainly not going to tell you.

But, you know, it’s not the seventies! Feminists don’t have to be shrill and ugly anymore, amirite? I don’t want to come across as some humorless “you’re-oppressing-me-with-your-penis” feminazi deploying reasoned, supported argument in grammatical complex sentences. Then he definitely won’t text me back.

So.

Cf. Charles Krafft. Also, I recall reading a similar argument about ironic racism in The Stranger a while back–essentially, that if it’s indistinguishable from actual racism, it is in practical effect just racism–though I couldn’t find the article in a quick search.

Advertisements

As I processed a dominant Euro-American writing pedagogy from the perspective of an aspiring fiction writer and an immigrant critic of color, I couldn’t stop wondering: are we, in 21st-century America, overvaluing a sight-based approach to storytelling? And could this be another case of cultural particularity masquerading itself as universal taste?

Despite the title, I think the line of argument in this piece is largely orthogonal to the intent of the “show, don’t tell” aesthetic. Regardless, nice to see attention to “cultural particularity masquerading itself as universal taste,” and it’s worth a read.

I must admit that I am completely flummoxed by this article. The following paragraph, in particular, confuses me:

If classical Chinese poetry is going to reinvigorate English anew, though, it will need to come to terms with Ezra Pound’s Chinese, and what his translations and poetry did for poetry and translation, as well as for our understanding of China. Pound was a fascist and anti-Semite and translated from Asian poetry without knowing the language in question, so it makes sense that an uneasiness would come from both curmudgeonly specialists in Asian literature repeating the Arnold line of displeasure at his inaccuracies, as well as from Newman-like purveyors of poetic taste who’d rather deny that Pound’s contributions to English have anything to do with his representations of other cultures. Some might even imply that the discursive style into which East Asian poetry has been translated since Pound only reveals the racism behind the enterprise of translating Chinese into English (how many times was Pound mentioned, for instance, as paving the way for “Yi-Fen Chou” and Calvin Trillin’s New Yorker poem?).

I happened to run across the phrase “cultism and aesthetic compromise with the representatives of oppression” this morning; possibly relevant here.

 

More about memoirfrom The Guardian. I’m not sure the analysis in the piece makes its case very convincingly, but the title asserts something worth thinking about. Meanwhile, on the fictional side, I’ve just discovered Tessa Hadley; The Past has some women looking at themselves and noticing things that don’t get a whole lot of play in popular culture.

Edit: Compare this conversation.

I’m not sure exactly how I ended up there, but I just reread a New Yorker article from 2013 that makes “the case against empathy.” I remember being struck by the article the first time around; it dovetailed with some thinking I was doing about social media and tragic narratives, and I’m pleased to be led back to the same area. The line of reasoning in the article is relevant to inspiration porn (see also here, in Ted-talk form) and feminism as well. Hard, good stuff.

 

Gin and Tacos

DOPAMINE'S ONLY NATURAL PREDATOR

The Baffler

Writing about writing

Scarfolk Council

Writing about writing

Lawyers, Guns & Money

Writing about writing

Jacobin

Writing about writing

Hazlitt

Writing about writing

FiveThirtyEight

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about politics, sports, science, economics and culture.

The Point Magazine

Writing about writing

The Millions

Books, Arts, and Culture

The Awl

Writing about writing

The Rumpus.net

A place to read, on the Internet. A literary community. A platform for progress.

Electric Literature

Amplifying the power of storytelling thorough digital innovation

bookforum.com

Writing about writing

Los Angeles Review of Books

Writing about writing

The New York Review of Books

Writing about writing

Crosscut

Writing about writing

The Seattle Review of Books

Writing about writing

Literary Hub

The best of the literary web