Someone please tell Andrea Mitchell that ignorant AND arrogant is no way to go through life
And yet apparently NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has managed to do just that.
As someone or other used to say: sad.
Here’s the error Mitchell made in an attempt to put Ted Cruz in his place:
.@SenTedCruz says #ImpeachmentTrial is like Shakespeare full of sound and fury signifying nothing. No, that’s Faulkner
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) February 10, 2021
Mitchell graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in English literature. Granted, for the 74-year-old Mitchell it was a long time ago. But the “Tomorrow” speech in “Macbeth” is one of the most well-known (and brilliant although depressing, I might add) passages in all of Shakespeare. I’m not quite as old as Mitchell but I remember the speech, which I had to memorize in high school or maybe junior high. Here it is, for those of you who’ve never had the pleasure:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Yes, Faulkner did indeed write a book titled The Sound and the Fury (I never could plow through Faulkner although I tried, but that’s another story). But surely Mitchell knows that Faulkner came a bit after Shakespeare.
The most impressive (and not impressive in a good way) thing to me about Mitchell’s behavior here is not that she made an error. We all make errors. It’s that she apparently didn’t doubt herself for the moment it might have taken her to look it up, so intent was she on having a “gotcha!” moment with Cruz. Not only that, but she made this very lame excuse when people pointed out her embarrassing error:
I clearly studied too much American literature and not enough Macbeth. My apologies to Sen. Cruz.
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) February 11, 2021
Oh, really? Does the brain only hold so much information, and when a person studies Faulkner it necessarily displaces all knowledge of Shakespeare to make room? What’s more, as John Hinderaker helpfully points out:
Here’s the thing, though. No one who studied Faulkner even superficially could fail to understand that the title of The Sound and the Fury was a Shakespearean reference. This was explained in every freshman English class where Faulkner’s book has been taught.
Here’s why: The full Shakespeare quote, from MacBeth, says that life “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Why did Faulkner choose that Shakespeare quote for the title of his book? Because the first section of The Sound and the Fury is, in fact, a “tale told by an idiot.” It is a narrative by a character named Benji who lacks normal mental capacity. He describes many things that he does not understand–other people playing golf, for example–and the art of that section of the book is for Faulkner to write it so that Benji doesn’t understand what he is seeing, but we do.
This is all undergraduate English stuff, and no one could study Faulkner in college without the origin and significance of The Sound and the Fury being explained.
Jennifer Rubin seems every bit as ignorant and arrogant as Mitchell. But why would that be any surprise? She quickly jumped on the very rickety bandwagon:
and it says volumes about his lack of soul. That's Any Thinking Person.
— Jennifer 'America is Back' Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) February 10, 2021
Oh dear.
Why do I even bother with this? It’s not important – except for what it tells about the mindset and knowledge base of so many of those who profess to be qualified to tell us what’s going on and what it might mean. I can’t stand Twitter, but one function it has often served is to display and highlight the feet of clay of our very own chattering classes. It is all too often a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing except the propaganda that helps shape our lives and the future of this country and the world.
Bonus track: the very first time I ever heard a reference – an oblique one, to be sure – to this Shakespearean speech I was about eight years old and didn’t understand the allusion. It was on a Tom Lehrer record my family had. In this song he is doing a number of satiric riffs on the old song “Oh My Darling, Clementine,” rewriting it in several different styles. Here’s the portion where he introduces a segment in the style of Gilbert and Sullivan. I didn’t understand why the audience laughed at “full of words and music, and signifying nothing.” Later, when I studied “Macbeth” and had to learn that “tomorrow” speech, I had an “Aha!” moment:
[NOTE: I’ve learned that whenever writing a piece like this, pointing out someone else’s stupid mistake, there’s some sort of rule that one must be very very careful to avoid the karmic trap of making a mistake oneself, a trap that always beckons. I hope I’ve avoided that pitfall.]
[NOTE II: There’s also a Robert Frost poem that I encountered in junior high or high school that makes a reference to the “tomorrow” speech. The reference is in the title as well as the theme: see “Out, out–“, one of Frost’s darkest and most heartbreaking poems. He may have assumed that most people reading the poem knew the literary reference, but that was in 1916. Apparently the poem was based on a true incident that happened to a friend of his son.]
[NOTE III: I noticed that a lot of the replies to Mitchell’s tweet criticized her for apologizing to Cruz at all, saying that there never would be any reason to apologize to such a vile person.]
Reminds me of Sarah Palin’s “party like it’s 1773”, and media progressives were so quick to point out that the Revolution was in 1776… which is true but the Boston Tea Party was in 1773.
(Oh and does anyone remember the Coffee Party? Whatever happened to that no doubt completely real grass-roots movement that opposed the Tea Party and got fawning press?)
It’s like they have room in their heads for only one factoid. If Faulkner used “Sound and Fury” than no one else possibly could have, and if the American Revolution is associated with 1776 than nothing else of any relevance to it could have happened in ay other year.
Mitchell and the even more egregious Rubin (at least Alan Greenspan’s wife does not pretend to be conservative) deserve all the scorn and mockery being heaped upon them, particularly because, although once upon a time it took some effort to search through books for the accurate sources of quotations, it now takes only a few seconds through the internet. The non-conservative Jonathan Turley did very well in his commentary on this topic to quote the following lines from Macbeth: “Or have we eaten on the insane root/That takes the reason prisoner?”
Your title ripping off a classic line from “Animal House” is sizzling, neo. Our Ruling Class mouthpieces deserve such snark, over and over like a boot stomping on their faces.
Thank you for this post, Neo. Of course, Mitchell’s gaffe is of little importance, in and of itself. But it is one of scores and scores of examples of our MSM ‘betters’ attempting to brandish their intellectual and cultural superiority to we deplorables, only to beclown themselves.
It’s bad enough when real experts are condescending. But for people with credentials and without expertise to do so, and get it wrong, is hilarious.
But you cannot make them ashamed. They will cover for each other anyway.
Maybe she should retire.
Maybe all politicians/reporters etc over retire!
Given that most English….oops…I mean World Literature departments at most colleges have now dropped all Shakespeare courses and/or requirements, I doubt a modern audience would even laugh at Lehrer’s reference.
I actually learned most of my Shakespeare junior year in high school. I really doubt that’s the case anymore as the high schools usually take their lead from the colleges. Can’t have any dead white guys making any profound and universally applicable statements.
Regarding that bonus track, it seems so strange to me that there was ever a time when you could tell a Macbeth joke in front of a group of people who weren’t English teachers and expect everyone would get it. But then I’m about half as old as Andrea Mitchell
Reminds of the scene from the classic Christmas movie ‘Die Hard’ where the ‘expert’ brought onto the newscast refers to the ‘Helsinki Syndrome’ for hostages identifying with their captors and the news anchor smugly replies ‘named for Helsinki, Sweden’.
Great scene skewering both experts and vacuous talking heads.
I’m an old Tom Lehrer fan, bought his first two albums when they were new. And of course I studied Macbeth in high school. But somehow I never noticed that “full of words and music, and signifying nothing” was a Shakespeare parody. Duh.
j e, these days it only takes a few seconds on the internet to find a quotation wrongly attributed, usually to Albert Einstein or Ben Franklin.
Neo, you can make this nice post perfect by correcting the type Clemntine.
Might one be forgiven for believing that these days, “ignorant and arrogant” is an all-caps FEATURE and not a bug? A huge plus with no downside? A tremendous advantage? A pair of trendy—compulsory?—character traits?
(Qualifier: But only if you’re smearing, attacking, slandering, demonizing, inciting against, lying about and/or ridiculing the right people.)
Case in point, but just one of myriads (AKA, heeere she comes again—gosh, I guess we’re just not paying her enough attention):
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-clinton-calls-gop-lawmakers-voting-acquit-trump-co-conspirators
File under: “National Unity Nano-Second…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
“Regarding that bonus track, it seems so strange to me that there was ever a time when you could tell a Macbeth joke in front of a group of people who weren’t English teachers and expect everyone would get it. But then I’m about half as old as Andrea Mitchell”
A bit from an old, old comedy sketch, based in Caesar’s time:
Guy walks into a bar and says “Gimme a Martinus.”
Bartender: “You mean Martini.”
Guy: “If I wanted a double, I’d have asked for a double.”
This was aimed at the general public, back when people had at least a passing familiarity with Latin.
Thanks TJ. I was struggling to remember where I’d heard the variant phrase. John Nolte posted a nice retrospective review of Animal House just two or three days ago.
_____
I noticed that a lot of the replies to Mitchell’s tweet criticized her for apologizing to Cruz at all, saying that there never would be any reason to apologize to such a vile person.
There it is. Conservatives are not to be treated like human beings. I was going to say “mark your calendar” a lefty actually apologized to a conservative.
______
It’s amusing that Shakespeare’s idiocy reference is either an appearance of idiocy, or possibly a real idiocy when seen from a later and more distant perspective. Whereas the Mitchell and Rubin idiocy is more like the real thing. Well OK, Neo’s characterization in the title is perfect.
______
I had an unknown (to me) Shakespeare passage realization not unlike Neo’s. There’s movie called “Independence Day” (1996) starring Will Smith and Bill Pullman playing the POTUS. There is a scene where the President give a big speech to the fighter pilots before they do battle with the alien invaders.
Purportedly, Bill Pullman was so unhappy with the speech he begged the director to axe it saying, “If I do this speech I might never work in Hollywood again.” The speech is something of a dramatic climax just before the action climax, and I suppose it is easy to see the speech either as horrible and over-the-top or good if you’ve been sucked into the plot line.
Fast forward a decade or more and a friend dropped by and we always try to watch interesting films together, and we pulled up Kenneth Branagh in “Henry V.” O-M-G. The climactic “St. Crispin’s Day” speech before the battle of Agincourt was entirely ripped off by the writers of “Independence Day.”
bof:
“Neo, you can make this nice post perfect by correcting the type Clemntine.”
You did that on purpose, didn’t you?
bof; Sonny Wayz:
As I said, the trap beckons. 🙂
At least it was just a typo. Thanks, fixed!
“At least it was just a typo. Thanks, fixed!”
I was referring to the typo in bof’s post. I *think* it was deliberate, but if not, well, is there a word for multiple levels of typo?
[hits ‘post’ after carefully proofreading…]
Ah, but the predecessor phrase…
Told by an idiot,
Aye… There’s the rub.
😀
Andrea makes millions in salary these days (who doesn’t?) and married Ezra Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chair, in 1997 after a “lengthy” relationship. Ezra habitually put all his money in bonds, Federal and municipal, through the several decades when interest rates aka bond yields were falling so over time the bond values rocketed and his net worth zoomed. Nice place to be when as Fed Chair you influence the rates!
}}} [NOTE: I’ve learned that whenever writing a piece like this, pointing out someone else’s stupid mistake, there’s some sort of rule that one must be very very careful to avoid the karmic trap of making a mistake oneself, a trap that always beckons. I hope I’ve avoided that pitfall.]
Indeed, one of my absolute favorite things to jump on with both feet is:
“Your an idiot”.
Or any variation thereof …
I have to constrain myself from being a Grammar Nazi 24/7, because I spot such errors instantly without even trying (My brain is naturally good at proofreading).
But whenever I see someone insulting someone ELSE’s intellect, (esp. when I agree with the victim), and they commit bonehead errors (homophones, usually, but sometimes it’s using the wrong “similar” word) it’s open season.
I lead with both barrels, then bring out the Howitzer.
“It’s time for some GLEE, boys!!”
😛
I wrote a long blog post on this myself, that mirrors many of your thoughts. But I did add this:
I don’t think they’re stupid. I think the answer is simpler, and it allows me to use one of the left’s favorite buzzwords.
I think the answer lies in systemic bias against conservatives. Leftists have an unwavering belief that all conservatives are stupid. And because of this and their own smug superiority, they see “gotcha” moments everywhere, and can’t wait to pounce when one arrives.
See, if I saw Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) or even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12) say something that seemed off to me, I wouldn’t immediately leap to tweet about how stupid they are. I would check to make sure my memory is correct first.
In fact, I just tried this from my phone. I opened up a search page and started typing “sound and “ and that was enough to get a suggestion of “sound and fury signifying nothing”. Tapped to search, and after the bits about Andrea Mitchell and Ted Cruz, the next few results were all about Shakespeare. Took me about 10-15 seconds. Mitchell could have done this.
But the systemic bias against conservatives doesn’t allow leftists to do that. They have to show their superiority, and that must be done immediately while the iron is hot.
Exit question: Jennifer Rubin’s response seems to imply that because Cruz doesn’t know the origin of the quote, that he has no soul. But since Cruz is right and it’s Rubin that’s wrong, does that mean that she’s the one with no soul?
“[NOTE III: I noticed that a lot of the replies to Mitchell’s tweet criticized her for apologizing to Cruz at all, saying that there never would be any reason to apologize to such a vile person.]”
Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.
(It has a certain ring to it, don’t cha think?)
Chris of Rights:
I’m also going to assume that Mitchell knows – or should know, because one can’t assume much of anything these days – that whatever a person may think of Cruz politically, he’s known for being really really really smart. So a person ought to think twice before correcting him on something academic.
Twitter is great because it allows you to read the garbage your local reporters support, it’s really eye opening.
neo,
Agreed. I actually meant to put something about that in my post, but got interrupted in the middle and forgot about it when I returned.
Part of the systemic bias that liberals have against conservatives is that they confuse “political stupidity” with “actual stupidity”. We on the right do this too, but to a lesser degree, I think.
So, Mitchell clearly thinks that Cruz’s political ideas are stupid, therefore he is. I would not make that same mistake about Nancy Pelosi, for example. Now there are those on the left that I do think are complete idiots. AOC comes readily to mind. But people like Pelosi, Obama, Hillary Clinton are not dumb. They have a worldview I find inconceivable, but I’m sure they all have an above average IQ.
Tommy Jay
I am sure Bill Pullman was aware of the references to the Henry V St. Crispin’s Day speech. For several reasons.
I was (briefly) in the theater department at UMass Amherst not too long after Bill Pullman graduated from there with an MFA. Back then, in the UMass theater department, students read a LOT of Shakespeare. A big chunk of the reading list for the graduate comprehensive exam was Shakespeare. So I know he read the play. He also very likely saw it. And he probably had to memorize the speech.
Kenneth Brannagh’s film was extremely popular among theater people when it came out. Even though that was when Pullman was working on “Ruthless People,” he very likely saw it then, or sometime after.
When “Independence Day” was being filmed, it was only about six years after, and it was still a film people were renting.
Roland Emmerich is the type of director who would have made sure that his actor was aware of the connection between that speech and the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V. (There were lots of other Shakespeare references in the film.)
While it’s possible that Bill Pullman begged not to make the speech, it’s likely that it would have been because he thought the reference to the St. Crispin’s Day speech was goofy. Not because he wasn’t aware of the reference.
At least, however weak, Mitchell apologized to Sen. Cruz. Rubin did not and that, reveals her to be a real shrew. Apparently one without redeeming features.
neo:
In the early days of Internet comments it was extremely common for multiple people to point out any grammatical or spelling error made in any post or comment. I’m a fan of proper grammar and spelling, but this is open discourse. If our cousin from five states over calls on the phone to see how we are doing, do we chastise him if he uses the pronoun, “me” in the nominative case? And, it’s not unusual for commenters from foreign countries who speak English as a second language (as happens here) to write comments. The more the merrier, I say. Knowledge is furthered when folks focus on the contents of posts and comments, rather than format and punctuation. Fortunately the trend appears to have dissipated greatly over the years.
Sonny Wayz,
On more than one occasion while dining I’ve let diners know they had a spaghetto on their clothing.
Lee Also,
I looked up a copy of the pre-battle speech in Independence Day. It seemed much shorter than I remember, though I’m surprised how often films get re-edited years or decades after their release. That speech borrows in concept and it’s last line or two from Shakespeare, but otherwise it is a pale shadow of the Bard’s work. If the Pullman story is true, it is probably because it just isn’t a very good speech. I’m certain Pullman knew the St. Crispin’s Day speech.
King Henry boasts of the small number of men fighting, so that the glory of the day needn’t be shared by many. The President boasts of the world wide scope of the fighting force. There a lots of differences, but then comes down to the glory of the day, either St. Crispin’s or Independence Day.
I have a friend who is or was a prof. at UMass Dartmouth. Haven’t seen him in a long time.
Chris of Rights,
I too had trouble making sense of Rubin’s slur. Maybe she means Cruz is soulless for believing the impeachment trial is unimportant? Trying to think like Jen Rubin is not something I want to spend a lot of time doing, but looking at it from her perspective that’s about the only explanation I can come up with that gives her tweet meaning.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I think Rubin meant Cruz was soulless because he was supposedly so ignorant of Faulkner’s great work.
It’s a bit hard to channel Rubin, but I think that’s what she meant.
As folks have pointed out here and elsewhere, isn’t Twitter just an amazing revelation!?
Never before in history have we had the opportunity to observe in real time just how ignorant, petty, and vindictive our ‘Elites’ are.
Oh well, anything they can do, I can do better!
And Neo has proven prior form re baking a pie. So guess we’re covered.
Neo
Nor did I understand it- not until you explained it to me. I grew up on Tom Lehrer. Except for The Elements, I knew his lyrics by heart before I was out of high school. I read Macbeth in high school and in college. (In my Shakespeare college course, I read the assigned plays twice.)Before today, I never made the connection between Tom Lehrer’s patter on Gilbert and Sullivan and the sound and fury speech from Macbeth.
Chris of Rights
Anyone with a minimal knowledge of Ted Cruz’s background realizes that he is anything but stupid. In addition, having been a college debate star at Princeton and also having argued 9 cases before the Supreme Court, it is rather unlikely that Ted Cruz will make a factual mistake on a tweet. After all, he can speak for minutes in front of the Supreme Court, without assistance of a teleprompter, with a logical, fact-filled argument.
neo,
Faulkner was one of few authors whom I gave up on. In my youth I was an avid reader, and even when I encountered an author or book that was not holding my interest initially, I almost always stuck with it assuming that it was my lack of knowledge or taste that was at fault, and not the writer’s. It didn’t take too many pages into Faulkner’s “The Sound and the Fury” to determine it and he were not for me.
Neo writes:
“It’s a bit hard to channel Rubin, but I think that’s what she meant.”
I think I know why it’s hard for you to channel Jennifer Rubin (the Washington Post’s conservative pundit). Because you’re a conservative and she, alas, is not.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I could not get through Faulkner at all. Just couldn’t. Would read the same paragraph over and over – and that wasn’t easy, since each paragraph lasted about 10 pages 🙂 .
I haven’t seen anybody else make this comment but I suspect the source of Mitchell’s error is simply that Faulkner has been so much more fashionable for liberal wannabe intellectuals than Shakespeare, particularly if you graduated college in the 60s like Mitchell did.
After all, just about everybody when Mitchell was younger had been exposed to Shakespeare while Faulkner was more of a smart-set, urbanite obsession. Bonus points, of course, for Faulkner being something of a non-entity in pop culture the last couple of decades, while there were still multiple TV and film adaptations of Shakespeare done in the 2010s.
Mike
“I could not get through Faulkner at all.”
I confess, I don’t think I’ve ready any Faulkner but a writer who can’t be read isn’t that good, no matter what the critics say.
Mike
^^ This… F’s an In-Group Signifier to a particularly self-satisfied demographic.
neo @7:41pm,
That was my first thought also, but we know Rubin thinks that Cruz believes he is quoting Shakespeare. Even if Rubin thinks Cruz is ignorant of Faulkner, referencing Shakespeare (even incorrectly, as she believes) doesn’t seem soulless. That’s why I concluded she must have been questioning how anyone could think the hearing is trivial.
To paraphrase the ending of Chinatown: “Forget it neo, it’s Rubintown.”
I had a fantastic high school English teacher. I mean FANTASTIC. We read “The Sound and the Fury,” “Moby Dick,” “The Great Gatsby,” a bunch of Hemingway, and a bunch of Steinbeck. He made the class REALLY interesting. He lived the subject matter, and his love it it was infectious. I really enjoyed reading both “The Sound and the Fury,”and “Moby Dick,” and the other America lit we read.
BTW, we were certainly taught the source of Faulkner’s title, and how it relates to the novel.
Contrary to many commenters here, I rather liked the Faulkner I had read.
I never had Faulkner in an English class. Given my decidedly negative opinion of the way English classes are taught, that was a blessing. My initial exposure Faulkner was the Snopes Trilogy. (The Hamlet, The Town, The Mansion.) Perhaps this was Faulkner Lite. That got me hooked on Faulkner.
Some of the attraction was that Snopes story of the poor boy who makes good reminded me of my uncle, who graduated from high school at age 15 at the beginning of the Depression and never got to college. (However, in contrast to Snopes, my uncle made his fortune honestly.) The con of selling the horse. Gavin Stephens and passing through the door. The retarded boy and the cow-was that in Snopes? I think so, but I need to revisit.
A family friend had the opportunity to meet Faulkner at a reception during a conference. He had read Faulkner during his college days, and was looking forward to discussing the great author’s books with the great author himself. His encounter with Faulkner was a disappointment. Faulkner was drunk- no big surprise- and as the family friend put it, probably had no interest in yet one more discussion of his books.
^^
Story about some enthusiastic reader upon meeting James Joyce in Paris and asking to shake the hand that wrote Ulysses. Joyce replied with something like “It’s done other things, too.”
One thing that Twitter does, is to tell me where not to spend my money. Without it, I wouldn’t know all of the people in entertainment who hate me, just for being a conservative.
Now I know whose books, music, movies and TV shows to avoid. It is also helpful to show me which news and reporters are not to be trusted when they lie and misreport so blatantly.
eeyore mood — THIS!
To counter opine Gringo, I rather much prefer Tennessee Williams to Faulkner. Greater characters, more compelling narrative plot, more memorable lines and insights.
Yet still, or even more, within the Southern Gothic stylistic mode and without the barriers to comprehension.
Just my two cents.
Southern Gothic is Ghey.
And if wasn’t back then, it sure is now:
https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/06/27/southern-gothics-gut-punch/
Mint Julep, anyone?
@TJ: This to your This! It’s liberating to know which companies and organizations hate me so that I can try harder to not patronize them.
I liked Faulkner. I read three or four of his works. The one that stuck with me was As I Lay Dying. There were a bunch of Faulkner based movies made in the 50’s and 60’s.
My Waterloo was James Joyce. I loved the short stories collection Dubliners. Then I wasted not one, but the better part of two summers getting through Finnegan’s Wake and Ulysses. The aspect that was not a waste of time for a young man was learning the lesson (too late) of knowing when to give up and quit.
Araby and the Dead are both very special. How did the man understand so much so young? He was a genius, no doubt and a perceptive student of humanity.
Ulysses, I’m glad I read it.
As I get older and looking back, I don’t think it’s a good idea for teenagers to be exposed to the Red and Black Pills contained within Dubliners and Ulysses. This apart from the more obvious Non Serviam / Promethean aspects.
Finnegan’s Wake? Anybody remember Jorn Barger and Robot Wisdom? There lies Madness.
Reminds me of the time when President Bush wrote “let freedom reign” and the grievance mongers said that the phrase should be “let freedom ring.”
I don’t think it’s wise to question Ted Cruz’ memory of who said what. I read a year or so ago that when he puts his kids to bed he recites whole books to them — Dr. Suess and others. He not only knows the entire text, he does it in the appropriate dialect.
And I have also read stories of him entertaining people with recitations of other authors and movie dialogue — all from memory. There are a lot of things you might get away with questioning from Cruz, but don’t be questioning whether or not he knows whose words are whose.
Like him or not… and I don’t particularly… it would be a Frosty Day in Hell before I’d willingly get involved in a public battle of wits with Ted Cruz.
Be entertaining to throw him in a cage with Nassim Taleb and see which one makes it out alive.
Charles
“President Bush wrote “let freedom reign” and the grievance mongers said that the phrase should be “let freedom ring.” ”
Which Bush said that? It makes me like ‘whichever’ just a tad more.
We need MUCH more freedom reigning, especially now.
Faulkner was hailed by some as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. But if you were born in the last 20 years of that century and didn’t have him pushed on you by some Faulkner-loving teacher, how many today have not just never read him but don’t even recognize the name?
I wonder how many under 40s know Faulkner compared to Hemingway? What about compared to genre writers like Burroughs or Heinlein?
Mike
A Rose For Emily…..so good, so creepy. Too ad hominem…I know: Andrea is a total putz. Became 100% unwatchable in past years. She creeps me out too!
My mother met the poet W.H. Auden when she was in college, at the home of a professor who was her advisor and friend. She thought there would be inspiring literary conversation, but the august poet was having too much fun playing with the host’s dogs for any such thing. My mother said that Auden’s nice tweed jacket got completely covered with dog hair, and that he went on to give his talk at the college later that evening without changing the jacket or appearing to notice or care. She wholeheartedly approved.
Joyce: read “Dubliners”, “A Portrait…”, and “Ulysses” as a young man, using Anthony Burgess’s guides as a crib. Liked all of them, but agree with Zaphod that the content is not suitable for minors. Gave up on “Finnegans Wake” after maybe five pages.
Same with Faulkner: tried it, said Nah, not worth it. Except for “Sanctuary”, which I finished. Talk about an indecent book. Faulkner, O’Hara’s “Appointment in Samarra” and “BUtterfield 8”: pace Larkin, sexual intercourse apparently began long before 1963.
Southern Gothic: give William March a try. “Trial Balance” (short stories), “Company K”, “The Bad Seed”. More accessible than Faulkner, but just as twisted. Decorated USMC combat veteran of WWI (Croix de guerre, DSC, and Navy Cross). And gay. Like Aubrey, recipient of the VC, in “Parade’s End”.
And no, I wouldn’t tangle with Cruz.
I’ve seen Rubin on television a few times and she is frenetically incoherent.
The mistaken criticism just shows how slapdash & snarky the media people are.
PS: I remember the Shakespeare line as “dusky death” although there could be another version.
Ah, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. That was my favorite Joyce and I forgot it. Me and Joe Biden baby. The 50 year old memories are fading fast.
Pingback:Strange Daze
To me, Mitchell’s and Rubin’s stupidity isn’t so much due to their not knowing or remembering where the quote came from—it’s due to their not pausing for two seconds to wonder if the brilliant, Ivy-educated Cruz had actually bungled a literary quote. Their arrogance renders them dumb as a box of hammers.
I sent that comment to my daughter, who is a grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrREAT fan of The Bard of Avon. Whe was…amused.
Our elites are not as elite as they imagine. It is almost certainly arrogance, insularism or both. I have met many brilliant, uncredentialed people. These people (the Mitchell and Rubin types) must live in a self-created, Emerald City, where no one can have any skill unless they have received the proper credential from the all knowing Oz.
From what little I know of his personal life, the man who blogs under the pen name, “IowaHawk” is an auto mechanic. Yet he has written some of the most funny and brilliant parodies of classical literature and poetry I have read. And his non parodic satire is also concise, brilliant and spot on. And the Internet has made obvious there are many more like him.
I guess if you don’t write under the imprimatur of one of the approved newspapers or journals you don’t exist in Mitchell and Rubin’s perception of the literary world. Cruz does not have a degree in literary studies from one of the approved diploma mills, therefore there is no need to verify his writing.