Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Geoff
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in Exactly where should the ring go? on Texburger.com
Anne,
Thanks sincerely for your thoughtful reply. I certainly appreciate the time and consideration you've put into this. I completely agree with point D - that there are more dramatic concerns with which MS might concern herself from the grave. To keep a perspective, a catchy song hinged on a little verbal slop and an abundance of hip-shaking isn't much over which to worry. Your point is well observed.
If you look past my own admittedly middling writing ability, I hope you see my primary lament isn't that Beyoncé's song is bad, per se, but that our culture has largely lost the training to read past its veneer to how it reflects back on us. I can't see anything pretentious in my clumsy attempt to illuminate that, and I honestly don't think you do either - indeed your willingness to jump into the conversation on that level indicates as much. And in all sincerity, I'm encouraged by your engagement and I'm grateful for it. But I observe also that you're torn between the dialog invitation of my post on one hand, and dismissing the application of critical thought to a pop song as pretentious on the other. The pressure to dismiss serious intellectual engagement as elitist or pretentious is a pernicious one indeed, and I root unabashedly for anyone who resists it.
Thought and experience evolve our perspectives over time. And they do so more quickly and more powerfully when we engage the world enthusiastically. So thank you again for your very thoughtful reply.
Respectfully yours,
Geoff
Thanks sincerely for your thoughtful reply. I certainly appreciate the time and consideration you've put into this. I completely agree with point D - that there are more dramatic concerns with which MS might concern herself from the grave. To keep a perspective, a catchy song hinged on a little verbal slop and an abundance of hip-shaking isn't much over which to worry. Your point is well observed.
If you look past my own admittedly middling writing ability, I hope you see my primary lament isn't that Beyoncé's song is bad, per se, but that our culture has largely lost the training to read past its veneer to how it reflects back on us. I can't see anything pretentious in my clumsy attempt to illuminate that, and I honestly don't think you do either - indeed your willingness to jump into the conversation on that level indicates as much. And in all sincerity, I'm encouraged by your engagement and I'm grateful for it. But I observe also that you're torn between the dialog invitation of my post on one hand, and dismissing the application of critical thought to a pop song as pretentious on the other. The pressure to dismiss serious intellectual engagement as elitist or pretentious is a pernicious one indeed, and I root unabashedly for anyone who resists it.
Thought and experience evolve our perspectives over time. And they do so more quickly and more powerfully when we engage the world enthusiastically. So thank you again for your very thoughtful reply.
Respectfully yours,
Geoff
1 reply
You are also completely right about my wanting to have a dialog: I definitely will jump at the chance to debate even if I wholeheartedly believe that it is unnecessary and silly.
But you are wrong in implying that I find critical thought unnecessary. I don't feel the need to dismiss serious intellectual engagement as pretentious. I just found your article, though no one forced me to read it, absolutely condescending. It felt like you were (indirectly) blowing your own horn (so to speak), playing the tune whose words are something like "look at me! I'm smart and I have a thesaurus!"
When someone, such as yourself, describes himself or his dialogs as intellectual, that is a sure sign that you are in for a Two Minutes' Hate with some ten-letter words (for future reference the comparison stops with my mental exhaustion, I don't mean to imply that this is socialist propaganda. That wouldn't even make sense).
Maybe I've been rambling a little too much. Essentially, my point is that I have nothing against intellectual engagement. I hate the use of the word "intellect," or "intellectual," as it is used by essayists and bloggers to describe themselves in order to be distinguished as intelligent and thus better than everyone else. You catch my drift?
Oh, and forget this spat we have going on (which I started) for a moment. There are definite problems with literacy, expression in words, etc. that have nothing to do with "Single Ladies." As a recent survivor of secondary education, I can say (with validity, I hope) that the fact that public schools have become dependent on federal funding is helping to degrade the quality of education. Sure, we go to school to learn stuff or because we have to. But as schools are required to meet federal standards, there is too much emphasis on doing well on standardized tests (the English section of which is usually made up of spelling and reading comprehension), and not enough on actual learning and improving writing skills. Sure, English teachers do what they can, but their students need to succeed in the national tests so that the school isn't shut down. Thus begins a problem with youngsters who are unable to properly express their thoughts (I'm positive I have issues too- just re-read all this mumbo-jumbo I've typed up). It is my guess, then, that this is why on the ACT, which students need to take for Midwestern colleges, the writing section is optional and does not influence your overall score.
This issue is worth many more blog entries than Beyoncé (sorry, B, but it's very true).