TINC

External Since: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 10

On Jan 25, 3:19 pm, "Bayle" <pete_ba... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps someone could construct an
> argument that someone who is lying all the time is a good or great
> writer of fiction.

I think that the point of TPOL was exactly the opposite of such an
argument.

> Plus arguing with someone who is wrong about most of the little things
> is infuriating and likely pointless.

It's certainly thankless, unless the critic is just dredging for more
ammunition in the culture war.

> When debating things in the real
> world it helps to have a mastery or at least an inkling of those things
> that are googleable.

But when do we subject writers to this sort of scrutiny? Usually
authors are writing about things we're all well enough familiar with
that they can't get by with real howlers. Dan Brown's Nicean backstory
was greeted with such credulity because most readers hadn't set down
Eusebius of Caesarea immediately before cracking The Da Vinci Code.
Who'd think to check? Who'd even know where to check?

I can see the problems in Chomsky's statements about American history
in the first half of the 20th century or the beginning of the Cold War
pretty easily, but have no idea about Latin American coups in the
1970s. Who knows -- maybe he's scrupulously accurate on those
subjects, and is only fudging on the things I happen to know about. I
have formed a different conclusion, but "he's a liar" is essentially an
ad hominem argument, and I don't expect to be able to persuade anyone
else of it. Not easily, anyway.

-Ben

External Since: Jan 08, 2007 Posts: 8

On 25 Jan, 22:21, "Ben Brumfield" <oldb....DeleteThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 3:19 pm, "Bayle" <pete_ba....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps someone could construct an
> > argument that someone who is lying all the time is a good or great
> > writer of fiction.I think that the point of TPOL was exactly the opposite of such an
> argument.
>
> > Plus arguing with someone who is wrong about most of the little things
> > is infuriating and likely pointless.It's certainly thankless, unless the critic is just dredging for more
> ammunition in the culture war.
>
> > When debating things in the real
> > world it helps to have a mastery or at least an inkling of those things
> > that are googleable.But when do we subject writers to this sort of scrutiny? Usually
> authors are writing about things we're all well enough familiar with
> that they can't get by with real howlers. Dan Brown's Nicean backstory
> was greeted with such credulity because most readers hadn't set down
> Eusebius of Caesarea immediately before cracking The Da Vinci Code.
> Who'd think to check? Who'd even know where to check?
>
> I can see the problems in Chomsky's statements about American history
> in the first half of the 20th century or the beginning of the Cold War
> pretty easily, but have no idea about Latin American coups in the
> 1970s. Who knows -- maybe he's scrupulously accurate on those
> subjects, and is only fudging on the things I happen to know about. I
> have formed a different conclusion, but "he's a liar" is essentially an
> ad hominem argument, and I don't expect to be able to persuade anyone
> else of it. Not easily, anyway.
>
> -Ben

Life is short and, frankly, I have better (or worse) things to do than
to compulsively fact-check Chomsky so I am grateful to those who do.
However, on those occasions when I have picked up one of his tomes I
have always got a distinct sense of him as being a chronic
cherry-picker. And a piss-poor writer too.

Sometimes you just need to go with common-sense and instinct vis a vis
over-educated idiots. Spending five minutes applying Chomskian logic
to the prophecies and revealed truths of Chomsky himself is a pretty
good cure.

N