column: EUOLogy #6

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

that's really weird. There's no reason to put <p/> because the regular <P> has never needed to be closed.

as for Card, well, Penny Arcade actually had something to say about that. Here's what they said, after I edited the potty words out:

Salon Interview with Orson Scott Card: After I mentioned reading OSC's Ender's Game, I was (as you'd expect) congratulated for finally getting off my backside. Having only read one book, I hadn't gotten around to investigating the author yet - I'm not sure if I ever would have, to tell you the truth. Every time I've investigated a writer I was interested in, I've been disappointed - and it's not exactly their fault. Their invariable humanity - their absolute refusal to conform to the perfectly acceptable template I have designed for their behavior always frustrates, but the main thing is that writers are circus freaks almost across the board. Some things are best left ambiguous.

Anyhow, I hadn't actively sought out much info about the guy yet, but I was sent this Salon interview by several humans as evidence that Mr. Card was a raving jerk. He may well be a prick, but that doesn't mean the author of the article isn't also a super spacecow.

the comments with original language were on this page

[EUOL]

Stacer:

Out of respect for the TWG, I post articles on my own site a week after they appear here.  

SE:  Jordan said it was something to do with the coding on my site.  I wasn't allowed to use <p> without a </p> because it would slow down the server when it tried to find the </p>.  He told me, however, that I could use <p/> without slowing anything down, and it didn't need a closing thingy.

[stacer]

Yeah, I remembered that after posting. Nevermind!  

[stacer]

Ug. Just read the Salon article, don't know why I did, but there was all the discussion on the list, and I was getting frustrated. I just don't know how to put into words a gentle reminder that they don't act this way with other religions, are careful to act respectfully to anything *except* someone with conservative Christian views. And there are a number on the list, who just silently take it, because speaking up just means getting attacked.

I feel like I should speak up, but anything I say will be less than adequate.

[Skar]

Back to the great writer for the masses vs. great writer for the literary crowd topic:  Anyone thought about Shakespeare?  He was more of a Stephen King of his time than a James Joyce and I don't think there is anyone more universally studied in English departments today than he.

So can we expect Joyce to quietly fade away while King slowly creeps his way into the literary circles?  Will our descendants be studying Carrie or Cujo like we studied Merchant of Venice?

[MsFish]

That's why I almost never enter into discussions on politics or other sensitive topics anymore--I am rarely given the courtesy of explaining my point of view before being brushed off as stupid/uninformed/whatever.

Aww!  You can't write everyone off that way just because there are a few jerks who don't like to listen to other people's opinions.  (Okay, so there are more than a few, I know, but still.)  
The trick I think is to find the right people to argue with--people who are interested in discussion as a means of expanding their perspective rather than a means to prove they are right.  Most of my favorite conversations have been about sensitive topics, because when one can both listen and be heard, both people walk away changed.  

[Brenna]

ah, yes, but with most of the people I talk to, I am only allowed to listen--my voice/opinion doesn't matter.  Now, the few that do listen as well as speak--those people are fun to argue with.  As long as it's civil and respectful.

[MsFish]

I've never quite understood what the good of an argument is when you don't listen to what the other person is saying.  What kind of an argument is that?  You might as well go argue with a wall.  

Although that can be fun too.

[EUOL]

Skar, the thing about Shakespeare is that he was BOTH Joyce and King.  That funky way his characters talk--nobody else did that.  In fact, there is record of his contemporaries claiming his writing was too obscure for people to understand.

However, he also played to the masses, as you've noted.  He achieved success with both groups.  King is trying his best to do the same thing--his writing has gotten more and more literary as his career has progressed, and he has managed to retain his audiences at the same time.

[Spriggan]

that's really weird. There's no reason to put <p/> because the regular <P> has never needed to be closed.

It's becasue EUOL's site is coded in XHTML SE, and XHTML requires all tags to be closed even <p> and <br>, adding a "/" at the end does this.  TWG is standard HTML and dosen't need to be closed, but the end "/" dosn't hurt anything.

[Oldie Black Witch]

Since we're talking about the philosophy of arguments . . .

I think the difference between a good argument and a bad argument comes when the people involved share the same assumptions. There is such a thing as the hardened skeptic who won't change his conviction that the stars don't exist even when you take him out of his cave and show them to him. Then there are also those who are so zealous about their own points of view that they will patiently listen to your argument and proceed as if everything you just said wasn't important to HIS point. In either case, the argument gets nowhere.

I'm a member of a discussion board that is supposed to be "anything goes." Unfortunately this board is populated by people who think that they are so smart that only idiots think differently. The worst part is that their "intelligence" has been reinforced by a standardized test. Since all intelligent, reasoning beings (and excuse my sarcasm here) allow for truth wherever it can be found--including the truth that any kind of absolute truth is false because it doesn't allow for opposing points of view--then all intelligent, reasoning beings are liberals and hate Bush. For obvious reasons I don't often join in the politics or religion discussions there; I've had too many arguments that resort to ad hominem attacks to want to stick my neck out to give an opinion that isn't really valued.

But here, if we truly value the opinions of others, discussions about politics and religion can be thought-refining to all involved parties. Brenna is absolutely right when she says that it's respect that allows for a good discussion. Some of you guys have been friends for so long that you're like brothers (some of you are brothers): you know all the right buttons to push to irritate and provoke. But dang it! I wish I had the time to contribute.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

That Card "interview" wasn't an interview at all. It was basically Interviewer asks Card a question, doesn't like the answer, so says how horrible of a person he is. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[stacer]

Yep. And that's how I feel this discussion has been on child-lit. He doesn't share my views on homosexuality? Well, then, he's a horrible person! I must rethink whether I can share his books with children! Etc.!

The thing is, if I were to say the same thing about Philip Pullman (which I have, privately), the author of His Dark Materials and an avowed athiest who killed off God in the series, they would jump on me in no time, because what Philip has to say is so new, so amazing.... You get the picture. You've all been there. I'm just venting.

[Entsuropi]

Stacer: Then say it. Maybe some of them will take the hint.

[42]

I think it was in my Human Developement where the professor mentioned that most people measured intelligence in other by how close it measured to their own. So if you like what I like and think how I think, you're intelligent. All others are stupid. Forget about theories of multiple intelligences.

I've found that art, literature, writing, music, film, and related classes adhere to the "one of us" criterea for excellence as their guiding light.