by von
I DON'T GENERALLY READ Ann Althouse; I find her shtick -- and a lot of it is shtick -- to be kinda boring. Indeed, that Professor Althouse attempts treat blogging as performance art doesn't mean that all of her performances are art (or particularly good). But curiousity got the better of me, and I clicked through Hilzoy's post to see last hour's tempest in a teapot.
Now, I don't claim exceptional vaginatise: I'm pretty familiar with vaginas, but I don't have one and it seems that having a vagina is required to be an expert in all things vagina. Still, I'll offer my two cents. I just don't see how crunchy, oniony hoop equals vagina. At least the vaginas that I've seen or known, that is. (In the event that someone in the audience does have a crunchy, oniony hoop for a vagina, umm, more power to you.) Maybe I'm stupid. Maybe I have insufficient insight or imagination. Maybe I just lack the stones. But I just don't see it. So, what Hilzoy said.
Then I saw the following update at the end of Althouse's post:
UPDATE: This post has spawned a whole subgenre of anti-Althousiana. I discuss that here.
Now, I'm never surprised when Althouse claims that a post of hers -- even one as obviously mockable as this one -- spawns a "subgenre," "hotbed," "phylum," "maelstrom," "orgy," "Big Mac and a bunch of fries," and/or "whole buncha" of anti-Althousiana. Like I say, she's got a schtick. But again curiousity got the better of me and I couldn't stop clicking through.
Oh boy. I admit that I couldn't finish reading her follow-up post, having not, in the first 1000 words, seen any indication that Althouse thinks her onion-ring-as-vagina claim was a satire, stupid, or just plain strange. Also sapping my strength was Althouse' assertion that her provoking comment "was a little casual Freudian interpretation of a Hillary Clinton campaign video" -- really, a trifle! -- and following up with thousands of words responding, point-by-point, to her various perceived "critics." A mite bit contradictory, no? Or, as the second commentator on her follow-up post (Josh) observes: "Me thinks she doth protest too much."
I suppose Althouse's defense of her thesis is somewhat interesting as an example of a person both self-unaware and self-indulgent. One also sincerely hopes that Althouse understands the irony in her assertions that: "The famously controlled former First Lady is pleased there are people like you. ... Me, I'm not so obedient. Even though I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and may very well vote for Hillary, I don't accept these things at face value." (You go, girl! Don't take sh_t from no-one.) Similarly perplexing is her claim that "[i]n the whole history of the world, if there is one person for whom a cigar was not just a cigar, it's Bill Clinton." Even if I were to accept as much, why does it follow that an onion ring isn't sometimes just an onion ring? Was there some onion ring scandal of which I am blissfully unaware? Indeed, Althouse's "Freudian explanation" of an idiot Hil-dog campaign video reveals more about the good Professor than anyone else, including, most of all, Hillary and Bill.
Now, unlike Althouse, I almost certainly won't be voting for Sen. Clinton. Nor did I vote for Bill -- although, frankly, I would have voted for him in '92 (had I got around to voting that year). But come on.
UPDATE: Worth noting is that Althouse claims to have intentionally created all this, and several of her commentators claim (on her behalf) that this is a work of satirical genius. Even if we take all this as true -- and maybe it is -- it still doesn't excuse these post as being terribly boring and unfunny. For satire to work, there has to be some plausible connection to reality.
But am I contributing to the problem by feeding the beast? Does Althouse get a thrill that many think her views limited and unthrilling even assuming they're satire? Do you get bonus points for being intentionally dense? Does this attract law students to Wisconsin? Is it a wise move for your students?
I hazard no -- to the last two questions, at least. Indeed, I have a slight role in interviewing law students for the summer program at my large, midwestern firm. A law student emphasing his or her love of Professor Althouse or her classes in an interview or is slightly less likely to get a thumbs up from me. Sorry, but these sorts of things do matter: they're signals. One thumbs down to a candidate is almost certain to end his or her chances for a position.
Of course, all of this is deluded Anti-Althousiana from someone who thinks Althouse's shtick is annoying, dull, or just plain stupid (and sometimes all three). But it drives up the pageviews! It creates controversy! It's performance art, man! Look at me! Look at me!
We're looking, Ann. We don't think you're crazy. We get what your trying to do. None of it is very impressive.
UPDATE 2: Despite your love of the new traffic, it's not clear that the link from InstaPundit is particularly approving. But, since Althouse has an evident desire that we all look at her, I'm happy to oblige.
Recent Comments