Originally Posted by mafoofan
SH is a dick. I'm not sure what more there is to say about things. I attempted, on multiple occasions, to engage his commentary--as pejorative and insensible as it has been. I let him insult me again and again. So, ultimately, I call it as I see it.
Well, in that case, you forget to mention that he has a small penis. In for a penny, in for a pound, they say.
If you think that rubbish amounts to a "theory," then there is little hope of discussing this meaningfully with you. Aside from the specious reasoning, he makes startlingly biased assumptions to reach his conclusions.
Let me stop you right there. I see what he is getting at. You do not. It is as logically cohesive insofar as a theory about these sorts of things can be. For an attorney, you have a puzzling and oft-demonstrated inability to get inside the arguments of others. I hope you are sticking strictly to transactional work. If you are ever the lead in a contested matter, you are going to get your head handed to you and you will never know why.
I agree, however, that there is little hope of discussing this meaningfully with you. Nonetheless, hope springs eternal so I will have a go at translating Stephen's theory of interior design into SF-relevant terms. I am sure that Stephen will be happy to come along and tell me to fuck off if I am too far wrong or if the analogy is too forced.
Sprezzatura is considered a desirable quality on SF. But true sprezzatura is a function of actually living in your clothes. For example, I have some shirts with double-button cuffs. One of my watches is too big to wear with these shirts so I leave one of the buttons on the cuff unbuttoned. It has become something of a habit so I often leave that button undone without thinking about it even if I am not wearing that particular watch.
Forced sprezzatura is much worse than none e.g. wearing french cuffs without cufflinks. It reeks of try-too-hard and makes you look like a clueless poseur. This is the problem with the interior that Stephen analyzed. It is a series of arch, studied flourishes which are completely inauthentic.
He doesn't like your living room because it is, from his perspective, a random collection of studied flourishes, albeit not as twee as the one he dissected.
Now you can agree with his theory or not. There are certainly other ways to think about interior design. But to claim that his theory is disingenuous rubbish says a lot more about you than it does about him.
I will even go out on a limb and suggest something that I suspect Stephen would agree fits in with his theory. Suppose that you used your coffee table as a display for the One Shoe. Imagine five pairs of perfectly matched, beautiful One Shoes glistening gently in their own display case in the middle of your living room. In effect, your coffee table would become an art installation on multiple levels. God knows it would be authentic and would make for one hell of a conversation piece if nothing else.
I am sure this will draw the usual 2000 word point-by-point rebuttal explaining in detail why no one except Foo understands anything at all.