◄[MALE GAZE: ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʀᴛᴏʀɪᴀʟ ɪs ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ]►

[KingJulien]

"English" major, really. But Lit Crit (psychoanalysis, queer theory, crt, ethics, etc.) is my bread and butter—or, as of the past year, that's where all of my energy has been directed. How could you tell?

Edit: @urthwhyte, If you're interested in making a point, go for it in an actual response man. You kind of just sound like another fool with an aversion to "overwrought sentences," which is basically code for "I don't like long sentences with any sense of style, especially if they use big words." Deal with it.

. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, ‘The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality’, while another writes, ‘The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness’, the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements likeMarshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

None other than the illustrious George Orwell. Academic jargon is terrible enough when confined to its own little contextual cesspool; using it outside of that is just bad writing.

 

[A Fellow Linguist]

MS007 I'm going to assume your heart is in the right place, just chill the **** out and watch the thread for a while. Or go post in the old thread, there's no reason you should take this as its replacement if you don't like it.

 

[thewho13]

KJ, I'm glad you can copy and paste George Orwell's thoughts in order to articulate your so-well-founded dislike of discursive writing. It's really impressive how capably you're able to criticize, with substance, the language that is so obviously, so needlessly, "heightened."

Edit: whoa, 500 posts. Cool.

Spoiler: Rant

One last thought: it's incredibly ironic that, in a thread about what might be slotted as "alternative" style, people are taking issue with a certain style of writing. And they point to "a lack of substance" as a cover for what is basically an aversion to (a particular) style (of writing). Call it a crutch, call it foggy, call it what you will—that doesn't make it so, and such "criticism" fails to speak, with even the slightest of intelligence, to any specific concern. What I've written about has a clear, concrete aim; this is undeniable. And was my writing understandable? Clearly so. Was it wordy? Yes. Is it pleasing to write like that? For me, yes; but clearly not for everyone. Is it pleasing to read? Again, not for everyone. Until someone simply says "I don't understand this," then I fail to see any glaring issue. (Failure to understand hardly strikes me as a terribly big concern; nothing I've ever written here could be considered incomprehensible.) So what, it could have been written with less words? So the **** what? If you don't want to bother reading something, then don't read it. Simply pointing to writing that uses ostensibly big words, or lots of semicolons (if you think you've seen a lot of semicolons—and, moreover, if you think you've seen a lot of m-dashes—then go read some Melville), and then calling it "overwrought," or "lacking substance" is like listening to the idiots who complain about e.g. Yohji, Damir, Rick, Raf, Kiryuyrik, Comme, Geller (to a lesser extent), and etc. being "too affected," or "overly stylistic." I don't mean to invite a comparison of the *quality* between writing style and the aforementioned designers and the way their aesthetic manifests in consumers' style; but the moment you extend your distaste to "academic" (what a false—and essentialist—categorical disavowal) writing, you forget the very fact that "style" means more than just how you put some ******* cotton/wool/whateverthefuck on your Aryan skin.

 

[brad-t]

Who, I don't think your writing is bad, but I do think you could tone it down a bit lest you be misunderstood to be intentionally confusing your audience. I was able to read it, but it was pretty heavy. Maybe I'm just an idiot.

 

[wurm]



KJ, I'm glad you can copy and paste George Orwell's thoughts in order to articulate your so-well-founded dislike of discursive writing. It's really impressive how capably you're able to criticize, with substance, the language that is so obviously, so needlessly, "heightened."

Your use of vocabulary takes a poor consideration of your audience/setting. If this were a formal discussion about serious issues it would make sense - but that's hardly the case. This is (obviously) a very casual setting, to discuss a non-essential hobby...and not solely a community of intellectuals. Your word choice singles you out and it can make people feel like you're giving off a sense of self-importance.

 

[the shah]

why did i think thewho was french, making this his second language ?

anyway, down with anti-intellectualism, embrace the elitism ! long live thewho !!

 

[Meis]



None of us are saying that this is the kind of clothing we expect women to wear. This is a thread for sharing women's fashion, whereas the previous thread was turning into a DT wankfest.

This. (especially the bolded part)
MS007- How do you not understand the difference between expecting someone to wear a certain style and liking when they wear it? No one is demanding that women dress in a particular style or trying to say what is or is not acceptable to wear - just expressing what we like.

 

[sipang]

Can we talk about the clothes or the styling instead (if we need to talk that is...) ? If we start orgasming about volume plays and fabrics interactions, people will get the message.


Also, less pics per post plz. It's crashing my stupid connection but more importantly it doesn't do justice to the pictures, seeing walls upon walls of all black outfits or whatever just makes me lose any interest (like most visual blogs). You need to let that **** breathe. Or do the asshole thing like me, multipost.

 

[KingJulien]

KJ, I'm glad you can copy and paste George Orwell's thoughts in order to articulate your so-well-founded dislike of discursive writing. It's really impressive how capably you're able to criticize, with substance, the language that is so obviously, so needlessly, "heightened."

Don't take that as a personal attack, it wasn't meant as one. I pasted the Orwell essay because, really, I think it's something everyone who wants to communicate effectively should read.

 

[MS007]

Can you please discuss thewhos ability to write good posts somewhere else? Its off-topic.

None of us are saying that this is the kind of clothing we expect women to wear. ...

This. (especially the bolded part)
MS007- How do you not understand the difference between expecting someone to wear a certain style and liking when they wear it? No one is demanding that women dress in a particular style or trying to say what is or is not acceptable to wear - just expressing what we like.

I don't want to be captious, but I didn't say that either. Meis, have you followed the history of this thread?
People were ******** at posts in the WAYWGTW thread, because it transformed "into a DT wankfest", or more diplomatically because what other people liked at the fits was supposedly the girl, not the clothes. Now, I think we agree that the styles posted in this thread will also not look good on anyone, because this depends on bodytype and personality. However, because it is not mainstream (even though the jcrew lookbook pics I posted fit in nicely) or not figure-accentuating enough or whatever criteria has to be met that people in this thread like it, it is fine. If only swimwear would have been posted, these same guys would be the first to protest. Double standards at its finest, because their preferences are ok to be liked on a girl, others are not.

Moreover is the thread title unfortunatly chosen, because it implies that with the way girls dress they transport a message, which should be up to them, shouldn't it?

 

[Lel]

Where's the picture of the Asian girl in the cardboard 5-zip?

 

[brad-t]

if you take this thread title seriously i'm not even close to interested in engaging a discussion with you

for something a bit different

 

[Makeshift_Robot]

This thread is dope, good work team, you kick ass AFL.

Spoiler: Let's all talk about motherfucking prose style forever

TheWho - as someone who's read and processed his fair share of the exact sort of criticism you're writing, it's a crutch dogg. The terms you use for the things you're talking about - this isn't analytic philosophy where the nature of the discussion involves a highly jargonized vocabulary, this is just talking about the way fashion ***** with everybody who wants to participate in it. You don't need to use a foggy phrase like "negotiate their assets" to get that across, it might actually help you clarify your own feelings if you rephrase it as though you were talking to someone outside your extremely involuted major.

 

[Lionheart Biker]

I don´t get the complaints re thewho´s writing style. I´m not an native speaker and have no problem with it.

 

[colabear]

then

& now