Comments on: So last millennium

By: des

des — Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:17:35 +0000

But Paglia is performing the Ancient and Traditional “kids today” ritual, and even the neoest of phytes knows that the ancient and noble “kids today” ritual is not under any circumstances to be contaminated by evidence or reasoned argument! (I am so very sophisticated that I haven’t even bothered to read the piece. Go, InterWebNet!)

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:47:03 +0000

“Paglia does indeed write nothing but sweeping assertions, but if they are interesting and fertile that is not a terrible thing.” Well, I think it is, or at least a not very good thing. The ideas seem interesting and fertile at first and then after awhile they start to seem just arbitrary and unsupported, and one stops paying attention. At least I do, and I don’t think that’s a peculiar reaction. There is a reason we were all asked to back up our assertions when writing exams and papers in school, etc. Was Paglia home sick that decade, or what?

By: MQ

MQ — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:34:27 +0000

P.S. on last post—the reason I don’t agree that non-linearity in internet text necessarily reduces patience for narrative is that one can see long threads of narrative argument played out between blogs, sometimes for weeks and over dozens of total posts.

By: MQ

MQ — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:32:47 +0000

In fairness to Paglia, she is arguing that the non-linearity of internet text is exactly the problem. She argues that it reinforces the lessening of attention span and the loss of patience for complex, involved narratives or logical arguments. Not sure if I agree, but at least something to think about. Paglia does indeed write nothing but sweeping assertions, but if they are interesting and fertile that is not a terrible thing.

By: bryan

bryan — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:36:20 +0000

“She just asserts everything, as baldly as possible. One flat assertion after another, for 500 pages.” Camille Paglia invented the interweb.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:24:40 +0000

Yeah, Martin. That’s a gripe I’ve always had with Paglia. I think all her work is badly over-rated, not just this article, and for just that reason. She may have some interesting ideas but she can’t write or argue worth a damn. She just asserts everything, as baldly as possible. One flat assertion after another, for 500 pages. No thanks.

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:46:41 +0000

If I can make a meta-complaint about Paglia’s essay: I don’t know whether the points she make are well thought out or not, sensible or not, because the essay itself is such a mishmash. Paragraphs seem to have no logical connection with each other, it is full of generalisations (“the youth” “youths today” etc) and seems to repeat itself. It is such a slog to get through that I gave up after having read maybe a third of it. It is also overtly long. Now there is probably no correlation between having good, interesting ideas and being able to present them well, but for somebody to bemoan the loss of text as she seems to do while not being able to write well, is ironic.

By: John Marshall

John Marshall — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:01:38 +0000

I read nothing in Paglia’s lecture which dismissed computers and web-based media “as nothing more than a turbocharged TV set.” Indeed she points out the opposite; “my commitment to the Web as a new frontier is unshaken.” Her argument seems to be more of a warning that the fractured, transitory nature of a visually biased media may be undermining our ability to understand the importance of context, chronology and scholarly authority in interpreting our cultural heritage.

By: sacha

sacha — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:19:01 +0000

‘I’d also be curious to see evidence that being able to shoot well in Doom translates at all to being able to shoot a real gun at a real person.’ Actually, this is one of the few things most studies concerning video games actually agree upon. Almost any player of video games – while he/she may not be immediately comfortable with the feeling of an actual firearm – will nevertheless have developed exceedingly quick reaction times, as well as other skills associated with marksmanship, such as target acquisition and leading a target. As for shooting a real person, as opposed to merely measures of marksmanship, that of course, falls into the domain of studies that wildly disagree. To return to the main thread, however, I find Paglia’s gripings to be simply a general rehash that almost every new medium has had upon its inception – be it jazz, comic books, role playing games, movies, and so on. The only difference she seems to make is that she lumps them all together. And, I am inclined to agree with the above article, if for no other reason then I can read much faster then my ultimately better read parents, simply due to the huge amount of text which I digest on a daily basis.

By: jacob

jacob — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:20:30 +0000

Arthur—I’d also be curious to see evidence that being able to shoot well in Doom translates at all to being able to shoot a real gun at a real person. After all, the interfaces are rather different (trigger/keyboard), as are the psychological differences (actual death/a computer game). (Never mind all the things you do in the armed forces that don’t involve shooting at people.) It seems a stretch to me that being a good player of Doom makes you a good soldier.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:08:23 +0000

“success in the armed forces is more important to many employers than success in college; and computer/blogging skills are worse than useless for the vast majority of jobs.” I’d be interested to see evidence for these claims. There are quite a few statistical studies finding little significant difference between the earnings of veterans and non-veterans. By contrast, there are few findings in labour economics that are better established than the existence of a large wage premium for college graduates even after correction for pre-existing differences.

By: arthur

arthur — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:54:56 +0000

“But skill at blasting aliens in Doom does not translate into much of value in the wider world.” An intriguing example of the professor’s fallacy. You consider the “wider world” to be the academy, where shooting isn’t much use. In the armed forces, by contrast, aiming weapons accurately has a real value. Reality check: many more boys are going to join the armeed forces than will become college professors. For that matter, success in the armed forces is more important to many employers than success in college; and computer/blogging skills are worse than useless for the vast majority of jobs.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:33:59 +0000

The article was written well before the rise of Google and other search engines – although it doesn’t specifically anticipate technical developments, I think it stands up pretty well.

By: Bernard Yomtov

Bernard Yomtov — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:27:25 +0000

Paglia’s point is?

By: Jacques Distler

Jacques Distler — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:15:22 +0000

There is one evolutionary pressure that you haven't mentioned that decisively favours text: ... Google. Put a three minute video of talking heads onto the web, and it will disappear like a drop in the ocean. Put up a transcript, or a good summary (either alongside, or instead of the video), and it will be indexed and found by people searching for related information. There is not a good automated way to index video (or even still images, though Google is trying to do the latter) so if you want your content to be seen/read, there's strong bias towards text. I don't see that changing anytime soon.