Posted on 09/24/2004 8:30:21 AM PDT by staticmh
In an unofficial but very formal poll taken in my freshman writing class the other day, George Bush beat John Kerry by a vote of 13 to 2 (14 to 2, if you count me). My students were not voting on the candidates' ideas. They were voting on the skill (or lack of skill) displayed in the presentation of those ideas.
The basis for their judgments was a side-by-side display in this newspaper on Sept. 8 of excerpts from speeches each man gave the previous day. Put aside whatever preferences you might have for either candidate's positions, I instructed; just tell me who does a better job of articulating his positions, and why.
The analysis was devastating. President Bush, the students pointed out, begins with a perfect topic sentence - "Our strategy is succeeding"- that nicely sets up a first paragraph describing how conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia four years ago aided terrorists. This is followed by a paragraph explaining how the administration's policies have produced a turnaround in each country "because we acted." The paragraph's conclusion is concise, brisk and earned: "We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Nice article. Incongruous conclusion.
He wrote a book entitled "There's No Such Thing As Free Speech, And It's A Good Thing Too" and he is the main sponsor of "reader response criticism" - the theory that it does not matter what a book says or what it's author was trying to say - it only matters what the reader thinks the book says.
For him to issue this kind of critique is devastating.
The reason we have art is to express subtle nuances. For everything else, but especially politics, clarity is king.
Which also makes sense with kerry's new fighter image.
Symbolism over substance.
What did you mean by that? The article ends with:
"...if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere (these are the same thing), the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you.
Nervous Democrats who see their candidate slipping in the polls console themselves by saying, "Just wait, the debates are coming.'' As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class, that's just what I'm worried about."
I am so looking forward to the debates. Lurch is going to get crushed.
I meant his own personal conclusion, that Kerry is somehow still worth voting for.
I thought Jacques Derida was responsible for that kind of deconstructionist thought. Did Fish put the philosophy into more intelligible terms or something?
Fish says that readers create meaning in the act of reading.
Derrida says that the reader himself is the product of other people's readings and interpretations.
Fish deconstructs the text to fit the reader, Derrida deconstructs both text and reader.
This is a fascinating column. So much for Kerry being so smart.
bttt
Rips Kerry a new one!
Thanks for that clarification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.