Posted on 06/20/2006 7:01:29 PM PDT by pissant
"Writing," observed the French playwright Moliere, "is like prostitution. First you do it for love, then for a few close friends, and then for money."
This aphorism is brought forcefully to mind by the cover of Ann Coulter's latest book, leering at customers from the windows of America's biggest bookstores. As always, the cover features a portrait of the artist as a young tart, blond locks flowing, her size zero little black dress catering to a combination of ideological and erotic perversion that's disturbing to contemplate.
In The New York Times, David Carr doesn't hesitate to label Coulter a literary crack whore, although naturally the editors of that august publication won't allow such an indelicate phrase to appear in its pages. Coulter, Carr suggests, "knows precisely what she is saying" when she says of certain 9/11 widows that she's "never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
For Carr, Coulter's habit of making outrageous statements is part of a simple and cynical swindle: say vile things, get lots of publicity for doing so, then sell hundreds of thousands of books as one's reward for performing unnatural intellectual acts on TV.
Prostitution, however, is a tricky business. I can attest that when she was an unknown law student, Coulter said outrageous things all the time, in class, in conversation, and in print. Was she merely laying the groundwork for selling her honor dear? It seems doubtful.
For what it's worth, Coulter's views have always seemed to me to be sincerely held, to the extent that narcissistic borderline personalities can be sincere. Not all writers are prostitutes, but all writers are narcissists, and Coulter appears to represent an especially acute case of someone who writes in order to be at the center of attention (hence the glossy locks and little black dress).
Nevertheless prostitution is everywhere in our society, and indeed the willingness to sell what shouldn't be sold often helps explain what's happening when one tries to interpret otherwise puzzling events.
Consider the drive to get the American Medical Association to redefine "obesity" in a way that will cause 40 percent of America's children to suddenly contract a dreaded disease. The campaign will likely succeed, which means that in September, when the new guidelines are announced, the media will uncritically parrot this ridiculously unscientific claim, leading to yet more hysterical demands that we "think of the children," and do something about this deadly epidemic, immediately if not sooner.
How does this happen? Here's how: The International Obesity Task Force, a drug company lobbying group disguised as an organization of disinterested scientists, has spent the past decade co-opting governmental policy by influencing groups such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.
Recently, a prominent government scientist spent several hours detailing for me how the IOTF is at the forefront of a concerted campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to, as this researcher put it, "soften up" governmental regulatory agencies, in order to get various new weight loss drugs approved.
Ray Moynihan, an Australian academic, makes a similar point in a new article in the British Medical Journal. (Moynihan is the author of the book "Selling Sickness: How Drug Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients.")
Does this mean every researcher who claims to be concerned about childhood obesity is an intellectual prostitute? Of course not. Even the members of organizations like the IOTF join these groups for complex reasons.
What should not fool us is the eminently respectable facade such groups manage to maintain. We should remember that, whether in science, literature, or life, the great social distance separating streetwalkers from trophy wives doesn't alter the fact that they're all in the same line of work.
I did not comment on the the point the author made, to which you referred, you did.
Good catch.
"Apparently he went to Law School with her."
If true, that explains a lot. Poor thing.
placemarker
Personally, I think P.J. O'Rourke is much, much hotter than Ann Coulter. :)
That should settle sinkspur's family business.
"...combination of ideological and erotic perversion that's disturbing to contemplate"
She threatens him somewhere deep inside. His own male hormones must scare the crap out of him.
Weird column. The topic switch was more than a little obtuse - - a segue it was not.
The ones who might say anti-Kerry stuff are at home, taking care of their children. You don't see Debra Burlingame out commenting on John Edwards' using a compact to brush his lashes.
These women [the Jersey Girls] are opportunists. They make a living off the blood of their dead husbands.
50 posted on 10/20/2004 9:31:05 AM PDT by sinkspur ("If you're always talking, I can't get in a word edge-wise." God Himself.)
I wonder what you would say if Ann said what you said. You're not only an Ann hater, you're a phony one at that.
" As always, the cover features a portrait of the artist as a young tart, blond locks flowing, her size zero little black dress catering to a combination of ideological and erotic perversion that's disturbing to contemplate." Where is he getting this garbage?? She looks fine. A tart? 
They both look good to me! Somebody has some unresolved issues, I think...probably where that "erotic perversion" comment came from. Takes one to know one, eh, Paulie? ;-)
Ann doesn't have to make Matt do that. He's quite capable all by himself!!
"Not the war in Iraq, I mean THE WAR ON TERROR?!?!"
Bonehead.
I don't consider it deep or profound, but it is a clever pun: "prostitution" and "tricky business" - very neat.
Well, you've got to hand it to him on one point: Writing of Ann Coulter and obesity in the same column requires a prodigious imagination.
Cousin Vinnie
"Nothing "settles family business." There are always idiots who need to be whacked."
I wonder, who might that be?
["As always, the cover features a portrait of the artist as a young tart, blond locks flowing, her size zero little black dress catering to a combination of ideological and erotic perversion that's disturbing to contemplate."
Don't like girls, eh, Paul?]
That's what I thought. Paul seems a little too uncomfortable, and his writing style resembles the way a jealous Queen would describe Ann.
Then sell your bile, don't give it away for free. Ann figured it out...perhaps you're jealous of her because you can't make a penny from YOUR noxious emissions.
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.