Skip to main content

We saw YOU, and we saw the plague

While the fiery debates sparked by my first two articles in this series were irresistible, in a sort of car-accident way, there was a lot more heat than light in those discussions. Obviously we believe home schooling is a viable and valuable part of the educational puzzle, or we wouldn't be doing it. As a product of public schools myself, I can understand why some people see home schooling as a violation of the social contract, or as a reactionary, overprotective rejection of the public sphere. Ultimately, though, home schooling may be more important as a venue for some unconventional ideas about education than as a widespread social phenomenon or a panacea. (Andrew O’Hehir, “Why our kids won’t go to kindergarten,” 15 March 2010)

We saw YOU, and we saw the plague

It's your tone, Andrew. You get a sense in a lot of what you write that you are actually quite happy to sculpt your life so you seem increasingly detached from, not related to, the flailing, dumb rest of us. I think you use your columns for this purpose. It's so frequently one arm fully-extended to us, but FOR THE PURPOSE OF making clear that we no longer (are in) touch, that we are fated to drift away from one another. "Sorry guys, I wish I could, but I can't!" Guilt abates, even as your columns work to ESTABLISH that the rest of us SHOULD imagine ourselves as amongst the unsavy and irrelevant that really SHOULDN'T find their way to safe-haven before the flood. So you write articles about why "Dark Knight" should have been nominated, WHILE MAKING ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, not only that you didn't much like the movie, but that something is likely off with you if you DID like it. You see in your comment section all the sad fanboys, the easily entertained by, in truth, the truly unremarkable, who ostensibly needed someone of gentle rank to speak for them, but whom you can't sadly at all anymore relate to. Same thing with “LOTR.” People thank you for allowing space to argue it one of the 2000's best, when all you were doing was cruelly making use of people's dismay to draw together a good lot of the sad hangers-on for you to sigh at, disingenuously speak up for (highlighting ostensibly imaginative responses by clear geeks, in an effort to essentialize EVERYONE the films still speak to as being for the most part unimaginative and uninspired, of non-professional calibre, of needing over-enthused responses to their work to shore up their surely flagging self-esteem -- as if being exulted might for a moment take them away from their everyday experience of losing traction with a world with no use for them), while twice or maybe three times making sure EVERYONE knew the films no longer spoke to you or any other professional film-critic you were in acquaintance with.

I would like to associate home-schooling with those who are getting their children to know play. But I sense very little play in what you write. "It" seems mostly about making clear that you are amongst the elite, that an elite exits -- and owing somehow to its cleanliness, its in-fact MODERATION in tone and ambition, in an age where many are disassembling and rambling on on over to enthused, over-inflated, left-or-right-variety crazyland, DESERVES to exist -- and that you are buoyed by having the good fortune of just having the right "look" to allow you to innocently prosper while the rest of us get our messy, panicky mental-states well away from your calmly-controlled, securely-denatured presence. You well hide it from yourself, but you are using our Salon, our meeting-place, to build for yourself, a small fortress.

Link: Why our kids won’t go to kindergarten (Salon)


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …