greg (grysar) wrote,

I do not think your novel means what you think it means.

Slightly old news, but apparently Ray Bradbury intended Fahrenheit 451 to be about television and not censorship.

I tend to agree with Pandagon that this seems to be a case where authorial intent was inferior to the actual product.

Also, I've started regularly reading Amanda Marcotte on Pandagon. I tend to enjoy her literary criticism. She really got me with an (spoilery) analysis of 28 days later. Also, I do still think the Edwards campaign made a mistake when they brought her on. This isn't because she's not pragmatic or shrill or the like, I think this rather length abortion post shows that she knows how to play the politics of things. Instead it's that she goes after religion and pro-lifers the way that say Matt Yglesias goes after supporters of preemptive war. Trouble is that her nemesis is a much larger constituency. Appointing her was picking a fight Edwards didn't want. If those were his main issues, she would have been a reasonable choice, albeit still an obvious shot across the bow.

As a side note, she's definitely a harder line pro-choicer than I am. I'm generally willing to assume that pro-lifers that support birth control are acting in good faith even when I disagree with them. In fairness to her, the leadership she's fighting isn't acting in good faith. However, I also am more willing to do humanitarian interventions than Yglesias is. I picked him as an example because I'm trying to distinguish between why she was a problematic choice and why I might disagree with her.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.