Comments on: An Urgent Plea to Sam Tanenhaus

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:16:47 +0000

Perhaps because Mr. Malaprop actually has a purpose behind every sentence, and your dull tin lobes can’t ken what’s going on beneath. And, no, I won’t explain it to you either. If you want literal-minded content, I suggest you go elsewhere. Perhaps Maxim and People are more your speed?

By: albtraum

albtraum — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:22:43 +0000

Ms. Fitzgerald: Ma’am, I do recognize bad tropes when I see them, and that’s what we’ve got here, one limping after another. For example:

“If you wish to flail the sheets of conservatism and get a movement going, would such linen-shaking be best served in your current sinecure at the New York Times?”

What is happening here? Who the hell beats an ideology’s linen, and why would they do so?

“flail the sheets of conservatism”… Christ, I would have understood waving flags. Or hoisting ships’ sails. Or filling them with wind. Or unfurling banners. Or even, God help us, stitching together some kind of quilt. Even restricting ourselves to fabric alone, there are probably a dozen ways this stillborn teratoma of an image could have been brought to term. But beating linen? The linen sheets of… conservatism? What? Why?

And I’ve deliberately chosen one of the less bizarre conceits here. I won’t go into the storms which somehow keep atmospheres honest, or the different wings upon which we rest, or the Democrats’ depleted revolver of… political… ?? I give up.

This sort of thing happens every other sentence or so here: garbled grammar, mixed metaphors, botched allusions, pointless and misleading thesaurus-speak, grotesque flights of curdled dudgeon –

And yet this unerringly tin-fingered Mr. Malaprop is somehow pompous enough to rant and froth about who’s qualified to edit the NYT and who isn’t? Give me a break.

By: Judith Fitzgerald

Judith Fitzgerald — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:15:47 +0000

Magnificently expressed and gorgeously presented. What else is news, though, Edward?

IMO, if I were you (and, I ain’t; but, am happy that’s true, too, since you’re a OneOf), I’d worry about the comment above the cowardly anonymous one. That sounds like a psycho to me; and, I could prolly name said psycho; but, why stoop to conquer when I can rise to communicate with one of the last cut-above thinking Americans on the planet?

Thanks for this; you know, after I read Levi’s post on your meeting, I completely lost hope and faith in the bookerly world insofar as that organisation goes (downhell). If ST doesn’t read around Cyberia, he’s got no business doing the job he’s (allegedly) doing; and, if he does, he’s got the integrity of a piece of VD (and, um, okay, go ahead: Make my dinner on Valentine’s Day, eh? LOL).
p.s. Too bad a couple commentarians don’t recognise a good trope when they see one lopin’ across their screens; maybe, jes’ maybe, if they firmly grasp their ears and tug, tug, tug, they’d be able to give up brushing with Prep-H
p.p.s. Hope your sweetie understands I ain’t puttin’ the make on her bloody-rare steak

By: Anon.

Anon. — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:47:12 +0000

I think the idea you propose is interesting, though I don’t think you expect him to take it seriously. Perhaps that’s why you invoked Dirty Harry. But I also think that the reference was a bit odd and uncomfortable, if not quite as disturbing as the last poster found it.

By: albtraum

albtraum — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:16:41 +0000

The first sentence is unreadable. The last two paragraphs are cringe-inducing. And in between – bilious, disingenuous drivel.

If I were Mr. Tanenhaus, I’d be worried that someone like you is entertaining fantasies about his head being blown off, metaphorically or not.

By: Tim Barrus

Tim Barrus — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:59:20 +0000

This is the best thing I’ve ever read about Tanenhaus to Tanenhaus about Tanenhaus. There is so much restructuring going on at the New York Times — people hanging on precariously by their fingernails — couldn’t he just resign gracefully for health reasons.

Our health.

Not his. — Tim Barrus, Amsterdam

By: Levi

Levi — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:52:47 +0000

Well said. Here’s my favorite part:

“Humorless and austere writing — that Burkean tone you so admire and attempt to employ, often stubbornly, within the Review — does not blend particularly well with the fun and bipartisan possibilities of literary journalism. But it does work for politics.”

I do think Sam Tanenhaus has much more credibility as a political writer than as a literary editor.