In my college lit class, I wrote a paper discussing how anything (and my chosen example was the Brandon Lee goth movie, The Crow) could be described in the glowing and timeless terms and themes as were such dullard “epics” as The Odyssey. I think that, by and large, the “classics” as we know them, are called such only because people are generally too afraid to stand up, clear their throats, and say, “Um… actually, I thought it sucked. I got more wordly insight out of last night’s American Idol that I did from Great Expectations.”
I think that, through the years, we hear that some work–be it of music, of literature, of theatre, etc.–is a “classic,” and we accept it as such, without stepping back and asking, “Why? Do I agree with that?” You accept it because everyone accepts it. It’s an accepted “fact.” So we don’t question it.
That drives me crazy. So if you ever run into me, and you happen to mention that you’re a fan of “the classics,” be prepared for my inevitable response: “Oh yeah? Why?”
Anyway. A similar problem is the groupthink agreement about certain persons, case in point, Antonin Scalia, often referred to as “brilliant,” “genius,” etc.
Here’s what the blog Washington Syndrome had to say about that:
I’ve long had a problem with the near ubiquitous claim that Justice Scalia is a brilliant man. Sure, he’s a right-winger and a jerk, the saying goes, but you can’t deny the clarity of his thought and the power of his writing.
My take: If Antonin Scalia is a brilliant legal mind, John Tesh is a great composer.
. . .
See, the thing that you have to understand about Antonin Scalia is his love-affair with straw men. It is exactly this device that allows him to come across as so clear and incisive. He sets up an argument that absolutely nobody has made, and then he resoundingly defeats it.
Whether he is attacking the notion of constitutional “right to sodomy,” while ignoring the right to privacy that would encompass it, or whether he is painting the idea of a “living Constitution” in terms no adherent of the doctrine would endorse, Scalia’s use of straw men is about the one aspect of his judicial philosophy that truly remains consistent.
The post (click here to read it) is brief, and even if you really do believe that Scalia is a brilliant mind, I still think it’s nice to know that there are others like me out there… we’d be the kids in the front row of the Emperor’s parade going, “Um, he isn’t wearing any clothes!”
Labels: anecdotes and opinions, law school, lawyer stuff, think-abouts
If you liked this post, you might also dig:
I’m Marissa, can-do-ologist, perpetual Curious George, and daily adventurer. 
Recent comments