So this guy calls me a stalker, for doing shit like occasionally posting stuff that proves he’s full of hot air and bluster. I don’t actually reply much to him anymore. I have better things to do than waste 30 minutes of my time digging up cites he will never address to receive insults about depression from a dedicated ephebephile (quick, pick which mental disorder you would prefer to be inflicted with!)
Usually, his blog is pretty good for just a quick giggle and head shake about the heights of self-delusion some people can reach. It’s not that the kid ain’t smart (and I call him a kid even though he’s just a couple years younger chronologically than me).
He’s plenty smart. Probably got a higher raw IQ than me, truth be told.
So did the Wall Street investors spamming out mystery meat bonds composed of shit credit loans.
I once wrote a story (unfinished as is usual for myself) about the scale of idiocies that can be wrecked by the stupid compared to the intelligent. When smart people are fucking stupid, cataclysms occur. Luckily, this dude is a graduate student, so his willful stupidity stays within the confines of comedy and will never enter the rarefied airs of tragedy.
I hold to the Anna Karenina principle of “n are all alike, <n are all <n in their own way”.
This lovely specimen which we have before us is an example of the type of intelligent idiot who believes they have unearthed some nugget of brilliance that heralds their genius when actually it’s a timeworn piece of trivia that not only was discovered generations ago, but is fairly common knowledge among people who don’t firmly ensconce their heads into their asses.
The one today is that history, and particularly the ill documented and ephemeral world of fashion history is filled with untrue anecdotes. Yes, I am as surprised as you are that shit which makes for a good story is likely untrue.
Second aspect of high g idiocy: Speaking with absolute authority on a subject on which they have only passing knowledge, usually gained from reading a single book.
Coco Chanel might not have popularized the suntan, but anyone who’s cracked more than a single book on fashion knows that she nearly single-handedly changed the way women dress. She innovated a style of dresses in pre-Great War era and by the 1930s her house style was the one that won out (as a side note reading about the fashion upheaval of the post-war and 1920s is a fascinating subject, wish I could cite them now). In the same way over 100 years earlier Beau Brummell changed the way men dress. That’s not to say I believe all fashion trends or even most of the them have clear historical locii of origin. To say that it isn’t something that’s important or even real at all, however, is just clear historical ignorance.
Third mark of “not as smart as they think they are”, is abusing the arguments of other, more original and thought-provoking intellectuals.
While I can’t say this with authority in this case, being that I can’t get my hands on Lieberson’s exact argument in his book, considering what Aggie has claimed Greg Clark has argued (which was either a gross misreading or an out and out lie) in his work, I’m not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that Lieberson’s argument is even applicable to the claims Aggie is making.
Fourth is complete and utter lack of self knowledge to the point of delicious irony.
There’s something so rich about a grad student at a public university aspiring to an academic position calling celebrities and fashionistas a “parasitical elite” and “unproductive priestly caste”.
I don’t know, but when it comes to being a pompous self-important tick on the ass of society, do we think Ward Churchill or Donatella Versace?
Okay, okay, but give me this: at least one of these people gets a paycheck *not funded* by taxpayers and produces something that people are willing to buy (if for God knows what reason).
I could go on and on, but I’ve wasted my allotted 30 minutes already, so I’ll leave you with this coda:
Another fine mind slain by massive narcissism.