Camille Paglia is back, wank follows.
Props to the Wank Report mousies.

Over at Salon.com, infamous "feminist" Camille Paglia* makes her return after a six year hiatus. The second paragraph of her return column serves as a welcome mat to her fans or a warning sign to the haters, depending on your POV.

I had certainly assumed the Web was surfeited with more than enough material, but evidently many others beside myself find the partisan polarization of the blogosphere numbingly predictable and its prose too often slapdash, fragmentary or drearily prolix.

Um... What?

The Salon readers are, for the most part, going 1/3s "Yay, she's back" and 2/3s "OH HELL NO!"

For. Five. Hundred. Plus. Entries.

There are some choice potshots to be had, at Paglia herself, her haters, and a couple at Molly Irvins (whom one of the first posters referenced re: her appraisal of Paglia).

Internet commentary is serious bizness!

* Reader Rupert sums up Paglia's style thusly:

One third worthwhile insight, incisively articulated.

One third provocation for the hell of it (also worthwhile).

One third damn fool nonsense, delivered in the written-word equivalent of bombastic prog rock.

Stir up with equal parts narcissism and generosity.

Personally, I tend to think of her as the batshit liberal ying to Ann Coulter's batshit conservative yang.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	singe 2007-02-18 06:42 pm UTC (link)
	I had certainly assumed the Web was surfeited with more than enough material, but evidently many others beside myself find the partisan polarization of the blogosphere numbingly predictable and its prose too often slapdash, fragmentary or drearily prolix. Gah, speaking of dreary... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	bubosquared 2007-02-18 09:32 pm UTC (link)
	Even trying to figure out what she's trying to say isn't interesting enough to keep me awake. Nap time, anyone? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	singe 2007-02-19 01:48 am UTC (link)
	I'm with you. Just don't pull the covers....ZZZZZZZZZZZZ! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	warrioreowyn 2007-02-18 09:53 pm UTC (link)
	Right, because that sentence isn't prolix at all. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	singe 2007-02-19 01:44 am UTC (link)
	Siiiiigh. I admit I had to look prolix up. And that, coupled with alliteration from HELL, forces me to give her blather a complete pass. Thpth. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	april_hurst 2007-02-19 02:39 am UTC (link)
	Prolix sounds like a brand of cereal. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	t_boy 2007-02-19 02:48 am UTC (link)
	I thought Prolix was Asterix's cousin. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rachelmap 2007-02-19 05:25 am UTC (link)
	Asterix's garrulous cousin. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	napalmnacey 2007-02-19 04:55 am UTC (link)
	snorts, wakes up Huh? You say something? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	singe 2007-02-19 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	Nothing important, honey. Go back to sleep. tucks in (Reply to this)(Parent)

	stopthatgirl7 2007-02-19 10:45 am UTC (link)
	I want to say "tl;dr" but...but...but...it's not that physically long! It just felt interminable. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	singe 2007-02-19 01:50 pm UTC (link)
	This is the pretension that never ends, it just goes on and on, my friends... (Reply to this)(Parent)

txvoodoo
2007-02-19 09:29 pm UTC (link)

Dreary AND redundant. Did the editor take a nap?

Surfeit MEANS more than enough, so that can be "...Web was surfeit" (and no past tense necessary). Partisan polarization? Ditch one or the other.

Her observations would be fresh if this were 1995. It's as if she finds it novel that the web is both verbal AND visual! And Youtube is literally impudent!

"The computer screen, as a development of the TV monitor, doesn't favor the elaborate, self-interrupting, endlessly qualifying syntax devised for books and still aped by pretentiously big-think glossy magazines."

Endlessly qualifying syntax like YOURS, Camille?

Lord, she's queen of redundancy: "Though I am a professed atheist..." Camille, if you're saying you are an atheist, you are professing it. I think she was looking for the word "avowed."

No wonder feminists get a bad rap if the world thinks this is their standard bearer.

She's even behind in fashion. Talking about John Edwards: "...and a dated hairstyle that looks femme and foofy at a time when military buzz cuts and Caesarian close crops are in."

Sweetie, the Caesar look is so 2000, unless you're in the cast of "Rome."

The other aggravating thing is her constant self-pimping. Nearly every damned paragraph has a link to an article or book she wrote in the Good Old Days, phrased so that she looks like a virtual Nostradamus, and linked to Amazon so she can make another buck.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	singe 2007-02-20 03:38 am UTC (link)
	Agreed, agreed on all points, especially the goddamn Caesar haircuts. But I can't believe you betaed that. My brain could barely get through the entire line before it blinked out of commission. I bow before you! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	txvoodoo 2007-02-20 03:51 am UTC (link)
	I was VERY VERY BORED at the time, so figured it was less boring. I honestly honly skimmed. And if I could tell that from skimming, why in heaven's name wouldn't an editor? Unless Camille's like Anne Rice and has contractually eliminated editing of her work ;) (as an ex-editor, I find that abhorrent!) (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -