[Lydia] Diamond trafficks in sanctimonious psycho-biography disguised as pedagogy, and certainly the complicated life of the heroic Harriet Jacobs deserves better than the flat proclamations she has provided here. But as the playwright is sexy and connected (friends with Peter DuBois of BU, where she teaches, and actually married to a Harvard prof), I guess we're stuck with her for the time being.
You know, I think I'll go just a little further into why I feel Ms. Diamond is such a weak playwright. It's obvious she has emotional issues that she could access as dramatic material; there's a strong vein of sexual horror running through both Harriet Jacobs and Voyeurs de Venus, for example, along with hints of intriguing obsessions with trust and power. But Ms. Diamond doesn't actually work through this material - instead she conceals it in political preaching. Yet whom is there left to convince that slavery was horrifying? Nobody I know, and certainly nobody who's going to buy a ticket to the Underground Railway Theater! And why, exactly, could the playwright not deal with her emotional material while at the same time working through the full story of Harriet Jacobs? There's really no reason, except that Diamond's not that interested in Jacobs, frankly. Indeed, her version of Harriet's story is bizarrely truncated, because when Jacobs no longer serves as a proxy for her own issues, Diamond simply drops her: The End. This is why her writing feels so dishonest - and why, btw, she makes me realize how lucky Tennessee Williams actually was (to take one example) to have been prevented from an explicit homosexual politics in his drama. He was therefore forced to grapple with the actual emotions he was feeling (albeit in a disguised heterosexual mode). Intriguingly, this deception led to honest drama rather than agitprop.
Take a breather here, if you need to. I know I did. There's more:
I'm beginning to worry these days that racism has become a kind of psychological crutch for some people. While watching the plays of Lydia R. Diamond, for instance, I've twice felt that I was listening to a profoundly neurotic personality, but one that had found a kind of camouflage for its neurosis in complaints about racism. Meanwhile the blogs 99 seats and Parabasis have morphed into an orbiting system of obsessional dialogue about race.And in challenging playwright Julia Jordan's statements about gender bias in the theater, he writes:
I'm wondering if you're concerned about the widespread perception that your advocacy of women playwrights is also an indirect form of self-promotion. If more female playwrights reached Broadway, but you weren't one of them, would there be a new socio-economic explanation for that gap?I happened to stumble across two more jaw-droppers while trolling (there's no other word for it, alas) for the above. Though they're not examples of ad hominem fallacies, they do seem relevant to any examination of Mr. Garvey's worldview:
It's no secret, after all, that minority audiences unconsciously view characters as social emblems - and thus a negatively-drawn female character written by a woman could stir up greater feelings of unconscious betrayal in women than in men.Finally, to a commenter standing up for Diamond's work:
Well, to be honest, Isabella, you're quite right about me - I am, indeed, promoting a cultural hierarchy. The best plays (so far) have been by white guys, I'm afraid, and it's too bad that unfortunate historical fact troubles you for reasons unknown, but hey - that's just not my problem.
26 comments:
I know all those count as "jaw-droppers" to you, because they insist on aesthetic, rather than political, analysis of art. But they're still not "ad hominem" attacks, and you still haven't actually floated an argument against anything I've said. My consistency in opposing what I see as the overrating of many minority playwrights shocks your political assumptions, I understand that. What you can't seem to see is that my general argument is directed at the political assumptions to which you subscribe, not those playwrights in particular. Indeed, the thrust of my argument about Lydia R. Diamond is that she could well prove a very interesting playwright if she could leave behind the crippling identity-politics format that people like you promote. Of course I understand that you'd be blind to the fact that propaganda - even propaganda for social aims with which you agree - dilutes and compromises art. But I'm afraid that's the way it is, and the way it will always be. So I'm really not criticizing Lydia R. Diamond so much as I'm criticizing you.
And I have to add one more thing. You wrote: "An attack is ad hominem when it impugns the credibility of an opponent rather than addressing the merits of their case."
That's just not true. I know that distortion suits your purposes, but it is nevertheless a distortion.
Something tells me I'm also going to have to explain why the example cited is not, actually, an ad hominem attack - an explanation which I think may also shed some light on Rob's muddy thinking. In the example, a person's rejection of abortion is dismissed because he is a Catholic priest. This argument, however, could be construed as merely a condensed, but still logical, claim, as in "wait a minute, he's a Catholic priest, and you know what their beliefs are, and you already disagree with them!" In other words, there is an implied rejection of a pre-existing logical argument. A parallel argument directed at me would be more like the following: "Wait a minute, Thomas Garvey is promoting aesthetic, not political analysis, and you know we disagree with that!" This might be an invalid argument, but it wouldn't be an ad hominem argument. And indeed, I think that IS the argument that people like Isaac Butler and 99 seats are making - they just won't say it out loud, because of course it's a highly debatable position. So they go ad hominem instead.
I'm glad to see that 99 seats - whose "arguments" usually run along the lines of "Fuck you!" - has now suddenly dedicated himself to parsing the terms of his favorite mode of attack. But alas, he needs to dedicate himself with a bit more energy. Checking his reference, it seems wikipedia teases out four or five forms of ad hominem attack, of which a "circumstantial" attack is indeed one. It's still a distortion to claim that one subset should speak for all, however. Nice try, though.
And at any rate, 99, even if we take that subset of cases as defining the term "ad hominem," how, exactly, have I indulged in ad hominem attack? I'm just curious. Rob says that I "cross the line" into ad hominem attack in my description of Lydia R. Diamond's playwriting. But how? Because I mention that she teaches at one local university, and is married to a professor at another, both of which run regional theatres? I never say that those connections impact her playwriting - my criticism of her writing is developed separately. I simply point out that her presence as a teacher at one of Boston's leading producers of new work almost certainly means that we'll be seeing a lot of her new work (which I happen to think isn't very good). It probably also explains why we're seeing three plays by her in the space of a year or so - a number higher I think than that of any other playwright (other than Shakespeare). You could argue that's just an odd coincidence, I suppose. Good luck with that.
As for the rest of Rob's post, the quotes he cites he actually admits that they're not ad hominem attacks - he just doesn't like that they don't match his politics.
Jesus.
Rob -- I'm dealing just with your post right now, not the comments that followed.
You need to do more than simply cut and paste, and refer to the pastes as "jaw-dropping." There is a whole lot to address in these quotes, but you can't simply rely on the "everyone with any sense agrees with me" approach. Dismantle the ideas, don't just assume they can be dismantled.
Scott:
Wading through the Hub Review for an hour or so yesterday was more than enough for me. Do your worst, if you have the stomach.
Well, then don't post it. You can't do half the job.
Scott:
One by one, then.
1. That Diamond is "sexy and connected" and "married to a Harvard professor" implies that she's getting produced there because, well, do I need to spell it out?
2. She's a "weak" playwright because she has "obvious emotional issues" that she hasn't worked through and instead sublimates into accusations of racism--that's armchair psychoanalysis, and presumptuous at best. And gee, if only she'd faced some onerous sexual repression, like the brilliant and well-adjusted Tennessee Williams, she might be able to deal with the real emotions she's feeling. Thanks for the prescription, Dr. Garvey.
3. Armchair psychoanalysis again, and applied more broadly; he's dismissing the merits of a discussion on race and racism, or work about the same topic, by diagnosing neuroses among its interlocutors. That's neither an aesthetic nor a political critique.
4. So Julia Jordan only cares about gender bias out of career self-interest? And what constitutes a "widespread perception"?
5. The most offensive quote of them all, for my money: It's certainly news to me that "minority audiences unconsciously view characters as social emblems." It's armchair psychoanalysis fused to naked prejudice.
6. So it's a "historical fact" that all the best plays have been "by white guys." Set aside the reification of a hierarchy of "best" as something every new play, especially a new play by a non-white non-guy, must measure up to, and enlighten me: What's "white"? Were the Greeks "white"? Were Lope de Vega and Calderon de La Barca "white"? August Wilson was half "white," too, so maybe he has a shot at the pantheon. And just keep your noses to the grindstone, Caryl, Suzan-Lori, and Sarah: One day, decades or centuries from now, some thumbsucking blogger may grudgingly include your work on a "best" list he can then use as a club against new plays anyone dares to write.
That do, Prof?
Yup
Has anyone here bothered to gather one or two things about the actual scope of the ad hominem fallacy(ies)? It’s hard not to notice that both of you are brightly engaged in this dispute without actually having much insight as to how is the ad hominem to be rightly understood.
My feeling is the at ad hominem discussion is a red herring. People use "ad hominem" to mean "gosh, that was really personal, dude" in a smart way. Garvey is calling us on it. Probably rightly.
Also, it is becoming clear to me that we are actually having a very old discussion, one that has been going on since Kant defined art as being "useless." I suspect -- and I hope Thomas will correct me if I am wrong -- that he is foundationally a Kantian. Others, myself included, see art as having an instrumental purpose in the world -- that it is involved in and reflective of the socio-political issues of a society. I'm not totally certain what to call this strain -- Marxist? Arnoldian? Grascian? Garvey puts an additional spin on the discussion by turning socio-political issues into psychological ones, which many of us object to.
Scott,
I think moving this into a conversation about Kant is actually a distraction from the core issues here. To take one example: Garvey uses an argumentum ad populum to claim that it is indisputably common knowledge that "minorities" all ascribe to a way of viewing art that he thinks is inferior.
For some reason, you'd rather talk about Kant than discuss how totally offensive it is to take a baseless and evidence-free claim and use it to write off an entire swath of the theatre-going public that comes from the ranks of the underrepresented. If Garvey had written the same thing about rural audiences or working class whites you wouldn't stand for it. Yet in this comment thread, you seem to think the person who needs attacking is Rob. It befuddles me, frankly.
Isaac -- Well, I'm sorry that you'd rather get into a pissing match with Garvey about the form of the argument -- is it ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, or what. I'm an academic, but kill me now. Garvey is pretty straight-forward -- in his first comment, he says "I know all those count as "jaw-droppers" to you, because they insist on aesthetic, rather than political, analysis of art." That's the Kantian argument right there. But arguing about the WAY that Garvey argues: pointless. As far as baseless and evidence-free claims, if we removed them from the blogosphere my RSS feed would be pretty empty. You want to talk about race, then make an argument, don't just assume agreement with your opinion and get all huffy. Rob cut and paste a series of quotes and then just assumed we'd all join in rolling our eyes. Well, for my money that is lazy writing.
I know you do a lot of reading in this area -- well, so do I. And I've read enough to know that we don't get anywhere by checking our intellects at the door and just getting all huffy-puffy about things.
As somebody who has been called a bully before simply because my opinion about certain issues doesn't match the conventional line, I don't have much time for this argument about bullying. The way to beat a bully is to make better arguments than he makes, not by throwing a hissy fit.
What if the bully isn't actually making arguments? What if, instead of making arguments, he's just talking trash?
What is Thomas' argument in saying that no new play could be as good as All Our Sons? How do you formulate an argument against that?
What is the argument in saying that Lydia Diamond is a neurotic who's foisting her race-based neuroses on the world via her sexual and political connections?
Honestly. How do you argue with someone who starts there?
Well, you might try to counter the idea that Diamond distorts history to make a point, or you argue that the point being made is true even if the actual historical facts are distorted (this is the Richard III argument), or you might argue, as Artaud did, that while Miller's play is powerful we need to tell our own stories in our own way and Miller tells it in a way that was great in the 1940s. But saying "Is not is not is not blah blah blah blah blah" doesn't cut it.
Hey Scott,
To just explain myself a little clearer:
My point is this-- by trying to elevate the conversation in a more intellectual/philosophical direction, you're letting a malefactor off the hook. Not intentionally, but that's what is happeneing.
Thomas claims that he is hewing closely to objective aesthetic criteria and that is what his detractors are mad at him about. You are essentially agreeing with him, and thus buying into a frame that ignores in its entirety the content of what he's saying, and the content frequently falls into the "bigoted bullshit" category. By saying all of this is just a preference for Kantian values of art, you're saying that an objective aesthetic critique of art would have to agree with what Thomas claims is "wrong" with minority writers and audiences.
Lastly, I'll just say that in 2010, you shouldn't have to prove that making baseless accusations of psychological problems with black viewers or black playwrights in order to dismiss their POV is offensive. And once again, as much as I'm enjoying the New Reasonable Scott Walters, if this was about using stereotypes about rural white audiences, I doubt you'd be talking about aesthetic philosophy.
Isaac -- I would be making actual arguments, and not just going off on Garvey's ass and throwing a tantrum. Until we can do that -- until we can get beyond simply using emotional blackmail -- then the conversation in our country about race will never get any further.
Meow!
Scott,
First off, where the tantrum in this post or the comment thread that followed? I don't see it. You claimed that Rob was making a lazy argument, are you now talking about Rob? does using quotations as evidence in a level-headed take-down post count as a tantrum? Please support with evidence what you're talking about! Otherwise you're just making a lazy argument :)
Second, it's good to know that calling bigotry what it is now equals emotional blackmail. I'll have to keep that in mind. Or did you have another meaning of the term in mind when you used it?
I really don't understand. Clarify, por favor.
I'm wondering when, if ever, one of 99's "shorter" versions of anything will actually reflect the original accurately. Somehow I think never, as so far he's 0 for 0. But I'll take a shot at it in reverse:
Shorter 99: I'm fabulous, but sad because I'm being oppressed! I wonder what's new on hulu? And people who think I'm superficial are bullies! Did I say "ontological" yet? Ooo, he's hot!
And I'm just wondering - have any of you actually read or seen a play by Lydia R. Diamond? It doesn't sound as if you have, whether you're Kantians or not. Talk about "baseless and evidence-free claims."
The insanely bigoted (and obviously unemployed) Garvey tries to get the last word in by deploying--wait for it--yet another irrelevant personal attack that he hopes will be misconstrued as wit and will cause everyone to fall silent. He continues to call himself a critic and styles himself a truth-teller shaming bloggers. But I don't know any critic who debases himself like this. And there are plenty of bottom-feeder bloggers who do.
Post a Comment