A Tempest in a Pee Pot
This came over the transom yesterday:
Although Big Hominid "wasn't offended," I see that
your remarks about "the Big Ho's proctological and
scatological obsessions" annoyed a couple of his
blogospheric buddies. At the risk of further agitating
this tempest in a peepot, this squabble in a cesspool,
let me add to the the swizzle.
Maximum Leader interprets you to be saying:
"Yeah, Kevin is a really bright guy who can comment
intelligently on philosophical matters. But, all this
potty humour is better relegated to somewhere where I
wouldn't have to sift through it to get to the good
stuff. And by the way, I only linked to him because he
linked to me."
Except for the last line, from which I'd drop "And by
the way" as well as "only," so that it reads "I linked
to him because he linked to me," ML's summary seems
accurate. But then, ML goes on to remark, "What a sad
response," suggesting that you were "embarrassed for
providing the link" to the Big Ho's blog.
I suppose, Bill, that you'd have to tell us if you
were embarassed, but from my perspective as your
blogospheric buddy, I'd say that you weren't
embarassed by BH's scatological cum eschatological
humor (Gabriel tooting his horn). Rather, I
interpreted you to mean that you find it distracting.
As one who takes a look at BH's blog every day, I
second that emotion. (Or is distraction not an
Which leads me to Air Marshall's reaction:
"BH's humor is kind of out there, and for most people
reading this, you know and love it. I suppose Dr. V
pointed out there is a second class of people who read
this blog for BH's philo/religions discussion. Fine.
Get used to the nastiness. It's fun and liberating."
The initial statements are fine with me, but I again
take issue with the latter remarks. I can ignore the
"nastiness" but why should I get used to it? As for
its being "fun and liberating," that sort of humor may
have seemed so back in my NoZe Brother days (and maybe
it was, as a phase), but looking back from my nearly
50 years of growing up, I just don't find it so. This
is my honest response, not intended as an attack,
merely my perspective.
But what really bothered AM, it appears, was what he
refers to as Dr. V's "boomercentric view of BH's
"If it's bad, it must be because of Boomers and
evaluated in terms of Boomers. Piss on Boomers. BH's
humor has nothing to do with Boomers at all. Remember,
this is the generation that gave us BOTH Bill Clinton
AND Dubya. Ooooh there's a wonderful track record.
Piss on Boomers."
AM, you need to read more of Dr. V. His low view of
boomers is not far from yours. But if you think that
the Boomer generation's sexual revolution had nothing
to do with BH's humor and its broad acceptability,
then you are simply wrong. Read William S. Burroughs'
Naked Lunch (not the product of a boomer, but
popular in the 60s) or Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's
Rainbow, for instance, and see if the way wasn't paved
by the boomer generation.
And don't miss the irony that your disavowal of the
boomers recapitulates that boomers' disavowal of the
generation before them. But what the hell -- let's all
disavow the boomers. I'm with you on that.
Well, Bill, thanks for letting me air my views on your
blog. I guess that I should get my own -- except that
I have no time for regular blogging (and even now have
to rush off to class half-prepared).
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges [Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley]
Department of English Language and Literature
136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu