Edit: I do realise there is a large dose of irony (AN: not the place where Ironians live) in the fact that I contest Riley’s article and go on to insult him. Well… I didn’t say I was better than him. Mind you, it is entirely possible that, had he done this in my physical presence, I’d have said pretty much the same thing in person.
Quoth Ronan’s adaptation of my sentiment: “Hi, I’m a former TechCrunch reader and I think your post was stupid. If I didn’t knew better I would think you are a douchebag Mr Riley.”
Edited accordingly.
In a recent Techcrunch post, Duncan Riley took upon himself to attack the acceptance speech of Doris Lessing as she received the Nobel Price of Litterature.
Out of a 4590 word-speech, he chose to retain 52 word abstract and twist it into a specious argument implying that Lessing had written an entire speech against the internet. The abstract is as follows:
We are in a fragmenting culture, where our certainties of even a few decades ago are questioned and where it is common for young men and women, who have had years of education, to know nothing of the world, to have read nothing, knowing only some speciality or other, for instance, computers.
How could anyone sum up a speech about memory, difference in attitude towards culture and books could have been miconstrued as an anti-Internet speech is quite beyond me.
Upon reading Lessing’s full speech, one cannot help but be struck with the melancholy that tinges her words. She paints a vivid picture of culture in underdeveloped countries and opposes it to the apparent indifference of our “educated elite”.
In response to Riley’s post, after my first attempt where the word douche featured proeminently, I had written an argument as to why the Internet was not helping culture before realising half-way through that it was not the point of Lessing’s speech.
Recent Comments