The tenor of m.croche’s opening statement suggests that he judges works of political commentary by whether or not their authors match his standards for political correctness. I suspect that commentary is not really all that important to m.croche.

In which case, his pompous declaration of Xrlq as “merely the preening of a Philistine” is that of a pompous poseur.

The rest of m.croche’s post is similarly infantile. We all listen to commentators we regard as idiotic, on the internet and elsewhere. m.croche is free to trumpet his disagreement with Xrlq’s post all over the net. Xrlq, of course, was correctly left free to say his piece.

ps: If you can explain why my commentary differs from yours in any substantial way, I’ll give you bonus poseur points.

The tenor of Xrlq’s opening statement suggests that he judges works of literature by whether or not their authors match his standards for political correctness. I suspect that literature is not really all that important to Xrlq.

In which case, his pompous declaration of Doctorow (“[I] hope never to hear of [him] again” is merely the preening of a Philistine.

The rest of Xrlq’s post is similarly infantile. We all have to sit through speeches we regard as idiotic, at graduations and elsewhere. Xrlq is free to trumpet his disagreement with Doctorow’s speech all over the net. Doctorow, of course, was correctly left free to say his piece.

And maybe some people without clues would suddenly get one.

I wonder how tolerant the University would have been if Doctorow had been using the podium to, say, castigate ethnic minorites. My betting is that the University President knew damn well what Doctorow was going to say, and thought the views needed to be placed before the graduates. Graduates who should have walked out. I imagine some did.

One difference, though — at first, we actually applauded him, and resorted to boos only after he refused to take the hint.