Sunday thoughts:
I've had an untold number of abusive bosses over the years (I speak primarily of before I became a screenwriter.)
A large number. Same is true of teachers, instructors and coaches. I had those before I ever had abusive bosses. 1)
"Among other things," he said. "He's a big guy, he might challenge you to step outside, if he doesn't like the look on your face. How would you respond to that, since you're a black belt?"
"I'd probably call the police, first," I said.
And proceeded to torture and torment me as a result.
They weren't the only ones. There's the sexual harasser who everyone called crazy, who disappeared from sight one day (I think she went to rehab)...
The list goes on.
I adapted a project about Harvey Weinstein when I broke in & the stories of his mistreatment of his staff are legend.
There's even a film about the topic, SWIMMING WITH SHARKS, about that very thing. It's not an exaggeration. There's also THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, WHIPLASH, etc.
Let me tell you something, re WHIPLASH.
We've long held it up as a ritualistic hazing, that this is how you are made strong. Gives you talent.
Here's the thing. It's complete and utter bullshit. Truly.
Nothing to it at all. I was hazed in high school athletics, and did nothing but give me PTSD. Didn't make me a better athlete.
Joss Whedon is the latest, before that it was Ellen.
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
