In Defense of Anne

We make it a point to check in on Anne Midgette of the Washington Times [Edit: Er, post] every so often, as we do all our friends in the critics’ circle, just to see how she’s getting along. Maybe we’ll find something to poke fun at, but, more often than not, we won’t. She’s a strong writer who covers a ton of concerts and recordings each week. It’s a tough job.

That is why I think this deserves some attention. It’s a published response to one of her reviews in the Opinions/Feedback section.

Her writing was woefully poor, both in its structure and the specifics of her observations.

Since we don’t make it a priority to comment on comments, I’m a bit apprehensive about this endeavor. But, in the past year, we’ve seen many far, far worse tidbits of poor writing. That’s why I think Anne deserves some Detritus Credit (new low introductory rates, for qualified customers only). Here’s what the opinion writer finds troublesome:

This passage in particular represents how turgid and incomprehensible I often find her:

"Much of [Elliott Carter’s] work, to me, is like the product of an elaborate, state-of-the-art camera used to take black-and-white greeting-card images of urban environments: The technology can outweigh the impact of what's actually being conveyed."

Okay, the simile might be a tad convoluted, but I see Anne’s point. And while I disagree with her sentiment, I’m also familiar with a hoard of other writers who wouldn’t be so tactful, or so aware of their falibility.

What’s more, and more importantly, Anne prefaced her opinion of Carter’s music with the all-exclusive pronoun, “me.” It’s her opinion, no one else’s; the reader is free to disagree. Therefore, it’s “silly” to take it as something else other than an honest, indisputable opinion.

Getting through that sentence was a slog, and what I understood struck me as silly.

Well, it’s silly to be hypersensitive about a colorful simile hedged by “me,” too. (I’d have no problems ripping this a new one if she had said, “Carter’s music is an elaborate...”; stated as fact, that would have sent me Segwaying to a gun show in San Antonio.) The point is subtle, I suppose.















Fig. 1. Bloggers Segwaying

When she said of Carter's music that its "hallmark is a complexity too intricate to be apprehended by the ear," she could have been describing the limits of her own ear.

I do not have, by any means, an infallible ear, but it’s pretty decent. And I’ll tell ya something, Joe Opinion Holder, I can’t hear half the “technical” stuff going on in his music, especially without a score of some form of a priori information. Most can’t (I’ve only met one person who could, and that’s freakishly rare.). So, for most (by most, I mean 99.9999% of people), this is a truism. Are you implying that you possess a set of special, one-in-a-million ears? I think not, Joe.

While I applaud your defense of Carter’s music, Joe O. Holder, your critique of Anne is well off-base.

-

Also, what’s with the opinion Editors over at the Post? Remember this?
-