From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: The Virginian, etc. (was: excellent reading!)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 13 DEC 92 21:30:33 GMT

Alas, Mark Taranto doesn't understand me.  He seems to think that I am
serious, that I am angry, and that I have some use for his advice.  He really
should know better.  Mark, let me explain myself as clearly as I can, so that
your misapprehensions can be laid to rest.  Then maybe we can get back to
discussing something more interesting.

>hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu (Heather) writes:  
>> Well, the quaint phrase Mr. Maddox used -- "fuck off and die" -- indicated
>>to me that he was angry.  I've occasionally used the similar phrases "fuck
>>off" and "eat shit and die", but only 1) when I've been really mad, or 2)
>>when kidding around with close friends, in which case I smile, so the
>>intent is clear. 

>Heather assumes that because she feels a certain way when acting in a
>certain way that others must react similarly?  And she thinks that it is the
>REST of r.a.b which is self-absorbed? 

This is not self-absorption.  Please don't be deliberately obtuse.  This is
how human beings communicate: with words and phrases that have an agreed-upon
meaning.  It's obvious to me that, while there are a few contexts in which
"Fuck off and die" is not an expression of anger and hostility, there are
many more contexts in which it *is*.  It doesn't matter, anyway; I was merely
explaining to you why I was under the impression that Mr. Maddox was mad,
since you found it "interesting" that my impression disagreed with yours.  I
couldn't care less if Mr. Maddox was mad or not.  

And I didn't say that *all* of r.a.b. was self-absorbed -- just the small
group of people who said they thought Mr. Maddox' original comment was
amusing.  Barbara Hlavin's comparison of the one-liner with a "family" joke
at the expense of a "newcomer" confirms that this group considered the remark
to be an in-joke.  In-jokes are fine, but the source of their amusement is in
the fact that others are excluded from the joke.  In this case, the in-joke
was at the expense of another person, stressing that person's ignorance and
future embarrassment.  Also fine, if that's your taste in humor.  But don't
expect others to share your taste.   Now I'm not quarrelling with your right
to have in-jokes, or to be as rude as you like.  I thought I made that clear. 
But, just as you have a right to your in-jokes, so I have a right to speak up
if something offends me.  Mr. Maddox' original remark didn't offend me,
exactly, nor did it anger me; but I thought he was being a snot, and I said
so in a smartass way. 

>This so called "inner circle" that Heather says is so self absorbed is an 
>amorphous creature.  

I referred to a clique, not an inner circle.  There can be many cliques in a
group, but only one inner circle.  

>For example, I've learned that M Z and a certain gentleman in Australia are
>not apt to care if I think something they wrote was offensive.  Therefore,
>I won't tell them.  I somehow thing that Heather DOES care, and that is why
>I am responding now. 

But Mark, I *don't* care, so please don't worry about it.  I knew that if you
reacted at all to my post, you would claim that Mr. Maddox was in the right. 
I expected the same reaction from Joan, Barbara, and Fiona.  Call it my
feminine intuition.

>So -- to Heather: 
> 
>        I do not approve of Tom Maddox telling you to 
>        Fuck off and Die, just because you were snotty to 
>        him.  And I do not approve of you being snotty to 
>        him just because you THOUGHT he was being snotty 
>        to someone else. 
> 
>That is my opinion, and from the number of responses in this thread, 
>I suspect that it is the opinion of a number of other individuals.

I know it is your opinion, and that people may agree with you.  On the other
hand, I know that there are people who agree with me.  Does it mean anything
to you that other people considered his original comment to be impolite? 
Probably not.  Nor does it mean anything to me that you disagree with my
reaction to his remark.  

>If she thinks that we are too hard on others, she ought to show us by
>example, not try to out-do us. 

Mark, your style (at least, the style of your net.persona) is different from
mine.  You want everyone to think of you as a "nice guy".  Therefore, you
define yourself as a member of a group, not as an individual.  You're an
organization man.  You don't want to rock the boat.  You want change to
happen gradually, since you've bought into the system and don't want to lose
your investment.  You don't seem to take pleasure in rattling the chains of
the pompous and complacent.  You claim if someone says something I think is
snotty, I am not to respond in kind.  (A bit phony, Mark -- you've flung your
share of snotty remarks under similar circumstances, you admitted as much.) 
Surely you must have realized by now that I don't have those attitudes in
common with you, so why are you still trying to convert me?  Accept me as I
am, or don't accept me at all -- it's your choice.  

The story goes like this:  Mr. Maddox made a wisecrack that some of you
thought was funny, but I thought was unnecessarily rude.  I made a wisecrack
in response that I thought was funny, to which Mr. Maddox evidently took
exception (surprising me, since his curmudgeonly net.persona frequently makes
snide comments at other people's expense, and I expected him to have a keen
understanding of that type of humor; it just goes to show, you can never
tell).  Subsequent flak from you and others was expected, and I dealt with
it.  No big deal.  

The heart of the matter is, when you make a statement in a public forum, you
run the risk of offending someone.  You have to be prepared to take that
chance.  Mr. Maddox seemed to think I wasn't entitled to react to his one-
liner the way that I did.  He offered me the choice of remaining silent in
the face of further snottiness, or fucking off and dying.  Well, well.  So
much for jocularity.  Then you, Mark, come in and and put *yourself* in the
role of "Miss Manners", instructing *me* on proper behavior, as though I
should follow some higher standard of discourse than Mr. Maddox.  How truly
laughable!  I didn't find Mr. Maddox' original statement amusing.  You did. 
Now you're trying to tell me how I should have reacted under the
circumstances.  How characteristically patronizing!  

Continue to devote energy to my social education if you so desire.  Just
don't fool yourself into thinking that I care.

>> ObBook -- The Virginian, by Owen Wister 

>Heather likes to picture herself as the gun-slinger, protecting the little 
>guy.  

I'm flattered, Mark, that you've taken the time to analyze my self-
mythologizing.  But the gunslinger is just another net.persona of mine, just
like your own Sensitive Guy persona -- not to be mistaken for The Real Me. 
Of course, all fictional characters are some sort of extension of the
author's own character.  The trick is to discern just how much, and which
part, and if it really matters.  Anyway, I cited THE VIRGINIAN for a
different reason.  As above, I was talking about how certain obscenities are
innocuous when the friendly spirit behind the words is clear, but they regain
their offensiveness when the spirit is hostile.  A famous illustration of
this is in Wister's early Western novel THE VIRGINIAN, published in 1902
(hence the tameness of the obscenity used):  

Steve = good guy, Trampas = bad guy.

     Steve... clapped [the Virginian] on the shoulder with a joyous chuckle. 
     "You old son-of-a----!" he cried affectionately....Then the two friends
     went out, and I bethought me of that epithet which Steve had used to the
     Virginian as he clapped him on the shoulder.  Clearly this wild country
     spoke a language other than mine--the word here was a term of
     endearment.  Such was my conclusion.

     [at a poker game:]

     It was now the Virginian's turn to bet, or leave the game, and he did
     not speak at once.

     Therefore Trampas spoke.  "Your bet, you son-of-a----."

     The Virginian's pistol came out, and his hand lay on the table, holding
     it unaimed.  And with a voice as gentle as ever, the voice that sounded
     almost like a caress, but drawling a very little more than usual, so
     that there was almost a space between each word, he issued his orders to
     the man Trampas:--

     "When you call me that, *smile*!" And he looked at Trampas across the
     table.


(For connoisseurs of dialogue:  I seem to remember that in the movie version
the line was rewritten as "When you say that, smile".  A slightly more
effective form, especially for a film rather than a novel, though the meaning
of the line is altered a tiny bit.)

Now, Mr. Maddox' "Fuck off and die" response to me did not make me want to
pull a gun on him -- in fact, it made me laugh out loud.  I merely quote this
passage to show why the phrase "Fuck off and die", said to me by Mr. Maddox,
who was not a friend of mine, indicated to me that he was angry.

I hope that's clear.

You and others can respond to this as much as you like, but I won't post any
more to rec.arts.books on this subject.  Whoever wants to continue the
discussion with me can do it via private e-mail. 

Ever egregious,

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu