No, this isn’t a post about the chaos of meaning and authorial intention. Or, then again, maybe it’s at least related to it. Today I want to talk about those peculiar readers who seem utterly unable to separate the art from the artist.
But what does it mean, to separate the art from the artist? In a sense, it’s about understanding that meaning is created by the author as well as the audience.
However, in our context, not to separate the art from the artist refers to those who cannot objectively assess a work of art as a result of their preconceptions about the artist.
Where do you draw the line between art and artist?(more…)
A quick definition of a euphemism is “a phrase or word used as an ameliorating substitute for an unpleasant or offensive word”. Some people might say “senior citizens” instead of “old people” (or, heaven forbid, “old farts”). But how euphemisms work is a more complex issue, with elaborate psychological underpinnings.
“Euphemism” is a Greek word, literally meaning “good speech”. It was used in the Koine Greek (also known as Alexandrian Dialect, roughly between 300 BCE – 300 CE). Its modern meaning came much later.
Euphemisms can be very obvious, as in the senior-citizen example above. But they can also be extremely subtle, which is what makes them interesting. So, let’s take a look at how euphemisms work. But before that, a funny story about euphemisms. It involves mice. Lots of them.
Cute mice, aren’t they? Except if you don’t like mice. Then they’re not mice. They’re…(more…)
Articles on fallacies are popular on the Home for Fiction blog. We’ve talked about the Appeal to Nature fallacy, the Bandwagon fallacy, and the Only Game in Town fallacy. Today I’ll talk to you about the Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy, also known as “Tu Quoque”. The term is Latin and means “You, too”. I will use the terms interchangeably in this article, they mean exactly the same thing.
As with all fallacies, the Appeal to Hypocrisy is an attempt to ameliorate one’s argument with parameters that do not stand the test of argumentation and logic. Generally speaking, a person committing a fallacy might do it inadvertently; that is to say, without intent. Here’s an example:
Everyone at the office agrees, the boss is stupid.
This feels like a very natural thing to say. There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it, right? And yet, though the statement might still be true, it’s not argumentatively solid. The mere fact that every employee agrees, doesn’t prove that the boss is indeed stupid. This is an example of the Bandwagon fallacy.
Conversely, it is uncommon that a person would commit the Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy unknowingly. The nature of this fallacy is such that the person deploying it in an argument is usually fully aware that his/her argument is weak, and the fallacy is committed precisely to create distraction.
Just because someone is a hypocrite, it does not remove the validity of their argument
