That's it! The only ism I want to come out of your mouths is jism. Overacademic Bullshit Must Die.

Of course, with the invasion of the Internet and the fact that almost anything can be Googled into understanding, this point may be at present moot. There was no such thing as the Internet for the average Jane/Joe back then, however. There weren't even computers at the grade school I went to back then. So it wasn't as if I could look up "Robyn Hitchcock" as easily as I could look up "redoubtable" back then, just to name an example.

I just think that when it comes to criticism that would've been read by a wide audience back in the Dark Ages Before the Internet Was Available in Any Public Library, people should've worked hard to not include elements in the opinion piece that would've been damned impossible to look up. Words are one thing -- I mean, everyone in here has had a dictionary in their possession for all eternity, right? Even slightly obscure historical events could've been found out through a quick interrogation of one's favorite history teacher. But trying to figure out who the hell "G.G. Allin" is/was back then -- I think I would've had much better luck finding out through my teachers what happened during the Second Peloponnesian War.

p.s.: I knew who The Smiths were back when I was 13. I should've -- I was a fan of theirs back then. (Still am, in fact. Ever loyal me.)

I'm sorry, the "average sports column" is total dreck! What are you thinking of here?

These days even the teachers would have to google for that.

Hey, me neither, but that was part of the fun/mystique! You found out stuff however you could, bit by bit, maybe going through the microfiche Rolling Stone collection at the library, or reading a 100-word review in a Trouser Press guide.

Abraham saw signs of God and believed. Now the only sign is that all the signs in the world make no difference. Is this God's ironic revenge? But I am onto him."

I want a miccio barbie so bad.

I am not a rock critic. I post and read ILM. I don't really care if someone uses "overacademic bullshit" language or not. So quit assuming you speak for anybody else.

Thanks,

hstencil

Was I a rockcrit when I was 12? No.

Anyway, your argt stinks. "I can't name any --> they don't exist."

(and like i was talking about you, hstencil)
/good-natured ribbing

A: Even my dad knows Skip Bayless is an idiot.

If academia has proven anything, it's that throwing a firework into a boring study hall always produces more boring study halls than it does fireworks. Did you really expect us all to say 'shit, he's right!', throw the A through K section of our bookshelves out into the street and never come back?

And Daria, isn't theory the development of ideas? How can you get rid of that in an academic environment?

(and someone please answer one more question: what thread sparked this one? i want to read it)

YES. Do it, now.

For instance, relying on jargon or buzzwords or theorists without taking the time to explain them to those who are not intimately acquainted with them. This doesn't mean writing for a 13-year-old: this simply means writing outside yourself. I'm looking forward to seeing Sterling's article on Jay-Z and Bakhtin -- but since I only have a cursory understanding of dialogism, I'm hoping that he'll elucidate Bakhtin's theories somewhat to get me more interested and involved in the piece. (It will also allow him to better support his argument.) There's also just plain bad writing that's dense or labored or whatever, and I think we all agree that Xgau, in his attempts to be pithy and allusive, sometimes fails to communicate his basic message.

Often this all comes across as elitist because readers think I-don't-get-it-I-guess-I'm-dumb, but too often it's just the critic's laziness (or unwillingess) to explicate. And if we are indeed talking primarily about journalism (instead of academic criticism that's explicitly written for an inside crowd), then this seems worthy of critique.