I may be muddling up two very similar columns, but I think what happened was that The Times used to have a really good etiquette column, really short but consistently funny and thought provoking. Then the journalist responsible, who I think is this guy, John Morgan, killed himself. And The Times tried to replace him, they've had various people trying their hand at it over the past several years, notably Philip Howard, but really the guy was inimitable. I think the ill-directed mockery of anyone who disagrees is a really pathetic attempt to copy Morgan's humour; he could do an almost Wildean level of snark of people who asked questions where they were clearly looking for him to give them a justification for behaving in a blatantly unethical way because all that old fashioned courtesy is outdated now.
There is definitely an art to witty takedowns, whether the wit comes from exaggerated ranting or subtle rhetoric. But that doesn't mean every time someone tears a dissenter apart, it is necessarily witty! I do think the main problem with The Times column is that it's quite simply not funny, it's trying to humour by formula, and falls flat more often than not.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:21 am (UTC)There is definitely an art to witty takedowns, whether the wit comes from exaggerated ranting or subtle rhetoric. But that doesn't mean every time someone tears a dissenter apart, it is necessarily witty! I do think the main problem with The Times column is that it's quite simply not funny, it's trying to humour by formula, and falls flat more often than not.