Public intellectuals vs open discussion

There was a short hiatus while we were doing other things.

I still think the hype surrounding new technologies (”blogging” “wikis”) that would supposedly create a space for open discussion was overblown. But some old news made me want to post something here: one of Britain’s foremost “public intellectuals”–A. C. Grayling–throughly fluffing the art of public debate.

Grayling had written a short letter [scroll down] to the London Review of Books, the two-paragraph-wonder criticising Terry Eagleton’s review of Richard Dawkins (sorry Kate: could three such ingredients speak more pungently of Dirty Old Blighty? Eagleton’s was one of those reviews that should have been very boring, but it had the whiff of bitching old celebrity-scholars about it). So far, so reasonable–there’s the nasty little turn at the end, but that’s only to be expected in such circumstances.

Then somebody blogged about it, and A. C. Grayling weighed in. I found it interesting to see how he dealt with the constraints of online socialising: a savvy person would perhaps have toned things down for fear of being called an obvious troll.

Incidentally, the Mark K-P who rises to Grayling’s jibes about “anonymity”, writes k-punk. I’ve dumbed down so much these days that I look forward to his recommendations far more than I do to those of the LRB.