Talk:The Age of Reason/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Moore

The material on Michael Moore is cited to reliable sources (per WP:V and WP:RS). Please do not remove it without first discussing your reasons for doing so here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If one wants to shoehorn one's admiration for Michael Moore into a Tom Paine discussion, the proper (or at least, less-improper) place would surely be either the Tom Paine article or the Michael Moore article, not the Age of Reason article. The fact that a few movie reviewers like to compare Moore with Paine goes no farther than those opinions about style, and is not sufficient citation to establish as a fact that "[Paine's] rhetorical style has endured even into the twenty-first century, in ... the films and persona of Michael Moore." At the least, this would have to be amended to a "some claim" or "many claim" kind of sentence, which would be open to counter-opinions, such as those expressed in Pauline Kael's famous review of Roger and Me: that Moore is as likely to make stooges and humor-targets of "the vulgar" (working stiffs) as speak for them and that Moore frequently falsifies or takes out of context his sources (as Paine, in his Biblical references, does not).
Don't get me wrong. The last thing I mean to suggest is that such an involved discussion (of the ways that Moore's style and approach does and does not resemble Paine) belongs in this article. It does not. It quite possibly belongs somewhere in a Wikipedia discussion of Moore, or of Paine's influence, but it would be weirdly disproportionate and out of place in an article on The Age of Reason, where any discussion of Paine's style should have some vague relationship to how it is used in the context of a deistic or atheistic attack, via reason, on received religion. None of the citations given show Moore (who professes himself a regular-guy Roman Catholic) employing his "rhetorical style" or "persona" in this context (whereas Hitchens, for instance, does).
(Added later: I might add that while Hitchens handles the same subject matter, with both reason and humor, as Paine does in The Age of Reason, his educated-showboat High Mandarin rhetorical style resembles neither Paine nor Moore. Maybe the whole sentence should go. The major writer most influenced by Paine's rhetorical style in tackling religion was Mark Twain. Though not "twenty-first century," Twain has more claim to a place in this article than either Hitchens or Moore.)
Bottom line: In some form the Moore assertion may belong in some Wikipedia article, but not this one, and not as unqualified fact in any case.
66.241.73.146 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your post - the sentence in the article under consideration is "Paine's unique rhetorical flair is also still alive in American culture; it is embodied, for example, in the persona and the films of Michael Moore, who has been called "the new Tom Paine". Awadewit(talk) 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are two advertisements for Moore in the article as it stands. The other reads, "However, Paine's ideas inspired and guided many British freethinkers of the nineteenth century and his rhetorical style has endured even into the twenty-first century, in the works of modern writers such as Christopher Hitchens and the films and persona of Michael Moore." 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added the "some claim" phrase to the article as your suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
But this is insufficient, as argued below. 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You have argued that a discussion of Paine's influence on Moore "is weirdly disproportionate and out of place" in this article. However, it occupies only a single sentence and illustrates that Paine's works actually had an influence beyond the scope of religion. As this is one of Paine's works, I don't see why it is illogical to mention it. You argue that the influence discussion should be limited to how Paine affected the discussion of religion, but that is not the only affect Paine's works had. If you read the scholarship on Paine (cited in this article), you will see how important his rhetoric was, not just the topics he covered. That is why discussing the influence of Paine's writing style is relevant. Awadewit (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I said that a full and substantive discussion of the type I described would be disproportionate and out of place, not the current version. However, I'm happy to add that the double mention of the current version surely is disproportionate in itself, and yes, out of place. Who would ever suppose that a discussion of The Age of Reason would require two mentions of Michael Moore's "persona?" 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You say in this Talk page that the disputed sentence discusses the "influence of Paine's works," the "influence of his writing style." But that is not what the Moore mentions say. In both of them the connection to Moore is vague and nebulous; a "rhetorical style" "has endured" in, or Paine's "unique [sic] rhetorical flair" is "embodied" in, Moore's films and "persona." If you really want to claim that Moore has been influenced by Paine or The Age of Reason (influenced as Hitchens, who has written articles and a book on the subject, clearly has been), then you need a citation showing that Moore has, for instance, read Paine or The Age of Reason. 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If, however, you are satisfied with this vague connection, and the notion that Moore deserves inclusion in this article because reviewers and columnists here and there have made Tom Paine comparisons sufficient to back it up, you are faced with the problem that any gadfly or disputant in American letters is likely to be compared with Tom Paine, so why the special mention of Moore? Do this experiment: Google the phrase "modern-day Tom Paine" and look at, say, the first twenty out of the 404 (!) hits. In whom else does the ineffable rhetorical whosis of Paine still survive today? Mike Malloy, Chris Weigant, Louis Lapham, Kevin Phillips (most of these mentioned twice) are modern-day Tom Paines, "some say"; many more names could be dug out, and we would have to try other search wordings, to get a comprehensive list (Moore hasn't made the top twenty of this one, I note). If it's really important and germane to record everyone who has been compared with Tom Paine, the list should be a lot longer than it is here. But is it really important, or even relevant? 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You say the Moore mention "illustrates that Paine's works actually had an influence beyond the scope of religion"--but that is precisely why any discussion of Moore as one possible heir to Paine belongs in a more general article than an article on the Paine work restricted to a subject Moore does not address. I assure you, Paine is plain-spoken, humorous, and irreverent in other works beside The Age of Reason. Take a look at the "Legacy" section of the Wikipedia article on Paine. Isn't that where a list of writers in the spirit of Paine, including Moore, belongs, if anywhere? 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In summary, your citations do not make the case that Moore has read and been influenced by Paine in general, much less by The Age of Reason, and in the absence of such confirmed influence, the fact that some would compare Moore's style to Paine's is a weak connection that could be extended to a great many other authors. So much of this page has a solid, encyclopedia feel and treatment--the Moore mention sticks out like a sore thumb as an irrelevancy prompted by a personal enthusiasm. 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
From Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, by Harvey J. Kaye, (Hill and Wang, 2005),page 171:
Mark Twain first read Paine at about twenty years of age... "It took a brave man before the Civil War to confess he had read the Age of Reason, he would recall years later. "I read it first when I was a cub pilot, read it with fear and hesitation, but marveling at its fearlessness and wonderful power."... Receiving a letter in 1908 inviting him to suggest names for a list of "History's One Hundred Greatest Men"...he nominated Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Thomas Paine. Moreover, Twain incorporated aspects of Paine's thought into his own work, most evidently in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, where he critically restated Paine's arguments against church, monarchy, and aristocracy in novel form.
An even better stylistic comparison would be found in Letters From the Earth, but that would just be an opinion, even if (as is not unlikely) I could find a citeable authority who shares it. The citation given, however, is sufficient to establish that Twain read Paine, admired his works, and was directly influenced by them in his own writings. Compare that with the Moore mentions and citations. 66.241.73.146 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with 66.241.73.146 and am saddened that this discussion seems to have died out. The source states that "Moore has been hailed by the left as the new Tom Paine," but then goes on "denounced by his right wing opponents as the incarnation of Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl." By the same logic, if Moore is to be mentioned in the article on The Age of Reason, he ought to be mentioned in the articles on Goebbels and Riefenstahl (which comparison would probably be closer, by the way, since regardless of opinions, all were propaganda masters). Beyond that single movie review, the connection is even weaker. A Google search for "the new Thomas Paine" produces Ron Paul, Thom Hartmann, Scott Beale, Matt Drudge, and all sorts of other people. The grand statement that "Paine's... rhetorical style has endured even into the twenty-first century, in... the films and persona of Michael Moore" is not merited by one flippant statement in a movie review. The other sources cited for the statement aren't even worth mentioning. I don't want this discussion to turn into a personal attack, like some of the past discussions on this topic, but the Moore comparison is simply ridiculous and blemishes what is otherwise a well-written and informative article. Mikabr (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore is NO Thomas Paine. The reference to Michael Moore should be removed. Just because some drugged out psychotics in their delusional state see some comparison between Michael Moore, a fat boy that wasn't liked as a child, wasn't picked to play with the big boys so he developed a psychosis and has delusions of grandeur, and Thomas Paine does not means that in reality there is any resemblance in any way. Take it out or this entire article is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.2.157 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Irreverent tone?

I decided to completely rewrite my comment as theese two sections of the article continue to confuse my train of thought.

"Paine's style is not only “vulgar”, it is also irreverent. For example, Paine describes Solomon as a rake, who “was witty, ostentatious, dissolute and at last melancholy"; he “lived fast, and died, tired of the world, at the age of fifty-eight years".[48]"

Offensive is one of the defenitions of vulgar. (merriam webster dict.)

  • That is its modern definition, yes. The article tries to avoid this problem by explaining: "The most distinctive element of Paine's style in The Age of Reason is its “vulgarity". In the eighteenth century "vulgarity" was associated with the middling and lower classes and not with obscenity, thus, when Paine celebrates his "vulgar" style and his critics attack it, the dispute is over class accessibility, not profanity." Awadewit | talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the second paragraph leaves me with the idea that it was a specific group of people who were offended. "It was Paine's "ridiculing" tone that most angered Churchmen" Clearly the churchmen were angry about being ridiculed. That suggest to me that it wasn't that it was written for the common man that offended them, it was his ridiculing tone and offensive, irreverent even, wording that angered them.

  • That sentence is pretty clear, in my opinion. Of all of the things in Paine's book, it was his "ridiculing" tone that upset the clergy the most.
  • I'm not sure why this would lead the reader to the conclusion that the book wasn't written for the common man. Paine's "vulgarity" or his "lowness" of language is part of what upset the clergy so much. The accessibility of Paine's arguments, through their clarity and what the clergy saw as lower-class humor and appeal, is what disturbed them. Awadewit | talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps not contradicted by the first section regarding this, but it certainly points in another direction.

"In the eighteenth century "vulgarity" was associated with the middling and lower classes and not with obscenity, thus, when Paine celebrates his "vulgar" style and his critics attack it, the dispute is over class accessibility, not profanity."

The editor says the issue wasn't over ridicule, profanity, offensive language. It was over that the lower classes actually read it? Or something to that effect.

However, going back to the fact that this is NOT written for 18th century people, but 21st century people, perhaps it could be made more clear. ALL of it.

  • I'm sorry, I don't follow you. What could be made clearer? Awadewit | talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My last and most clear gripe is with the use of the word "IS" instead of "WAS". Using IS implicates that it still is whatever it was then, I'm still not sure exactly what that is however. As I mentioned, I dont feel the article makes that clear. If you are saying language as a whole, acceptance and understanding, has stayed static during theese last couple of hundred years, I am simply baffled. If you are using the word vulgar to mean something like offensive, then how is it still vulgar? If you are using the word vulgar to mean something like written for the common man, then how is it still vulgar? If it indeed was vulgar, then it WAS vulgar.

  • The use of the present tense in this article is called the "literary present". It is standard practice for writing about texts both in academia and on wikipedia.

I repeat again, for emphasis.

"It was Paine's "ridiculing" tone that most angered Churchmen" How does this compute with the 'classical' usage of the word vulgar?

Annoying username 13:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Annoying username on all counts. I believe that Awdewit calling the book, "vulgar", in present tense and using terms like "cheapness" (as opposed to affordability?!) represent the lack of neutrality of this article. I have never heard or seen anyone use the word "cheapness". I've heard people use affordability many times. These are only two minor examples of the biased language, objective associations, and slanted writing style that are all overwhelmingly prevalent throughout this entire article. Unfortunately Awadewit monitors and guards this article unremittingly. Anyone who wishes to correct and amend this article must be prepared to monitor it 7 days a week and engage in "edit wars" with Awadewit. It is my opinion, based solely on the content of the article that it is the primary intention of the author of this article to discredit and refute Paine and The Age Of Reason. Why someone would want to discredit a book that discredits the bible is up for discussion.Pitythafoo —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pitythefoo, I really am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot last time and I wish you would accept my apology.
It would help not only me, but other editors working on this page if you would provide a detailed list of the problems you see in the article. It would also help your case if you did not impugn the motivations of other editors - you have no evidence to back up your claims and at wikipedia we try and assume good faith whenever possible. Let us see if we can work together to address the problems you see in the article. Awadewit | talk 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While the case for "irreverence" can obviously be made, the Solomon reference seems peculiarly inapposite. The Bible is not that reverent toward Solomon, but rather indicts him for being turned toward idolatry as the result of his promiscuous marrying of women of other faiths. Nothing in the quoted passage is less reverent than the Bible itself toward Solomon, nor is the quoted passage irreverent toward the Biblical account of Solomon, merely summing it up with a little spin. 66.241.73.146 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This book was published in the eighteenth century - this was irreverent then. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
No doubt to some. But the point remains that as an example of Paine's constant irreverence, this is so much weaker than it might be. (Because Solomon is not held up as an object of reverence in the Bible, and because Paine does not in any way contest the Bible account.) But there's no need to argue. Since I agree that there are many examples of irreverence to be found, it is incumbent on me to find a better one. This took about five minutes, and the replacement has been made. 66.241.73.146 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

In the Adams quote: "never before in any age of the word was suffered by the poltroonery of mankind". Should it be "age of the world"? I was reluctant to correct it in a quote that already has several [sic]s. Lesgles (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll have to check this at the library. No preview on Google Books! :) Awadewit (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuklick

Kuklick needs a full reference in the bibliography. Lesgles (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Added. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Age_of_Reason/Archive_2&oldid=281420435"