As I made clear in my statement to Salon and (I hoped) this blog, I respect Corliss and admire what he wrote about pornography all those years ago in the Village Voice. It was a fascinating piece, to which he has since alluded in print (cheekily adding that it “will never be anthologized”). I do, however, take issue with his characterization of my theory as a “ludicrous fantasy.” There aren’t many major newsweeklies in this country (I count three), and I don’t know how else to explain the meaning of Limbaugh’s threat to expose the writer as no different from Al Goldstein (a famous pornmeister of the seventies and eighties) on account of the fact that they both masturbate. Did Corliss get conflated with someone else in Limbaugh’s mind?
The point of the blog entry was to underscore (a) Limbaugh’s gangsterism (“We know where your kids go to school” is a threat too monstrous even for Tony Soprano) and (b) the preposterous fixation (which originated with Limbaugh, not me) on the shame of masturbation. That’s a snapshot of the wingnut mentality right there: “We’ll go after your kids — and then tell people you masturbate!”
Yes, yes, D-Ed could've e-mailed Corliss. But where's the fun in that?
So let's kiss and make up and agree that Joe Morgenstern is the worst film critic
No comments:
Post a Comment