Translate

Friday, May 31, 2013

Punctuation is Misandry!

Over at Captain Capitalism, a rave review of Roosh V.'s new compendium The Best of Roosh, Part I.

First of all, Capt. Cap warns other self-publishing entrepreneurs that "until I get counter reviews, the book reviews will be limited to a tit for tat mutually beneficial relationship."  Ah, so that's how "peer review" works in the manosphere!

In defense of Roosh, whose self-editing tends to be as haphazard as his personal grooming, The Captain asserts that he, personally, likes the typos.  In fact, the more of 'em, the better! 
 I'm taking a religious stance with this in that I believe men are sick and tired of the predominantly female-dominated publishing/correcting-ones-english-at-the-expense-of-ideas industry.  I truly believe that with online publishing proper grammar will finally be ranked below "ideas and content" as it should have always been until academian charlatans came in insisting their knowledge of "dangling participles" was more important than pioneering lines of thought.  The more and more typos I see, overshadowed by intelligence, innovation, creativity, and just plain cleverness, the better for the publishing industry and readers.
I didn't realize until now that careful proof-reading compromised the creative expression of men's "ideas."  Now I see how I have been not only stifling, but indeed virtually castrating, my male students by insisting that they learn to observe the conventions of "academian" English.  For years, I've been trying to persuade them that "proper grammar" would strengthen their power to persuade readers, but am now chagrined to learn that I had it all ass-backwards.

This is why I cannot fear the New Misogynists.

And also because of this:


The Best Of Roosh has been downloaded 3,250 times. 136 of you purchased it. :)

4 comments:

  1. Zosimus the HeathenJune 1, 2013 at 5:32 AM

    The more and more typos I see, overshadowed by intelligence, innovation, creativity, and just plain cleverness, the better for the publishing industry and readers.

    Well, it's hard to convey the first and last of the qualities he's just listed if one demonstrates an inability to spell properly or string an even-halfway coherent sentence together. Seriously, though, WTF? Far from raising my estimation of an author's intelligence, poor spelling and grammar has precisely the opposite effect, as I'm sure it does for everybody else who hasn't given themselves brain damage by taking "the red pill". Indeed, when I find that sort of shit in a book I've paid good money for (as has happened on more than one occasion, sadly), I'm more inclined to hurl said book out the window of a fast-moving motor vehicle than marvel at its author's obvious genius. No, I think this tosser's bizarre praise of sloppy writing is more a feeble (and rather transparent) attempt to make the best of a bad situation (ie that most manosphere writers can't write for shit) than it is a genuinely held belief. Sort of like the old joke about how many Microsoft employees it takes to change a light bulb (none, they just make darkness the new standard!).

    I had to laugh at the fact that less than 5% of the people who downloaded Roosh's latest opus actually paid for it. I suppose that's what comes from pandering to an audience of big, bad "alphas" who believe that following the rules (like the one which says you should pay for shit you download if there's a price tag attached to it) is "beta". Reminds me of my first (and last) visit to Vox Day's blog, in which I came across some idiotic commenter who described men who paid for online creative works, rather than illegally downloading them, as "neutered males". Given the sort of people who follow good ol' Teddy Beale, it was probably some Christian fundie wackjob, too: the sort of sanctimonious prick who constantly bangs on about how morally superior he and his fellow cultists are to the rest of us unsaved heathens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also feel cheated when a book I've paid for has not been proof-read. In days of old, publishers paid people to do that. Now this responsibility falls on the author him/herself.

      Delete
  2. Zosimus the HeathenJune 1, 2013 at 5:42 AM

    First of all, Capt. Cap warns other self-publishing entrepreneurs that "until I get counter reviews, the book reviews will be limited to a tit for tat mutually beneficial relationship." Ah, so that's how "peer review" works in the manosphere!

    It's even better than that. If you can't find someone else to review your book, you can just do what Matt Forney did a few months ago, and give it a glowing review yourself! Seriously, that's what he did - heaping praise on Ferdinand Bardamu and that individual's collection of essays, Three Years of Hate: The Very Best of In Mala Fide, in a piece he posted on the site Alternative Right, presumably before he'd been outed as the very man himself (the URL for the review, if you're interested, is http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/3/5/the-andy-warhol-of-the-alternative-right). While the whole piece is lulz-worthy, the best bit is the penultimate paragraph, which reads as follows:

    Three Years of Hate is an invaluable, priceless book not merely because it’s well-written, entertaining and thought-provoking. It’s worth reading because it’s a piece of history. It’s a record of one of the most influential and important thinkers of our times. Decades from now, when the current dystopia is naught but a bad memory, Ferdinand Bardamu will be remembered as one of the architects of its fall.

    Someone get me a bucket!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The chutzpah is amazing. We really do live in a time of shameless self-promotion.

      Delete

Thanks for commenting!