Before I take off for the day, one more quick post, which — sadly, for some of you — will take on a bit of an academic tone. Which means it will get wordy and dull, and very unfluffy.
Apologies in advance — though if it helps, I don’t mind you picturing me discoursing on these things while wearing giant clown shoes and juggling colorful bowling pins. For some of my regular critics, this means simply business as usual.
Anyway, I’m just now getting to this semiotic analysis of “Scott Thomas” that more than a few people have sent me (h/t to Bill INDC, Glenn Reynolds, Geoff, Craig C, et al.)
The writer of the piece, as he reveals near the end, is a gentleman of the left — though not of the TNR-DNC persuasion
[…] I can’t help thinking that the sooner [Franklin Foer, TNR editor] falls out of that tree, the better for all of us on the left, and maybe for the country as a whole
— a point I bring up not because it greatly influences his analysis (on a few key points it no doubt does, as when he meanders off into cartoonish suggestions of unsupervised soldiers potentially committing real atrocities that will go unrecorded, for which he is gently and substantively chastised; but overall, his argument is eminently even-handed), but rather because, when you look through the comments, you’ll find many of the respondents are military or milbloggers — more than a few even recognizable as regulars to this site — and the tenor and nature of their responses (complimentary, appreciative, offering only substantive criticism on a few key points) is so very different from the responses I would’ve expected to receive from ideological opponents had “Pasty” written a similar analysis.
Just food for thought.
Now, to the analysis itself. What I find interesting is not so much the main argument, not because it isn’t well presented or even, as it happens, largely correct (“Scott Thomas” is Private Scott Thomas Beachamp, who is indeed active military, but who considers himself an aspiring writer and who, it turns out, was writing similar stories about US soldiers’ atrocities since before being sent to Iraq; in short, he’s a fabulist, an anti-war opportunist, and, now, an embarrassment to his abettors, who are wasting no time spinning the story to marginalize the critics) — but rather because, to those who’ve read plenty of manuscripts and have been schooled in the study of signification, it is but a minor bit of forensic textual analysis, one that employs too broad a brush for my tastes, and relies too heavily on a cold structuralist reading of the form — despite it’s having proven fairly astute.
Forget, for the moment, that Scott Beauchamp, the creator of “Scott Thomas” the implied author/narrator of the controversial TNR pieces, turns out to be the kind of wannabe-writer / anti-war fabulist / macho-phoney Dr Barnes predicted he’d be. Because for the purposes of understanding how semiotics (the study of signs and signification) works in facilitating a rigorously considered interpretation, the unveiling of the historical author and his motives is ancillary to the motives and intent we should be able to reconstruct from the text itself.
And it is on this level that Dr Barnes’ analysis misses a key point — one that I bring up only because it reinforces many of the arguments I’ve made previously with respect to an intentionalist stance toward the text.
To wit — and most importantly, from the perspective of hermeneutics — Dr Barnes discounts the possibility that he could very well have been dealing with a very skilled author, someone with the rhetorical ability to parody the kind of implied author that such a semiotic analysis as the one he performed will inevitably (given the clues spread about) yield.
Or, to put it another way, Dr Barnes, in his analysis, neglects to consider that he’s being manipulated by a parodist who wants him to arrive precisely at the conclusion he has, one who has, in order to get Dr Barnes there, left behind the kinds of textual clues he hopes will be interpreted in such a way. This possibility is less likely, certainly — in fact, it’s a bit on the conspiratorial side, because it posits a scenario in which Foer is being gamed by someone with the intent of having him discredited (some very clever soldier or war supporter who knows just how to signal the parody to those who are looking for it) — and statistically-speaking, the chances that we’re reading the work of a marginally-skilled fabulist with a passing familiarity with combat rather than a master parodist of such a fabulist, is considerable. Still, from a textual perspective, we shouldn’t be too quick to rule out the possibility (nor should we ever overlook it entirely) — and any rigorous textual analysis that purports to profile the historical author based on the residue left behind in the text must take into account that the implied author of the piece may, in fact, be well-aware of how he is presenting that implied author, and so is well-aware of what that presentation is likely to signal in an audience that relies largely on convention to guide interpretation. (That this piece is published in a political magazine and is presented as an eyewitness account, for instance, gives it its first layer of conventional cover.)
Consider: if the author’s intent is to produce a “Scott Thomas” whose “reportage” is eventually shown to be apocryphal, then what we have is a person who intended that “Scott Thomas” be found out and exposed as a fraud. From there, we can speculate on the motives behind that intent. For instance, we can speculate that this entire hoax was created in order to weaken the credibility of the anti-war press.
As it turns out, of course, Beauchamp’s actual motives, coupled with Foer’s gullibility and his lame subsequent attempts to cover up for what is threatening to spiral into a major editorial blunder, will weaken the credibility of the anti-war media without any special help from some skilled parodist. But the text itself doesn’t rule out the latter, and it is this point that I hope to drive home.
For Dr Barnes — using a statistical semiotic analysis as his method — the slight errors in detail he finds in “Scott Thomas'” texts, combined with the affected tone of cold nihilism, the overdetermination of the refined senses, etc (all the 9 symptoms Barnes outlines) all conspire to point to a “Scott Thomas” who has unwittingly fallen into the kinds of tics that Barnes identifies with a particular kind of MFA student. And it is left to Barnes, as semiotic sleuth, to match these tics to a type who, in his experience, is most likely to exhibit them. Which is precisely what he does.
Ironically, however, the fact that Barnes can recognize the pattern means that there is, both to his thinking and empirically, a discernible pattern that carries some sort of statistical heft — which in turn means that, say, it is possible for someone like Barnes, who has identified all the features of this pattern, to turn around and easily emulate it.
This is, after all, what parodists do. And those who don’t wish to signal the parody do it with less of a wink and a nod to their audiences than those who do.
In short: regardless of the outcome here, it was just as plausible, based on the text itself, to argue that a person with Dr Barnes’ particular skill set wrote the piece, as it was to argue that a macho-type wannabe with marginal talent wrote it — though it takes divining intent (as Barnes does — he attributes the historical author’s intent to wanting to impress / embellish and sustain certain affectations that he tries to suggest crosses from his literary work into real life) to come even to a tentative conclusion about such things.
Because if the intent was to get caught, and in so doing, to expose Foer and discredit both TNR and the anti-war press (remember, similar allegations were thrown around about the Rathergate memo being planted by Republicans), then the person we were looking for may well have been more skilled than Barnes gave him credit for. And it may be that, in addition to Foer having been made to look the fool, Barnes may have been misled by his own attempts to do a semiotic analysis (if I have time, I might offer up a narratological analysis, if anyone is interested) that is tied into only one particular intent among many possible intents, one that posits that the “Scott Thomas” created by the historical author (or authors) of the piece never intended to be uncovered, either by right wing bloggers, military members, or even academic semioticians.
None of which is to discredit Barnes’ analysis. Just to suggest that it was, in some important respects, incomplete. Because the text itself, even under a dispassionate, almost scientific structural analysis derived at using the tools of statistical semiotics, allows for one to reach the complete opposite conclusion of the one Barnes reached. And all that is necessary to reach this opposite conclusion is to change what the interpreter posits as the position of the actual author with respect to his text — or, if you prefer, to proceed from the idea that the author has a different intent than the one Barnes suggested.
Intent governs meaning. The interpreters job is to decode the signs and try to reconstruct that intent.
In this case, Barnes was successful. But it is important, I think, to point out that his success was tied to his having chosen the correct (or at least partially correct) intent, and then attaching it to the structural analysis.
Which is to say, Barnes’ analysis of the writer’s tics and habits, which he compared to other such instances where similar tics and habits were evident in order to “profile” the author, by itself tells us only half the story, and is not at all dispositive; because it was not until Barnes’ supplied the intent (by way of attributing to his study both a motive and a character type) of the writer that he was able to arrive at a profile of “Scott Thomas”.
It’s a bit like watching what you believe to be a documentary and assuming that characters are all acting in a way that is open to a particular kind of “reading” — only to find out later that you’ve been watching a mockumentary, which forces you to go back and re-consider all of your earlier interpretive conclusions given that the presumed intent you’d carried with you (arrived at by assuming one conventional context — documentary — over another — mockumentary) has changed.
Semiotics — or narratology, or any other structuralist approach to a text — can only help signal authorial intent. But such approaches are always held in check by the possibility that they are being parodied or ironized. Which is why ultimately we have to appeal to intent in order to discern meaning.
****
update: For those less interested in the semiotics than in the SCANDAL, see here and here.
And yes, I’m convinced I’ve been removed from the conservative in-group. Which kind of sucks, given that people like Caric want to lump me in with all the haters. If I’m going to take their flack, the least they could do is throw me a link every now and then.
****
update 2: Mark W. emails:
If you were a semiotician, how would you analyze a guy (John Barnes) who claims to be a “consulting semiotician” and writes:
The word semiotics, by the way, comes from the Latin semio-, which originally meant seed, grain, or kernel and was a common metaphor for sign or symbol.
It actually comes from the Greek semeion (shmeion ) which means–are you sitting down?–sign.
So, yes, semiotics is the study of signs and signification — just as Barnes says — but, no, seeds don’t enter into it.
semeiotics (Greek: ÃημειÉÄικÃŒÂ, semeiotikos, an interpreter of signs), first used in English c. 1670.
Sprinkle that in some turned soil and see if you can raise me a nice gyro.
I like your idea of a “quick post.”
OK, OK, so “quick” != “short.”
“Semiotics  or narratology, or any other structuralist approach to a text  can only help signal authorial intent. But such approaches are always held in check by the possibility that they are being parodied or ironized. Which is why ultimately we have to appeal to intent in order to discern meaning.”
Unless intent is not what the author signifies, but instead arises from the actions of the reader, the reader alone assigning intent to the work being read; in which case the reader can dash off a quick review, knock off early from work, and get a good seat at the bar before all of the students pour in. Which, from a purely visual perspective based on the aesthetics of mid-summer female attire, isn’t half bad at all.
Well, in the latter case you’re still appealing to intent, Mikey. Just privileging the reader’s intent — which as I’ve noted on a million occasions now is a good way to destabilize meaning and bring us to an era of truth by consensus and intellectual relativism.
On the plus side, though, it does get us to happy hour faster, definitely.
… and yes, despite having been fairly well educated (History, primarily) in my youth, I find myself learning much about which I’d never previously been exposed from posts such as this.
TW: clipped Toynbee. There’s a double meaning in that….
Have to go do yoga. Grandma would have wanted it that way.
This is, after all, what parodists do. And those who don’t wish to signal the parody do it with less of a wink and a nod to their audiences than those who do.
I forgot where I read it, but it was suggested that the best way to learn about writing is to write parodies of famous works. (This would possibly indicate that National Lampoon writers are unsung geniuses.)
Ah! but Jeff, you seem to have omitted the possibility that these were written by someone trying to create the impression that these pieces were written by a brilliant parodist emulating the significatory style of a doltish liar, using semiotic brush strokes more subtle than the limbs of fleas!
I’d have to re-read Dr. Barnes’ piece to see if he mentions this, but could it be that Dr. Barnes did consider that a parodist wrote the TNR piece, but dismissed that possibility based on some “tells” in the text? Not contesting your analysis, Jeff, just wondering. Also, heartfelt condolensces for your loss.
I think that Dr. Barnes did a great job. I wouldn’t say that it was meant to be… exhaustive. ;-)
Actually, Dan, I didn’t. But that kind of infinite regress gets a bit cumbersome to write about. You can always parody the parodist — and Beauchamp in fact seems to have done a bit of that himself.
Mathematically, though, I think there’s some sort of cancellation effect.
Though I was told there would be no math, so I’ll just go do “twisting prayer”.
Or perhaps you’ve just fallen into Dr. Barnes’ ingenious trap!
An interesting take, Jeff, as was Barnes’. And very sporting of you to trot yours out after Barnes’ had been confirmed.
(The extent of my intellectual digressions reading Dr. Barnes’ piece was, “Way cool, I bet that’s the root of semaphore.”)
(infidel pikemen)
“On the plus side, though, it does get us to happy hour faster, definitely.”
Which is always a good thing.
And had TNR been punk’d by a parodist, would the schadenfrude been any less sweet?
Well, I meant it ironically, of course.
if I have time, I might offer up a narratological analysis, if anyone is interested
I would most certainly be interested.
Come on, everybody, chant with me…
WE DEMAND PUFFERY! AND PIE!
If Barnes did consider it, DarthRove, he didn’t mention as much. A bit like hiding your work — which is fine, unless you are trying to exemplify how a semiotic analysis might work.
Again, I’m not criticizing Barnes’ actual work. I’m just putting it into the context of what I have often discussed here (re: interpretation and intent). Just providing you with the new wrinkle.
We haven’t done much in the way of looking at how “close readings” work here — instead, I’ve written more about broader theoretical controversies and concerns — so I just wanted to use this piece, which is what would be labeled a close reading from a particular structuralist perspective (statistical semiotic), to highlight some of the potential blind spots in the method.
I found it interesting, I suppose, because, as I mention in the post, the same kind of intent switch was used during the Rathergate scandal — though in that case, the timing was the tell: it was simply too close to the elections for its author, had it been a Republican plant, to make sure it was shown as phony, unless s/he enlisted the help of others.
Which is why you had such fevered speculation from many leftwing sites — and “evidence” presented that the guy who first noticed the problems with the typeface did so before the story actually aired (turned out somebody had just confused the time zones).
Anything can be a parody, which makes divining intent that much more difficult. But if there were tells that led Dr Barnes to exclude the possibility, I’d be interested to see him address those.
Of course, it will be somewhat muddled now, after the fact, because he’d be interpreting things in light of what has already been established — and so might fall into the trap of finding tells now that he might not have recognized as tells before, when the author he reconstructed was still only a thesis.
This stuff is endlessly entertaining to some of us, mind you — and I appreciate the sleuthing that Dr Barnes does. But given that I’ve written so frequently on intentionalism and interpretation, I felt I needed to put close structural readings into a larger context: evidence gathered from the text is only helpful in signaling intent. It doesn’t determine it. The specter of parody is always there to problematize conclusions based solely on textual constructs, even if, in this case, Barnes chose correctly.
Quite apart from the semiotics, I liked the way Barnes essentially called the editor of TNR a punk.
Vizzini lives!
“But it’s so simple.”
It’s gonna be a real bummer if it turns out that Beauchamp submitted something to Dr. Barnes prior to entering the Army.
I would dismiss parody because of the lack of versimilitude – Beauchamp’s writing is just too good an example of ‘trying too hard’ to be parody. Too much “this is no shit, it really happened” barrack jackassery.
Semiotics  or narratology, or any other structuralist approach to a text  can only help signal authorial intent. But such approaches are always held in check by the possibility that they are being parodied or ironized. Which is why ultimately we have to appeal to intent in order to discern meaning.
Well, there’s meaning and there’s meaning. How much do you have to know before you can correctly identify the meaning? On its surface, Beauchamp’s prose “meant” that U.S. soldiers are unapologetic sociopaths. It also “meant” that one of those sociopaths decided to “tell on” the rest of them, under cover of anonymity, and that bad behavior goes unpunished.
When Dr. Barnes adds his expertise, it “means” that some literary wanna-be fancies himself a Real Hero, Speaking Truth To Power. Or it “means,” as Jeff explained, that someone is imitating such an author.
Now that the true identity of the historical author has been discovered, it “means” that Foer is a partisan hack who was certain that Thomas was a soldier because he’s engaged to a TNR staff member. It also “means” that milbloggers can spot a poseur from a mile away, and that the Left is all too willing to drink that bilgewater.
It also “means” that the blogosphere is going to be in one of its customary uproars for the near future.
How in Sam Hill are we supposed to divine the intent of a piece of writing when all we have is the text itself? Without knowing who wrote it and why (and why can be devilishly difficult to figure out), we’re left with all kinds of misinterpretations.
Which shows, as Jeff always does, that privileging the interpretation of the decoder is hazardous at best and downright dishonest at worst.
What if Barnes and Beauchamp are in cahoots? What if he and Beauchamp are contriving the entire crypto-parodist scenario as a kind of public, Internet-based theater?
But then we’d have to wonder — is Jeff Goldstein is in on it too?
Am I?
For the kids in the back of the class, way way back, could someone come up with a link where someone confirms Beauchamp is like a macho MFA student superstar big fish little pond guy? Wasn’t that the central hypothesis?
I think, just from being all cursory, Jeff is being gracious when he says Barnes is all spot on. From what I’ve seen this morning he could be more of the free-agent Umberto Ecco-toting pretentious too cool for school loner type. Kind of like Aidan Quinn in Restless, just more Beauchampy.
OK, enough with the 10,000 word serious stuff. Mk teh fnny, eh?
the “just more Beauchampy” part was not supposed to be italicized, it wasn’t my intent, so don’t go reading anything into it
“Consider: if the author’s intent is to produce a “Scott Thomas†whose “reportage†is eventually shown to be apocryphal, then what we have is a person who intended that “Scott Thomas†be found out and exposed as a fraud. ”
Heh. The Anti-Jamil Hussein. I like it.
Hey…. Ace as quoted on Michelle Malkin’s page has sussed out that “Scott Thomas’s” wife is a reporter/researcher for TNR.
Plamey!
T: crusader joined believe it, mister….
As much as I enjoy reading Eco and Goldstein on semiotics, I find the theory of differential equations and boundary value problems much easier to comprehend, but your mileage may vary.
I find the group dynamics of the cast of Friends to be pretty easy to comprehend, especially now that they’re on dvd and you can replay the tricky parts.
Until Dr. Andrew Haggerty, PhD, of NorthSouth Community College and Technical Culinary Institute weighs in, I don’t know what to think.
Captcha: they succeeding
No, I don’t think they is.
This posted by Dan Riehl seems to point to Beauchamp’s future intent:
Pal2Pal – A minor correction, but for accuracy, Elspeth’s fiance’, and apparently now her husband, was not Glenn Rehn, but Beauchamp. Beauchamp was the editor of a liberal campus magazine, and Rehn was the College Dems clown that was spending all of his personal money on the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
That correction is trivial in comparison to the one that TNR has yet to produce.
…in short, he’s a fabulist, an anti-war opportunist
He’s also almost certainly in very deep shit. I’d be willing to bet decent money someone in the Army is already considering court marshalling him under UCMJ Article 134:
…all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces…shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
This whole episode, reminds
me, of that anti-war guy, who joined the navy, i believe he served on an aircraft carrier.
Served his hitch, then got out, started protesting, as an Iraq war veteran,for the
cameras.
anyone else remember him?
please forgive any grammar mistakes, i
flunked english class. Not once, but twice :{
Tony
South Haven, MI
Sean H – I agree that section of the UCMJ appears applicable. Additionally, there was a general order issued in regards to blogging, email, etc … that certainly would have prohibited this type of publication, that is likely even more on point. At any rate, he either lied to quite a large audience, or failed to report criminal activity to the proper people in his chain of command, after having been witness to same, according to his own words.
I do love it when you go all “intellectual” Jeff, but according to Thomas, you are pretty useless otherwise…;-)
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/234962.php
Tony–
Do you mean that Jimmy Carter guy?
MarkW–
Are you saying that semiotics is sinsemilla?
Jeez. I read sparkle’s link and I feel people are being really hard on Beauchamp. He’s not the most growed up kind of guy, and his ethics are shady, but he’s acting in accord with his principles. When I was his age… anyway, it’s Foer who’s accountable here, and I do not wish him well.
What I’m not gonna do I think is piss off this Ace person.
Ever.
Dan lol
I do wonder if this smacktard, joined the Army,
Just so he could speak, on the war,with “Moral Authority”
The anti-war Moonbats, are a$#holes, but, they deeply
believe what they are about, and that makes them even
more dangerous.
just a thought,
Tony
South Haven, MI
I am not willing to speculate beyond his stated motives and intent, which does not paint a pretty picture of young Beauchamp.
And yes, I’m convinced I’ve been removed from the conservative in-group.
I wasn’t going to say anything, Jeff, but you kinda give off a strange odor, reminiscent of rotting frisch. That could explain it.
“If you give off signals that you don’t want to belong, people will make sure that you don’t.” – that’s from a movie
Tony, are you thinking of Pablo Parades? He didn’t quite serve his hiych, but he certaing pursued the limelight.
To ya’ll,
You really don’t need to read into this guy. He is, as many in military or the everyday workplace in America, not able to adapt or come to terms with the current surroundings. Each place you have worked at or unit you have served with has a person of such character(to differnt extents). In the small picture of a 20 man workforce, they are easy to identify and usually don’t stay very long. In a military unit of 100 to say 500 they have a way of being looked through rather than looked at.(By most, some will know) Even when identified, somebody is appointed to control and get you right.(You on your own, in a civilian job, can just walk out the door, in the military, you find a way out) Somebody is appointed to be responsible for you, they may very well be held totally accountable for you and your actions. This guy didn’t belong where he was, he would be easy to identify, with no name attached, somebody let him continue his service and was glad to be rid of him. Whom ever that was, you just embarassed youself the military and the nation.
Yeah, but do all of your pretty words mean we get to hate him or not?
Pab,
im not sure, i may be misrembering it.
But i do remember he was anti-war, then he joined
up
I remember him whinning about the navy and
the war. but, during his service, he was interviewed
in a navy newspaper, kinda like the Army Times, and
stated that he loved the navy and supported the war.
then he got out, and started buddy-fu%$ing,
the navy and fellow seamen.
maybe im misrembering it,
i could be wrong.
Tony
South Haven, MI
Sparkle —
Who is Thomas? I’m lost. Or out of the loop.
I blame my stupid dead grandmother and Dr Demento for my current state of marginalization.
Oh, you mean Beauchamp? Nevermind. Booze and armadillo weed.
I certainly don’t hate him. I actually feel rather bad for him. I don’t know what his motives were, and if I understand this intentionialist dogma, we can never know what any text means under any circumstances, so what’s the point? He could be anybody, saying anything for whatever reason. The onus is on the receiver, who has to place it all into context.
TNR, at least as well as I can tell, hasn’t held this guy out as the definitive word on the situation in Iraq. Are there better men and women to communicate the experience? Absolutely. Does this guy write like a zombie? Sure. Is this sensationalist hackery or an honest account of what’s going on there? Questionable, and I think the article in the Nation is far more credible.
Is all this some ass monkey joke to ya. It seems a bit more serious to me!!! He has posted and had rewritten by a regular TNR news source, something else to imflame hate and disdain for our soldiers and country. Every blog in the country is posting this, and truth only seen when and where it’s looked for. Most anti-(america, war, military) will only use those pieces of these articles to incite more hatred. You can sit there and jerk each others chains all day, that does not help, you can connect the names of all those who like or dispise, that does nto help. Help your nation and if you want to respond in public, don’t embarass yourselves, assist in trying to correct the misinformed
If TNR had fact-checked this before publishing it, they would not need to be conducting their “investigation”, which has already lasted a week.
Thank you JD
That is the true fact of the matter. If you hold a position of nation press, you need to get it right and get it right before it’s printed.
I kinda agree with cynn – Beauchamp is pretty pitiful. But I agree with JW, but would point that way more at Foer. Over on that other thread over there Scott Eric is all about making young Beauchamp the focal point of the story, but that’s fundamentally dishonest. Young Beauchamp was the variable in this equation – any angsty young pretentious loser with a uniform would have done the trick – Franklin was the constant here, and he selected our young anti-hero, but it’s not like this angle couldn’t have been farmed out in a weekly TNR editorial meeting, with any number of superficially different variations resulting.
We can never know with the certainty of a God, no. But the point is to try our best anyway to reconstruct the meaning — as a way of completing the speech act.
It’s like “objectivity,” cynn. It’s not technically possible, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be striving for it under certain conditions.
Or, if you want the short answer, you don’t seem to understand this “intentionalist dogma,” which is less a dogma than the default state of affairs for how we interpret. Always. It comes down to whose intention is privileged — the person who is trying to communicate, or the people to whom he is trying to communicate.
What Jeff is saying is that you’re stupid. See how this works?
Quite honestly, the whole fuzzy notion of intentionalism was not my bailiwick in grad school studies of propaganda. We didn’t go in for the expansion of responsibility versus target, medium, messenger. It was pretty cut and dried, as I recall. Define the target, the messenger reatcts accordingly. Those are the variables; the message is constant.
Your tack rings a vague bell. Given that, I accept your proposition that this could have been a media hoax. But I doubt it; a quick flick through his sites are Gannon-esque.
happyfeet: OK, I guess I’m stupid. If you say so. Because you are in charge of the intent of his comment. Asshole. It’s a wonder anyone ventures into this inbred swamp of tighty rightys.
If Halliburton misrepresented its dealings in Iraq, presenting them as more challenging than they were so as to increase the perceived value of the services they were providing, people might get upset. Should TNR be held to a different standard? But I think you’re right that this should be grounded in a discussion of propaganda.
cynn – I do not think you’re stupid, and JG hardly ever replies to the merely stupid, so you’re way covered. That was kind of an asshole thing to say, what I said. I’m in a mood tonight, and I’m sorry to have been ungentle. But I’m not going to apologize to that other guy.
happyfeet – Living on the Left coast can get you in a mood, no? ;-)
What the hell are you talking about? What fallow ground are you trying to plow here?
I’ve been here 6 years and I haven’t changed my plates cause I’m not sure if I’m staying.
But that’s a large part of what’s so offensive about this put-on. Scott Thomas Beauchamp figured that he could use a pseudonym, be treated as though he were reporting in his public persona, be remunerated as though he were, and yet have cover and plausible deniability. And the idea worked reciprocally for TNR, in their estimation, until enough people paid enough attention to get close enough to pinpointing who the guy was, and getting first whacks at fashioning the narrative, and TNR had to ask the guy to out himself, hoping against hope that that would be enough propitiation. Unfortunately for them, he’d left tracks all over the webs that identified him for the glory-seeking Munchausen that he is.
Dan – His writings seem to speak for themselves. He envisioned what it was like prior to going, saw movies, and remarkably, real life closely dovetailed with those prior writings. What are the chances?
cynn – I’m just saying I appreciate your contribution here – I like your comments almost as much as I like chocolate milk.
Dan – the glory-seeking is reflected. Franklin is positively glowing.
I like chocolate milk really a lot, just so we’re clear.
“It’s a wonder anyone ventures into this inbred swamp of tighty rightys.”
Then depart, never to get swamp muck on your shoes again.
As for Beauchamp being pitiable – NO, NO, NO! A thousand times no. He #$%&* put the same uniform on as me, took the same $#%&ing oath that I did, and agreed he would live up to the same Army Values as I did:
Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. constitution, the Army, and other soldiers.
Be loyal to the nation and its heritage.
Duty
Fulfill your obligations.
Accept responsibility for your own actions and those entrusted to your care.
Find opportunities to improve oneself for the good of the group.
Respect
Rely upon the golden rule.
How we consider others reflects upon each of us, both personally and as a professional organization.
Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Selfless service leads to organizational teamwork and encompasses discipline, self-control and faith in the system.
Honor
Live up to all the Army values
Integrity
Do what is right, legally and morally.
Be willing to do what is right even when no one is looking.
It is our “moral compass” an inner voice.
Personal Courage
Our ability to face fear, danger, or adversity, both physical and moral courage.
He #$%&ing violated EVERY swinging one of ’em. I wouldn;t piss in that guy’s ear if his brain was on fire. Foer can go get stuffed too – but he is what he is – a leftist journalist with an agenda – not someone who took an oath to be his nation’s war-guardian.
Gah, I’m steamed at this.
Oh, and Jeff, sorry for the loss. Grans are oddly with us, forever. I still smell the Ben Gay.
Pitiable in the way his life is now bifurcated into before I effed up pretty much unforgivably and am now generally understood to be a loser with poor character, and after. And he did it so cheaply. CF. Berger, Sandy
And Major John, I’m paying close attention to what you say, so, SADLY NO, not leaving anytime soon. I disagree with you guys most times, but you are like the windchimes in my garden: you herald a storm — and I trust your instincts. Sorry to hang on, but my groupie mentality has always served me well.
Cynn:
July–“Made up stories about soldiers killing kids and dogs? M’eh…. Maybe it’s an honest account….”
April–“Made up stories about white lacross guys raping a black stripper? M’eh…. Probably true….”
Semeiotics, schmemeiotics. All I know is the Greeks don’t want no freaks, or some such. Seriously though, thanks for deconstructing this nonsense. Problem is, it’s likely to become part of the leftist narrative and will survive even though it’s been demonstrated to have been merely fabulism. Sets the stage nicely for the anti-war agitprop soon to be opening at a megaplex near you.
Major John – I took the liberty of copying your comment into the other thread, in an attempt to explain these concepts to SEK. I trust that I used them in a manner which is acceptable to you. You said what I was trying to say, in a manner more powerful, and far kinder.
Speaking of intentionalism, cynn, I generally get not enough of a clue of what you’re trying to say. I hear peripheral musings followed by mild disclaimers of either disinterest or inexpertness, followed by getting miffed at all the tightest rightists that somehow end up in these pages.
What’s the deal?
tw: Duskrtam tactful. Yeah, more or less.
That was a very long post.
Apologies for forcing you to read it, Hattie.
Thomas, I believe you are thinking of Jonathan Hutto
darn it, I made a link…. go to http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/007574.html or do a search for Mudville Gazette Astroturfing for the full post
Oh, I didn’t read it. I just noticed it was pretty long.
gah! thomas/Tony, I’m sorry. I blame cheesecake and sitting through a Sondheim Revue. and that different time zone thing.
Not sure what Barnes is talking about re: semiotics. What he produces here is a forensic or psychological guesstimate of the personality of an author through a semantic or rhetorical analysis. It is fine and interesting and worthy on its own–as is your counter-critique dealing with parody. Nothing in Barnes resorts to signification beyond the question of putative authorship/identity. Identity and authorship really aren’t the purview of semiotics as much as the internal structure of the artistic text itself, with secondary cultural (Mukarovsky) and social dimensions (extra-textuality). I think the (fatal?) political turn on the continent to Lacan, post-Roland Barthes and S/Z, et al, confused speculative psychoanalysis with traditional semiotics and contaminated the field. The latter is more abstract, aesthetic and apolitical than Lacanian analysis, which proved attractive somehow to Americans but ended in a postmodern political cul de sac that even left Jameson depressed.
Sorry for the boring lecture (though my ISP certainly gives up the authenicity of that apology!), but a certain amount of proprietary academic snobbery surrounds the field of semiotics, which is a thing far different than what Barnes claims is his discipline (see his biography) or claims is the subject of his otherwise interesting takedown of this horrible writer and wretched human being (and I say this as an ‘anti-war’ draftee and a whimsical poet when drafted in 1968, affectations quickly cured by the Army). Semiotics is taught at very few universities, none listed in Barnes’ resume, btw.
Anyhow, I think the students at Brown, where hundreds have graduated with majors in Semiotics since Thomas Winner in Slavic Language Studies promoted the discipline, which then evolved/merged into its own independent domain. The grads over the last 30 years would be surprised to find that John Barnes is the only working ‘semiotician’ in industry. In fact, dozens of industries, including Wall Street (see NYT’s ‘Is Film Studies the New MBA?’ in 2004) poach the arty semiotic undergrads who produce textual analysis of films, poems, etc. for their ‘skills’.
John–semiotics is taught at lots of universities, but doesn’t constitute a degree course.
Jeff, I hope you soldier on, “in group” or no. Maybe a lot of us in the right-o-sphere have gotten more isolated in our particular sites – I think the blogosphere in general is far less interactive than it was 3 or 5 years ago – but there are still a lot of us who value what you do.
Maybe he meant “sensemilla”, huh?
SB Carnavon Forestall
The Mummy sets sail
I read Jeff’s post this morning, with coffee, slowly, repeating paragraphs until I think I understand the concepts. All debate of semiotics aside, it struck me that Fabulist Scott Thomas, who sought credibility and “plausible undeniability” from being a veteran and sharing the platoonic love of his comrades-in-arms, and who apparently planned to leverage all that into leftist-credentialed journalistic opportunities, is merely a farm-league version of Fabulist John Kerry. Who knows, if the blogosphere weren’t vigilant (or did not exist), this little monster in collusion with TNR might have ginned the whole thing into congresscritter hearings and a Massachusettsian political career?
Thank heaven for blogs.
Maggie,
thats the guy,
thought i was going senile at the age
of 38 lol
a very heart-felt thank ya
Tony
South Haven,MI
This affair does show how political commentary/reporting is becoming or has become similar to disinformation operations in intelligence work. This can make every source suspect and make actual communication of factual information impossible as all reporting dissolves into a “house of mirrors”.
One thing in regards to it being a parody. Wouldn’t the parodist have to have a patsy set up to take the fall? I can’t see how this could be done without the help the patsy.
John —
Well, Barnes does talk about some behind the scenes statistical semiotics, which I took to mean he was doing statistical analysis of the number of times a particular trope, etc. A quick glance through the Handbook of Semiotics suggests that, just as anything can be a text, anyone who happens to study how texts signify can lay claim to being a semiotician of sorts. Just learn the vocabulary and voila.
So I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, though I do agree that what he was engaging in was something of a garden variety forensic textual analysis — structuralism that, as you note, became passe after Barthes found the margins.
Me, I’ve always been a proponent of structuralism — I would at one time have called myself a narratologist, but now I’d have to break out my Prince dictionary of Bal book to remember the scientific designations for most things — but I’ve also long recognized it’s inherent limitations, which redound to simple facts about a text: that though meaning is fixed upon completion of signification, there is no way to be 100% certain, given the nature of how signs are made, that the text means what an interpreter says it means. Which of course doesn’t mean a million people can’t all band together and agree that it means what it doesn’t — this happens all the time; just that at that point, you’re dealing with a text that merely looks like the one you think you’ve interpreted correctly.
Semiotics, for all the technical jargon (reading Eco read Peirce is pretty breathtaking), really boils down to how you view the construction of the sign.
I think you’re right, though, that many people who have learned to do sociological analysis on the “significance” of the way signs are read across particular communities are less semioticians in the pure sense than they are people who specialize in a kind of cultural criticism.
Geoff — Not really. Recall the infamous Sokal hoax. The condemnation came from the willingness with which his fraud was embraced.
Unfortunately, too few people learned important life lessons from Andy Kaufman.
JD, if I write it, it is fair game for anyone!
“Not really. Recall the infamous Sokal hoax.”
I’d forgotten about that one. Thank you. You’re right.
Stephen Glass, anyone?
Also, if it is a parody, why bother debunking it? The writing is ridiculous and false on the face – and guessing the machinations behind it seems like a fool’s errand. Unless you can spot a clue that makes the parody obvious, it is (like you mentioned, Jeff) conspiratorial.
But back again, if it is a parody, I won’t lose any sleep playing along. Because I have no way of knowing whether it is or not, I have no trouble impugning TNR’s motives for bringing the guy on board. To me, whether it is or not does not absolve TNR of their poor decision-making. Only in an emotionalist, conspiratorial worldview does a poor decision get excused because someone was tricking you. Had his writing had the quality of say, Michael Yon or Totten, it would have been another story.
Let’s not forget that, regardless of his fabulism, Scott Beachamp enlisted in the American military, and so is a hero, according to Jeff’s definition of the word at least.
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=8964
Still haven’t learned to read, have you?
Looking back on that thread, though, I did notice this:
Maybe the next time has already happened, though. From now on might have been a better vow, in my estimation.
At least I am making a point. I’m not quite sure what yours is, other than to illustrate how little intellectual effort you can expend in an insult.
You’re so bright and witty, and so good at deflating the over inflated, I wonder that you aren’t banned from every college campus in the country, Jeff.
Let me guess, The Emperor’s New CLothes was a childhood favorite. No?
Well, to use less sarcasm, Ajax: you started out that thread that you linked to by attributing something to Jeff that he didn’t say. Not content with making that mistake once, you insist on repeating it. Vowing to make your point better in that same thread was just funny, but I don’t expect you to share the humor.
I don’t know how I can make it any simpler than that, so if that doesn’t do it for you, you have my permission to remain mystified.
I think its your reading comprehension skills that need some work, Slartibartfast. My core argument about the definition of heroism did not attribute anything to Jeff that he didn’t say. And the post I made here is referencing that. The fact that I got sloppy about a tertiary point, and apologized for said sloppiness, has no bearing.
Does the concept of honor really cause you that much trouble, ajax?
It’s the concept of heroism that I’m concerned with, actually.
So, in other words: you not only misread Jeff, you also misread yourself. Unless there’s some hidden text that I missed where Jeff says something like what you claimed in the linked comment; Jeff’s been sneaky with the hidden text from time to time.
I’m thinking that there’s really no way to have written communications with a person that can’t understand what they themselves have written.
I’m not arguing that you’re not looking into the concept of heroism, by the way, just that you’re continuing to claim that Jeff has said that heroism is defined by service alone. Which Jeff hasn’t actually said.
I am not forgiving TNR, and would not even were they taken in. It is their willingness to believe this stuff, whether it was a parody intended to make them look silly, or a fiction that, once revealed as such, makes them look silly, for which they should be ridiculed.
Selection bias.
All I’m saying in the post is that Barnes attributed one motive where others were possible — and this is because a structural analysis alone can’t answer the kinds of questions he was asking. Only intent can.
Let’s try some quotes:
“Whether she wants to acknowledge it or not (which is not all that unusual, incidentally), for her service, and for having survived her captivity, Lynch is indeed a hero â€â€as are those who rescued her”
Maybe you believe that Jeff is saying that heroism requires one to serve AND to have been taken captive. But the second part refutes that – those involved in the rescue effort were not taken captive. I think its logical to assume that service is the important thing. And Jeff agreed in a later comment:
“Soldiers who go to battle for us are heroes. To them, they are just doing their jobs. But to me, they have signed on to protect our freedoms. And they’ve done so voluntarily.”
I think it’s pretty clear that these words define Beauchamp as a hero. He signed on for combat duty, voluntarily, in a time of war. Jessica Lynch couldn’t even say that much.
“Soldiers who go to battle for us are heroes. To them, they are just doing their jobs. But to me, they have signed on to protect our freedoms. And they’ve done so voluntarily.â€Â
Call me naive, but I just assumed “and served honorably” was implied there, which Beauchamp appears not to have done. I suppose to a hyper-literal retard it could seem that Jeff thinks Beauchamp is a hero, I wouldn’t know about that.
think it’s pretty clear that these words define Beauchamp as a hero. He signed on for combat duty, voluntarily, in a time of war. Jessica Lynch couldn’t even say that much.
Jessica Lynch was drafted? As moe said there is an element of honor involved and a little bit of charity as well. Even though those involved may not know it. Wasn’t it Boethius’ lady philosophy that said the greatest good comes from service. Without hope of recognition or recompense? Mr. Beauchamps decisions from the outset were self serving. Hardly the stuff of heros.
[…] into a fit of hypermasculinity: We cannot rule out, on the basis of the text itself, that this is a clever parody of of the bubble mentality of the deadender Right. It’s practical effect will […]
Ajax —
You got me, I’m pinned. I’m forced to call Beauchamp a hero, even if he violated his oaths (as noted by Major John).
Too, I’ll be forced to call soldiers who torture and maim sadistically, should any turn up, heroes, as well. That’s the kind of corner I painted myself into, and you, Ajax, have been waiting so long to trap me.
CHECKMATE!
Beauchamp means “beautiful meadow.” I looked it up.
Weird. For some reason I thought it meant “ear burned because his dad held it to a stove for — hey, lookit! A dead kid!”
WARNING: FLUFFY POP-CULTURE REFERENCE MEANT TO MAKE RACISM FUN. LIKE THAT PALESTINIAN MICKEY MOUSE WHO GETS HIMSELF RUBBED OUT BY JEWS.
Jeff: We’re not talking about torture and maiming here; we’re talking about blogging. Does Beauchamp’s blogging, no matter how moronic, negate the heroism required to enlist for combat in a time of war? Maybe for you. But I’m sure plenty of other people will think of Beauchamp as a hero for his service, and I’m sure he’s counting on that.
Rusty: I was referring to the fact that Jessica Lynch signed up to be a non-combatant, where Beauchamp specifically enlisted for combat.
It’s a conundrum. Alvin begat Levon and Levon begat Jesus. But who did Jesus begat? We may never know for sure. Maybe all we can do is use our own best judgment.
No, Ajax. We’re talking about bearing false witness against people you serve with. Lying — and allowing those lies to be published as truth in a respectable policy magazine. The fact that he signed on just to burnish his warrior bona fides is a sad effect of the whole ridiculous chickenhawk argument, and it tends to make me question his character, but that doesn’t make it any less courageous that he joined.
But if you join simply to serve as an embedded font of agitprop that undermines your own mission, your heroism is, at the very least, compromised. Wouldn’t you say?
and it seems blatantly violating operational security as well. see: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/234984.php
I mean, that’s the kind of thing RTO wouldn’t even tell me or his own mother and this guy put it on his blog!? oof. There have been some fuzzy areas of opsec and blogging, but dates and locations of movements is definitely not one of them.
Jesus, Ajax.
Some people might tend to view the word “and” as roughly equating to logical AND, which results in the expression A AND B being false unless both A and B are true. Your reading has AND mean the same thing as OR.
Also, “her service” can actually mean something different than literally “her having served”. Dunno if Jeff meant it that way, but it’s a possibility you have yet to explore. Possibly because it might be inconvenient for you to do so.
As for your point about non-combatants being heros, the history books are chock full of those. And…I know this might be hard to comprehend, for you…NOT ALL OF THEM ARE EQUALLY HEROIC.
Don’t make me go all bold italic caps on you, dude.
Is there room for Occam’s razor in this analysis? Anything is possible I suppose, but had Beauchamp intended that “Scott Thomas†be found out and exposed as a fraud, wouldn’t that imply that Beauchamp was very very smart and very stupid at the same time? If Beauchamp were smart enough to create such a subtle yet unsubtle parody, wouldn’t he be smart enough to know that most military folks’ reaction would be much like Major John’s (#71)? In the interest of considering all possibilities it is certainly worth considering whether he intentionally punked TNR, but it seems unlikely given that his future in the military will probably be short and painful.
On the other hand, I suppose that ‘suffering for his art’ will be viewed as additional street cred by the Truthers. It’s proof that he’s not a Rovian plant.
[…] Cole responds, calling my argument “silly,” but noting that it is better than the “impentrable gibberish” that I wrote last […]
[…] Previous posts here and here. Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:39 am | Trackback Share […]
How to Win Your Way into the Heart (and Pants) of a Hot …
(Not being the second part in the Acephalous series Helpful Tips for Stupid Husbands.)I hope you this email finds you well. Are you having a nice Saturday? Doing any light reading? Translation: Mine is heavy because I am deep.I haven’t…