<lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1111684730.427037.201650@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Dreamer wrote:
> > <lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:1111602077.242260.327270@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Actually, they weren't that bad. Sort of "hard core" Edgar Rice
> > > Burroughs-Mars stuff. What got to me was the hypocricy. (sp)
> >
> > There isn't any hypocracy if you also realize that the books are
> perfectly
> > consistent in the general case of the specific observation you make
> below:
> > the assertion that men and women are fundamentally different. Whether
> you
> > believe it or not is another question, but it's not fair to call a
> book
> > hypocritical in one breath and make fun of it for endlessly repeating
> the
> > same message with the next.
>
> I never said he was inconsistent. I think the basic message (men will
> work together to free themselves, women will work against each other.
> Women will be happiest when they learn to be subservient to man) is
> hypocritical.
Hypocrisy (I spelled it wrong earlier: I wasn't entirely awake. My
apologies.) requires inconsistency. If you are consistent - specifically,
if
your acts and your beliefs are consistent with each other - you aren't
being hypocritical.
hy·poc·ri·sy
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does
not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis,
play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play
a
part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of
krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European Roots.]
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
If the characters in the books honestly believe that women and men are
fundamentally different - which they do, at great length, over and over
again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam - then it would be hypocritical for them
*not* to act accordingly.
>But that's me. I don't know if woss'isface had anything
> to do with the one movie I saw, but there was also hypocrisy since the
> entire movie preached the opposite of the books!
That was Hollywood hypocrisy - they wrote the author a check and told him
to
shove off when it turned out the only thing the books had in common with
the
movies was a few made-up words. You can read my reviews of the movies
here:
http://www.dreamstrike.com/gormovie.html
The one pleasant thing about them is that they make the books look like
_Ivanhoe_ in comparison.
D
|
