« PBS Newshours on Adjunctivitus | Main | The Incredible Disappearing Isaac »

February 11, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It seems as if the author's real objection was that Woody had any defense at all. Apparently, he should have confessed to an allegation he thinks is false. He should accept the portrayal of him as a child molester, even though an independent investigation found no compelling evidence of such abuse. If Woody had humbled himself before the world, then perhaps he would not have been accused of perverting the English language in a manner to make Orwell blush. If his NY Times piece had been a full mea culpa, then I assume the author would have had no objection to whatever "linguistic crescendo," tortured syntax," or "passive verbiage" was contained therein.


I agree with "Ken" -- all of these objections to Allen's language are only valid if you first assume that Allen is guilty. If he is not, then his protestations and counter-accusations are all perfectly understandable.

As for living in a "culture of victimization" -- I certainly agree with that, and both sides in this conflict have appealed to that culture of victimization.

And it is true that Allen uses "we" rather than the accusatory "you" -- but isn't that to his credit? Did it help Dylan Farrow's case that she began and ended her essay by attacking the reader, as well as a variety of other people (actors, the Academy, etc.) who had nothing to do with the crime allegedly perpetrated against her?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker