Criticism
McLuhan was no gentleman.
Marshall McLuhan (1934 or 35, age 22/24). Tonight I crossed swords with Gertrude Stein.
Gertrude Stein came to Cambridge today to speak on the subject: “I am I because my little dog knows me.” Naturally, I could not help letting the remark slip, rather loudly I admit, that this is a prime example of the infantile nature of her prose style. She was not amused. Stopping mid (child-like) sentence she fixed me with a look, grabbed her umbrella, and made her way through the crowd to where I was standing. “What,” she said, “are people like you doing here at Cambridge?” “My dear woman,” I said …
Me (August, 2010, age 58) What did McLuhan say next?
Unfortunately, we do not know what Marshall McLuhan said next. And it is not clear that this is actually how he found himself crossing swords with Gertrude Stein.
Philip Marchand tells the story this way in his biography of McLuhan. But Terry Gordon in his biography of McLuhan tells the story very differently. According to Gordon, McLuhan did not boorishly interrupt Stein’s address. Instead, Stein spoke boringly and without interruption for an hour. McLuhan, irritated, waited till the question period to ask what Stein thought of Wyndham Lewis’s thoughts about “the subject of time,” suspecting that it might well get a rise out of Stein because of the length of her talk and her well-known sensitivity to Lewis’s poisonous criticisms of her writing style.
No matter, whoever is more clearly the injured party – McLuhan in the Gordon version, Stein in the Marchand version – McLuhan proves himself to be no gentleman. And either way, we can still speculate as to what McLuhan might have said next. Two come-backs come to mind: “My question exactly;” and “You mean my fallacy is all wrong?”
What do you think Marshall might have said?
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading
Philip Marchand, Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger, 1989, p. 46.
W. Terrence Gordon, Marshall McLuhan: Escape into Understanding, 1997, p. 62.
What the Apollo program was really all about.
Marshall McLuhan (July 21, 1969, age 58). A man on the moon?
As usual the networks have missed the real story. I am not referring to their failure to report my birthday, but their coverage of the Apollo program moon landing.
“That’s one small step for man,” Neil Armstrong has been telling us on every newscast, “one giant step for mankind.” But this isn’t about putting a footprint on the surface of the moon. It’s about getting a look at ourselves. To see us as others see us. In other words, it’s been an “ego trip.”
Me (July, 2010, age 58). Take a look for yourself.
As Homer teaches, getting home can be a long hard journey.
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading
Barrington Nevitt with Maurice McLuhan, Who Was Marshall McLuhan, 1994, pp. 230.
The importance of the unimportant.
Marshall McLuhan (December, 1970, age 59). Cavett’s right!
Today, Dick Cavett made a remarkable observation. He and I were talking on his TV show and he asked me why it was that when people come out of a movie it takes them a while before they start talking to one another. It’s as if they’re overwhelmed by what they’ve seen. Film is a private rather than a corporate affair. One does not have this kind of experience watching TV. TV is corporate rather than private. It encourages talk.
Me (July, 2010, age 58). But, does it matter?
The experience Cavett talks about of leaving a movie theatre at a loss for words is I think a common one. We’ve all had it. And it was the exactly this type of real world observation that fascinated McLuhan and which he loved to talk to people about. (Others being that radio is a visual medium, the telephone a non-visual medium, and children like to watch TV close up. Still others that radio as background “noise” at work is not visual. People tend to shout on cell phones. And listening to music with ear buds while running or biking can blind you to the visual.)
These seemingly unimportant experiences may be the keys to understanding the effects of media. At least McLuhan was drawn to them.
What do you think? Was McLuhan on to something.
Are there other seemingly unimportant media effects have you observed?
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Listening for this post
The Dick Cavett Show, December 1970.
The small matter of quotation.
Marshall McLuhan (1964, age 62). The question of quotation.
My editors at McGraw-Hill have driven me to distraction on the vexed subject of quotation. They tell me I should only quote someone I disagree with. What an idea. No one has ever thought about the things I agree with only the things I disagree with? As I was saying to Ted Carpenter we should give credit to those who have come before us – those we stand on the shoulders of. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to make choices. The trick is to give credit to genius and pass by the fortunate but mediocre.
Me (July, 2010, age 57). The rules
The writer Kingsley Amis, I think it was, once said that the first duty of the writer is to write not to quote. McLuhan thought differently. His books lean so heavily on quotation that it is understandable that his editors would try to persuade him to quote less and write more.
McLuhan’s rules seem to be: quote liberally (up to 50 words from poetry, 500 from prose), quote from established authorities, don’t worry too much about context, and never under any circumstances quote Marshall McLuhan, it will only get you in trouble with academics.
Apart from questions of copyright, do you have rules for quotation?
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading for this post
Philip Marchand. Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger, 1989 p. 179.
Perseverance
Marshall McLuhan (1974, age 63). I have doubts …
I don’t know perhaps it was late. I was tired. The Monday night seminar had just ended. Eric was driving me home and I said to him: “Is it worth it? All this effort to alert people, when they just attack the bearer of news and do nothing. Do I have the right to, am I supposed to, should I continue to keep investigating and making discoveries? Why bother, if the West is being discarded and no one will do anything about it or even listen.”
Me (July, 2010, age 57). But he never gave up
McLuhan had doubts about his ability to get through to people, to get people to think about, to comprehend, the power of media. He would have been a fool not to. His style insured him critics. But he never gave up. Today it is clear, as Douglas Coupland says, what with Google, Facebook, You tube, and everything else like this blog your reading on the internet, McLuhan “was right on the money four decades ahead of the biggest shift in human communication since the printing press.”
Am I getting through to McLuhan? What can we learn from him after all these years?
Like McLuhan I too have doubts. As we approach our 200th post questions come to me. What was I thinking when I committed to 300 posts? Should I keep going? It’s been great, but why bother? What good does it do to sieve through old ground? Is the medium a barrier to the message? But then occasionally there are discoveries …
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading for this post
W. Terrence Gordon. Marshall McLuhan: Escape into Understanding, 1997, p. 275.
The 100 percent sensible Marshall McLuhan.
Marshall McLuhan (Spring 1971, age 59). McLuhan to Peter Newman
Did you hear about the man who went on a date with Siamese twins? The following day a friend asked him if he had a good time. The man’s reply: yes and no.
Me (June 2010, age 57). Two cheers for Marshall
Yesterday a small test was made of Patrick Watson’s observation made on “This Hour has Seven Days” that no one can understand more than 10 percent of what Marshall McLuhan has to say. The test of course was unscientific and leading rather than persuasive. Today I want to present a more sweeping assessment of McLuhan’s sensibility. Namely, that on unimportant subjects – that is subjects only tangentially related to media and media theory Marshall McLuhan is always easy to understand. For example here is McLuhan talking about his personal dislike of technical innovation and change on the CBC television program “This Hour Has Seven Days.” (May 6, 1966):
“I’m resolutely opposed to all innovation, all change. But I’m determined to understand what’s happening because I don’t choose to sit and let the juggernaut roll over me. Many people seem to think that because you talk about something recent you’re in favour of it. The exact opposite is true in my case. Anything I talk about is almost certainly something I’m resolutely against and it seems to me that the best way of opposing it is to understand it. Then you know where to turn off the button.”
What has this got to do with the man who dated Siamese twins? The punch line also works for the question: Do you understand what Marshall McLuhan is saying? Yes and no.
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading for this post
Who Was Marshall McLuhan, edited by Barrington Nevitt with Maurice McLuhan, 1995, pp. 109, 135, and 136.
How to deal with hecklers.
Marshall McLuhan (June 13, 1974, age 62). For what it is worth
Hecklers are easily dealt with. The heckler’s goal is “to annoy or confuse a speaker by interrupting with questions or taunts.” As I was telling Pierre Trudeau here are my two favourite ploys. Depending on your mood you can: (1) invite them to come to the microphone and address the audience; or (2) look at them quizzically and ask them, “You mean my fallacies are all wrong?” Very few hecklers are prepared to deal with either approach. [for more on heckling]
Me (May 2010, age 57) I wonder
Marshall McLuhan might have found these effective strategies . I doubt that Pierre Trudeau would have found them helpful. But then …
What are the best ways of dealing with hecklers?
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading for this post
Letters of Marshall McLuhan, 1987, pp. 499.
Pearls before swine?
Marshall McLuhan (May 14, 1969, age 57) Appalling!
Just got back from the Bilderberg Conference. If I had known that the participants understood so little about the electric world in which we live I would never have agreed to speak. As I told Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, who was a splendidly urbane host, only artists see the world as it is the rest – and I include the delegates to the Conference in this less than august company – see it as it was thirty years ago. The shocking thing is that these are the people who are running our world.
Me (April 2010, age 57) In every way!
McLuhan’s performance at Bilderberg was one of his worst. And he was not invited back. Apparently the delegates, who included such political heavy weights as Robert MacNamara, George Ball, and Dean Rusk, did not appreciate McLuhan’s “foul language.” It is also likely that the delegates found that what McLuhan had to say foully expressed or not as insulting and incomprehensible. For example here are three ideas McLuhan brought to the delegates attention:
(1) By 1830 the Industrial Revolution had made England a communist state;
(2) Today thanks to advertising we live in communist states; and
(3) Given the above why the hell is America fighting communism.
Is there anything more to these particular ideas than a peculiar sort of word association? (Communism is defined to be a world in which an abundance of material wealth is found.)
Cordially, Marshall and Me
Reading for this post
Letters of Marshall McLuhan, 1987, pp. 372-73 and 531.