Comments on: “Must love” Hitler?

By: Passerby

Passerby — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:22:14 +0000

Having read Wolcott’s novel I can assure you that the limits of Wolcott’s talent as a writer are well limned and the fact is easily traversable.

By: Ohio Granny

Ohio Granny — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:33:03 +0000

Hey, Old Dad,
“Except for the fact that you’ve offered no proof to substantiate your argument”…
except this: “…James Wolcott must love Rush Limbaugh ( at least 96 mentions on his blog), Sarah Palin (276), Michelle Malkin (39), Jonah Goldberg (56) and Glenn Reynolds (28)/Instapundit (13)”

Guess you be da moron.

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:41:13 +0000

I concur with those with a low opinion of Wolcott's writing. The substitution of flash and wordplay for substance and careful development is hardly an indication of writerly skill. There are plenty of writers who can sling similes, metaphors, metonymies, synecdoches, and hyperboles from sunup to sunset without ever making a point. It takes little skill, especially when one reflects that the essence of a literary device is the distortion of the true meanings of words, to bend them to a use for which they were never intended. Of course, the literati would prefer that you not think about that too much.

By: Sigfried

Sigfried — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:51:28 +0000

Oh, Wolcott can turn a phrase. He always goes the wrong direction, though…

By: Mark D E

Mark D E — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:13:58 +0000

I avoid Wolcott’s writting, and Sully’s for the same reasons..

No matter the skill level of the mudslinger, it’s rather hard to marvel at their expertise while they smack you in the eye with a well aimed ball of aged sewer sludge..

a good writer or not, he’s still wrong, and that just makes his skill a waste of talent.

By: TakeMe

TakeMe — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:12:20 +0000

James Wolcott. Fat, queer and stuck at Vanity Fair.

By: J.J.J.J. Jameson

J.J.J.J. Jameson — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:49:13 +0000

Ace pretty well destroyed the idea that James Wolcott was a good writer, simply by looking at the opening page of Wolcott’s novel “The Catsitter.”

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/179712.php

By: roger

roger — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:14:23 +0000

As a writer, Wolcott’s a wanker, and he wouldn’t have any prominance whatsoever if Graydon Carter had not assembled a circle of slightly tardier ejaculators to fill the pages of Vanity Fair.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:27:28 +0000

W.F. — You can be a “BS-er and gasbag and tremendously ignorable” — and a talented writer.

By: W.F.

W.F. — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:25:27 +0000

“there is no getting around the fact that James Wolcott is a tremendously talented writer” – - the fact that ? ….. Wolcott might light your fire or get your juices flowing, or whatever is your particular metaphor that substitutes for a “fact,” but most of us uneducated folk might be of the opinion that he is a BS-er and gasbag and tremendously ignorable.