Making Think Tank Thinkers Strange

Sean, I asked Dr. Amrit Chadwallah, my former Adjunct Professor of English at Yale, now head of Forensic Hermenuetics at The Cruikshanks Center for Philanthropy and Civic Comity, what he thought of using masks in blogging about philanthropy. He said that in general he feels it detracts from the sincerity and seriousness of the discourse, and may reduce the degree to which participants are accountable for their words.  He pointed out that Think Tank Thinkers are sensitive about being mistaken for Fetish Action Figures and that it might be considered rude to suggest that these Professionals are not really the Fine Gentlemen and Ladies that they pretend to be while plying their trade in the Public Square. He did add, though, that in certain cases, he instanced the work of the Happy Tutor, Dungeon Master to the Stars, that masquerade can approach the condition of art, and as such speak more truly of our condition (as Fools among Knaves)  than any literal speech.  He pointed me to this passage on Wikipedia. I don't know what it means, but it does sound quite profound.

The alienation effect (from the German Verfremdungseffekt) is a theatrical and cinematic device "which prevents the audience from losing itself passively and completely in the character created by the actor, and which consequently leads the audience to be a consciously critical observer."  The term was coined by playwright Bertolt Brech to  describe the aesthetics of epic theater. The term of Verfremdungseffekt is rooted in the Russian Formalist  notion of the device of making strange  which literary critic Victor Shklovsky claims is the essence of all art.

I don't know. One identity is enough for me. I would rather keep it literal. But then I flunked English.  Why make think tank thinkers strange when they are already strange enough?

Comments

[Albert]

You know how fond I am of Dr. Chadwallah. Maybe it's time for him to organize that Cruikshanks Center symposium you had in mind -- what was it: That plutocarcy better serves political investors than does democracy?

You can invite Schambra, Senator Minim, Russ Feingold, and Zippy the Pinhead. You can also commission an egregious essay for them to discuss--that seems to be the norm for this kind of thing. Attendees can be given the option of wearing Groucho glasses (does that count as a "persistent pseud"?).

[Phil]

A Persistent Pseud - exactly. Is that uncivil? Having one? Or it is required, in certain circles, even by one's job description? Let us hold a mirror up to nature, as Horace said, pantomiming the actors presenting themselves a real.