13 Comments

Steve S.
November 28th, 2012 | 3:01 pm

Yes, irony (specifically satire) presupposes something like a shared system of values. Maybe if Esolen had gone so far as to endorse something like cannibalism, the satire would have been more obvious.

Or, maybe not…

John Bissell
November 28th, 2012 | 3:07 pm

Professor Esolen is a great teacher, my son’s favorite at Providence.

TPG
November 28th, 2012 | 3:11 pm

To be fair to the Daily Mail, they did acknowledge that the rant was sarcastic and that Esolen does use sarcasm frequently. The only people here who seem to be confused are the hosts of “Fox & Friends”.

JQ Tomanek
November 28th, 2012 | 4:31 pm

I don’t understand. His satire was so obvious to me.

Mike Melendez
November 28th, 2012 | 4:41 pm

The confusion is doubly puzzling as the title of the book has the same kind of sarcasm in it. Although, I can imagine the hosts as assuming he was implying “don’t do this” or “things to avoid”. I wonder how the book reads?

MaryS
November 28th, 2012 | 4:56 pm

The hosts at Fox & Friends (like so many others) were running on auto-pilot: not listening to their guest’s responses… just waiting for him to finish talking so they can ask the next scripted question.

Sad, but true: people on TV aren’t real.

Julie
November 28th, 2012 | 5:06 pm

I don’t know. I knew what he meant, but I don’t think he pulled it off well. He fell into it too quickly, and it was the wrong venue for it. Irony/sarcasm works when you have time to develop a rapport or more time to get your point across. I am very excited about the book, but I thought his appearance could have been better.

Joe Z
November 28th, 2012 | 5:56 pm

I’d say that basic interviewing competence is dead. It was so much that they missed the point (that would imply that they actually got to the stage of imagining what his point was) as that they were totally unprepared to make a meaningful conversation happen. Yeesh.

David Nickol
November 28th, 2012 | 6:35 pm

they were totally unprepared to make a meaningful conversation happen . .

Joe Z,

How can you say that? Didn’t you hear her say, “I actually . . . I was flipping through this”?

I think she was about to say she actually looked at the book, or perhaps actually read a few sentences, as opposed to the way she usually deals with books and interviews with the authors.

Beth
November 28th, 2012 | 6:55 pm

The look on the interviewers’ faces was priceless. They obviously didn’t get it at all.

pentamom
November 28th, 2012 | 7:35 pm

Looks like they read a 25 word summary of the book for prep. I suppose it’s unrealistic to suggest that author interviews should only be done by those who’ve read the book, but they should.

Kamilla
November 29th, 2012 | 2:51 am

Vintage Tony Esolen!

Someone far more clever than me has called this a post-ironic age. Not only hadn’t they read the book, their staff hadn’t prepared them, either. Honestly, how do you go into an interview based on a book with a title like that and expect a straight interview?

Mike Melendez, the book is a marvelous read. I’ve given two copies to pastors that have a congregation with lots of you families. I highly recommend it.

Mark Connolly
November 29th, 2012 | 8:36 am

I’d like to see this book reviewed and the author interviewed by Doug Keck at EWTN Bookmark. There would be some useful conversation going on there.