Specifically

I’ve been reading ebogjohnson and grammarpolice, and marveling at what they do in their posts. Look what Kriston did here (nsfw?). Those are two very dramatic pictures. And while I was still looking at them, thinking things like WHOA! SEX! WHOA! BUGS!, he did useful things. He checked if it was a hoax and settled on a context for the pictures. Given that context, he analyzed elements I didn’t even see. He looked for an underlying concept and gave the reasons it is applicable. He supported that with specific examples from the pictures. He made an assertion about what that concept means to us and to other people, backed up again by examples. He conveyed his opinion and was funny. He did all that in about a page.

That accomplishment is why his post reminded me of nothing so much as Gary’s. When Gary wanted to explain why one comedian’s use of blackface was shallow and public reaction to that comedian unusually hurtful, he did nearly exactly the same thing. First, a qualification for authenticity and establishment of context. A look at a range of ways to evaluate the topic. He drew on his professional knowledge to give me an example of other uses of blackface, so that I could evaluate both. He drew conclusions about what different uses of blackface would mean. He said strong things clearly and led me straight through the transitions.

I am so impressed with that ability. That’s what you get when people do serious work in their fields. And here’s the thing. I wouldn’t have an interest in either field if they weren’t thinking so hard and so well about it. In art, the extent of my opinions is that I like a piece or I don’t, and shamefully, that is mostly about how it would look in my house. I am a distant spectator in analysis of black and white race relations; I’d be petrified if I got dragged into that game. But if they’re going to think and write that well about it, I’m going to read it. I’d read it no matter what the topic was.