Argument by Analogy, Cont. - Ta-Nehisi Coates
Zora linked to this post last night, and I think it deserves reposting.
I am without doubt guilty of the tactic Coates describes. It’s the easy way to make your point without a deep rhetorical commitment to the argument. It’s the reason guys (and gals) like Coates should be making the big bucks for flattering us with their ideas and reason and also why I wash my kids clothes, split wood and clean house for a living.
Oh well. it’s never to late to strive for improvement.
As is often the case, with arguments that lead with analogy, the point isn’t to clarify anything, it’s to turn heads. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think you claim that Glenn Beck is the white Malcolm X because you think it’s a particularly astute analysis; you do it because it will get you on the Atlantic Wire. I don’t believe you claim that the American right’s tactics are “almost indistinguishable” from the Taliban because you think it’s adroit and original. You do it to elbow your way up the best-seller list.
That’s fine—it’s an accepted strategy. But speaking only for me, if your committment is to making me look, as opposed to making me think, expect that I will only look once. Everything you say afterward is compromised in my eyes. Faulkner is still waiting.
Too many writers think clever analogy first, argument second. It’s supposed to be the other way around.
edited: for clarity