I mean what was Pandolfini thinking of here?
He could very easily not have told that story, simply on the grounds that just a few hours after someone's death, it's not necessary to tell stories against them. I could understand that. What I can't understand is why you would choose to tell this story under the impression it was a story in its subject's favour.
Because yes, it was a sexist remark. And no, it wasn't a compliment, even if Lombardy thought it was. It's a story that makes Lombardy look crass and ignorant. It achieves this, because he was being crass and ignorant.
I'm not at all unaware that older people are and were from an age different to ours. Of course. But why choose to tell a story that makes a man you knew look like a silly, sexist old man, if you're trying to make him look good? And if you have to explain away his sexism while you're doing it, is that helpful to any efforts to look squarely at sexism within chess?
Obviously it's not. So what was Pandolfini thinking of?
2 comments:
May I interest you in some other garbage?
http://www.gibraltarliteraryfestival.com/speakers/2017/ray-keene-65
Chris Day poses as Ray Keene - what would Freud say?
-theBlueWeasel
Yes indeed, spotted that by accident some weeks ago, Mr Day and all. Curiously enquiries as to why the festival should wish to showcase a plagiarist have so far failed to elicit a response.
Post a Comment