Oh, he was on NPR last week, and on Colbert (also last week, I only got around to watching it this morning).
He's the epitome, IMO, of one of the worst traits of journalists--the belief most of them seem to hold that they can mug up on a subject for a day or two (or sometimes even an hour or two!) and that makes them an instant expert. He writes cutesy, populist books on subjects with which he has scraped a passing acquaintance (like science, or history, or linguistics) and people lap them up as if they were gospel. They're frequently riddled with errors, half-truths, and sweeping overgeneralizations, but no one cares because it's Bill Bryson and "he's so funny". But they turn around and quote him as if he were actually a scientist, or a historian, or a linguist, when in fact he's none of those things. He's a slightly upscale version of the folk etymology people who bring you emails about "pluck ewe" and "ship high in transit".
(wowza, note to self, don't mention Bill Bryson near Jan)
I've read A Walk in the Woods, which I thought was okay, not as funny as I'd hope, but interesting. I stayed away from everything else he writes because I can't take him seriously enough. I find him a little phoney, a little too much "look at me I'm Mark Twain" and not enough haha. Which is less of a solid opinion (like yours) and more of a personal whim of mine.
Oh, I don't know. I think yours is just as solid an opinion as mine, which is really just one part opinion to three parts passion. As you will doubtless have observed, I tend to either not give a damn about any given topic or give a huge amount of damn, often disproportionately so. :-) And then express the opinion with all the language skills that growing up with my parents (an English teacher and the daughter of an English professor) equipped me. :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
?)
Date: 2010-10-20 09:57 pm (UTC)Re: ?)
Date: 2010-10-20 10:23 pm (UTC)He's the epitome, IMO, of one of the worst traits of journalists--the belief most of them seem to hold that they can mug up on a subject for a day or two (or sometimes even an hour or two!) and that makes them an instant expert. He writes cutesy, populist books on subjects with which he has scraped a passing acquaintance (like science, or history, or linguistics) and people lap them up as if they were gospel. They're frequently riddled with errors, half-truths, and sweeping overgeneralizations, but no one cares because it's Bill Bryson and "he's so funny". But they turn around and quote him as if he were actually a scientist, or a historian, or a linguist, when in fact he's none of those things. He's a slightly upscale version of the folk etymology people who bring you emails about "pluck ewe" and "ship high in transit".
Re: ?)
Date: 2010-10-20 11:03 pm (UTC)I've read A Walk in the Woods, which I thought was okay, not as funny as I'd hope, but interesting. I stayed away from everything else he writes because I can't take him seriously enough. I find him a little phoney, a little too much "look at me I'm Mark Twain" and not enough haha.
Which is less of a solid opinion (like yours) and more of a personal whim of mine.
Re: ?)
Date: 2010-10-21 12:35 pm (UTC)