"You Must Have Been Misinformed" reminds me of “Streets full of water. Please advise,” Robert Benchley's famous telegram to the New Yorker after arriving in Venice.
Not to rub it in, Gene (OK, to rub it in a little), but I'm amazed you ever thought a letter so pompous and pedantic could have been written by Roger Ebert. If you'd seen even one episode of their show, you'd know only Gene Siskel could have been so obnoxious.
I don't actually know enough about any of the subjects offered to do well on a quiz show (and I'm not very good on my feet on any subject), but, although I chose "Literature" as the one I possibly know the most about (though far less than I should), I suspect that "Science" would probably be better. In my experience, it is generally easier to guess the answers to science questions than any other kind (and I'm a pretty good guesser, especially if the question is multiple-choice).
Regarding the quiz show, it doesn't matter which category you choose they are all broad enough and deep enough that the quiz show will be able to ensure that they will not have to come up $2 billion (or even buy insurance for that event).
How easy it is to confuse pomposity (a subjective and perhaps defensive perception) with strongly held, and presumably informed, opinions. I have known several professional critics (music, art and theater, in particular), and while almost to a person they were wonderfully eccentric, with likely formally undiagnosed neuroatypical quirks that gave them their perceptive (if not always popular) insights, they were also passionate to the point of obsession in many cases about their subjects. Not surprisingly (at least to me) they were eternal optimists because of this passion, however severely they may have reviewed an exhibition or performance. Even the most savage of the critiques always seemed to have an air of ruefulness about them. Strongly held opinions. Very strongly held opinions. But never affected, imperious or arrogant.
Whenever I hear the name Roger Ebert, I'm reminded of a company celebration that included a few professional celebrity lookalikes. I only remember two of them: Cher and Roger Ebert. I can't imagine making a buck off of looking like Roger Ebert, but it shows you how famous he was. (I can still picture "Roger" doing the macarena -- it's an image that will never fade.)
The real question is, as a known champion of truth, were you the original disabuser of the cauliflower canard or, did you either accept (or ignore) it without question or politely allow it to continue, knowing the truth yourself? Follow-up. Was there some compelling reason you didn't, or couldn't, confirm whether Ebert actually wrote the response at the time the kerfuffle took place? Finally, Nettles was, in fact, known to make anti-semitic and racial remarks, as were many of his fellow ballplayers and their managers, especially during his earlier years in the bigs --- Leo Durocher being an equal-opportunity bigot of note. Whether that made Nettles and his contemporaries card-carrying anti-semites or racists was, I suppose, open to debate. Certainly the slurs came too easily at the time.
I once attended a seminar with Roger Ebert in which he spent what felt like many hours showing and commenting on "Pulp Fiction" (then a big, recent deal), in exhaustingly tiny increments, several seconds of film and then stop and discuss at length. He was indeed pompous and self-congratulatory. Just saying. The crowd ate it up.
I chose science. However, as a professional scientist with an amateur interest in history, literature, and music (and near-zero interest in sports), I can guarantee that any one of these fields is so filled with detail and highly specific incidents that it would be trivial to concoct a quiz based on trivia that would be beyond the powers of any individual to anticipate and master.
"You Must Have Been Misinformed" reminds me of “Streets full of water. Please advise,” Robert Benchley's famous telegram to the New Yorker after arriving in Venice.
Not to rub it in, Gene (OK, to rub it in a little), but I'm amazed you ever thought a letter so pompous and pedantic could have been written by Roger Ebert. If you'd seen even one episode of their show, you'd know only Gene Siskel could have been so obnoxious.
I don't actually know enough about any of the subjects offered to do well on a quiz show (and I'm not very good on my feet on any subject), but, although I chose "Literature" as the one I possibly know the most about (though far less than I should), I suspect that "Science" would probably be better. In my experience, it is generally easier to guess the answers to science questions than any other kind (and I'm a pretty good guesser, especially if the question is multiple-choice).
I felt the same as you did except I chose History, hoping I may recall enough about past events to venture a reasonable guess.
Regarding the quiz show, it doesn't matter which category you choose they are all broad enough and deep enough that the quiz show will be able to ensure that they will not have to come up $2 billion (or even buy insurance for that event).
How easy it is to confuse pomposity (a subjective and perhaps defensive perception) with strongly held, and presumably informed, opinions. I have known several professional critics (music, art and theater, in particular), and while almost to a person they were wonderfully eccentric, with likely formally undiagnosed neuroatypical quirks that gave them their perceptive (if not always popular) insights, they were also passionate to the point of obsession in many cases about their subjects. Not surprisingly (at least to me) they were eternal optimists because of this passion, however severely they may have reviewed an exhibition or performance. Even the most savage of the critiques always seemed to have an air of ruefulness about them. Strongly held opinions. Very strongly held opinions. But never affected, imperious or arrogant.
Whenever I hear the name Roger Ebert, I'm reminded of a company celebration that included a few professional celebrity lookalikes. I only remember two of them: Cher and Roger Ebert. I can't imagine making a buck off of looking like Roger Ebert, but it shows you how famous he was. (I can still picture "Roger" doing the macarena -- it's an image that will never fade.)
The real question is, as a known champion of truth, were you the original disabuser of the cauliflower canard or, did you either accept (or ignore) it without question or politely allow it to continue, knowing the truth yourself? Follow-up. Was there some compelling reason you didn't, or couldn't, confirm whether Ebert actually wrote the response at the time the kerfuffle took place? Finally, Nettles was, in fact, known to make anti-semitic and racial remarks, as were many of his fellow ballplayers and their managers, especially during his earlier years in the bigs --- Leo Durocher being an equal-opportunity bigot of note. Whether that made Nettles and his contemporaries card-carrying anti-semites or racists was, I suppose, open to debate. Certainly the slurs came too easily at the time.
I once attended a seminar with Roger Ebert in which he spent what felt like many hours showing and commenting on "Pulp Fiction" (then a big, recent deal), in exhaustingly tiny increments, several seconds of film and then stop and discuss at length. He was indeed pompous and self-congratulatory. Just saying. The crowd ate it up.
I chose science. However, as a professional scientist with an amateur interest in history, literature, and music (and near-zero interest in sports), I can guarantee that any one of these fields is so filled with detail and highly specific incidents that it would be trivial to concoct a quiz based on trivia that would be beyond the powers of any individual to anticipate and master.