Saturday, April 03, 2010
I admit, I like good writing about cars, and Dan Neil does it very well. Neil was a columnist for Car and Driver back in the day, and has just signed up for a new gig at the Wall Street Journal. So it goes. Anyway, his review of the new Mustang is a great start. Check out this bit:
The Ford Mustang is rapidly becoming America's low-rent, GED-educated version of the Porsche 911. They've both been around since the mid-'60s, both core syntax in automotive culture, both as rich with symbolism as the Book of Kells. Both cars are bound as if by blood oath to an inferior technology: in the case of the Porsche, the less-than-optimum rear-engine layout; for the Mustang, the widely disdained—though damned effective—solid rear axle, as opposed to an independent rear suspension. And both cars, by their sheer longevity, are examples of a kind of engineering perfectibility, as their respective design teams continue to refine and improve the car, year after year, in a kind of Darwinian fire of adaptation. They may be platypuses but you won't find a better duck-billed fur-bearing egg-layer anywhere.
Politics would be a lot more interesting if political writers were that evocative.
Actually this review was pathetic.
If I read a car review, I don't expect to get a dose of politics or even know the political bent of the reviewer.
If I read a blog, yeah sure. A opinion aritlce, definitely. A general news article, probably. And I am not going to get bent out of shape.
But a review of a car, a sports article, a movie review, and so on then politics and snide political statements are checked at the door. Having these in such an article just distracts, doesn't have a place, and allows bad political discourse to be put into all aspects of life. It is like having the brother-in-law who is a bore who injects politics (or religion) into every single solitary conversation. You wouldn't put up with it then, but for some reason you do in this case.