Yesterday, as some of you saw, I posted what was meant to be a brief defense of fluff, using one of my own fluffy experiments as an example. I later pulled it down because I felt it was too brief and too vague to properly support the case I was trying to make and I decided the example I'd used, a video I posted here last year, was probably not the best one to support my assertion that fluff, too, is a political tool, that fluff can be used to make a statement, to point at things, turn things on their ear. With a deadline hanging over me, I saved the post, thinking I might return to it down the road. I still haven't met the deadline, but here's the original post for those of you who didn't see it:
Make the world...your salon urges Lemon Hound. Hear! hear! While I agree wholeheartedly with the overall spirit of the post, the final paragraph causes me to pause just a bit. Perhaps I need to study the comments women leave on commentary or in the style sections of newspapers to better see what she's getting at. By fluff does she mean the comments are unimportant? Mistake-ridden? Going by the OED, one could easily say I create fluff here much of the time. And I do. But I like to think my fluff is light, loosely adhering. Loosely adhering. By choice. Indeed, sometimes I'll just pick up a blade of grass and blow. Just because I can.
Here's another take over on Manageable Imaginations. Another wonderful direction...
...and now a new project. The Plural Hoe.