Professor Fendrich has asked me to stand in for her once again, as she was called away to testify at a hearing about a student’s character, or rather lack thereof, and why he was never taught some communications skills to rectify the situation. My job is to transcribe her hastily scribbled notes into replies to recent comments from readers, which I will do forthwith.

From Richard Tabor Greene, regarding “No Character? We Can Fix That”:

“Character disorder” is the standard technical term in psychiatry and psychological social work for a set of disorders of the “character” — that is, habitual repeated ways of interacting with others that prevent others from being unharmed by the relationship’s continuation. There is nothing the least bit vague about it — immense piles of NIH statistics are developed in a diagnostic book discriminating, in painful detail, “disorder” from “order” in each possible human relationship type.

Professor Fendrich’s notes indicate that she considers the “standard technical term in psychiatry” of “character disorder,” and the “immense piles of NIH statistics,” to be verification of the medicalization of “character.” Although she is no Thomas Szasz or Frederick Crews, she is acutely aware of the political and ethical problems that are raised when something is declared a psychiatric disorder. Or does no one else remember “paraphilic rapism”?

From “R.M.” regarding “Philosophy and Comics”:

Fendrich writes her entire article praising McCloud’s book — then denies his entire point in the final paragraph, and for no reason that makes any sense — just a knee jerk reaction: painting — high art; comics — not. If you want to make your case, lady, give us some well-reasoned arguments. I believe you just can’t find any.

Professor Fendrich asked me to mention that she appreciates being addressed as “lady,” even when it’s used in such a sexist tone…mister. She thought she had been perfectly clear that she was indulging her painter’s prejudice in making her concluding remark. Nevertheless, valuing paintings over comics because they are “without words” and “with nothing on either side of them” could be expanded into a witheringly victorious argument. That would, however, require an essay — a form of writing bloggers such as Professor Fendrich hold in contempt.

From “Duckie,” regarding “Beware the Painter as Protagonist”:

…great literature can be inspired by [painters] and their works such as Girl with a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier about Vermeer…The Agony and the Ecstasy particularly smacks of pulp with its overdone, sensational language and story lines built more on the myths started by Vasari than actual known fact. Charlton Heston has probably contributed more to this book’s fame than the writer’s talent.

Professor Fendrich is of the opinion that Girl with a Pearl Earring is high-end treacle built on much less “known fact” than is the admittedly pulpish (i.e., really readable) The Agony and the Ecstasy. She loves Rex Harrison, by the way, but says yuck to Charlton Heston.

Note: If there are either errors or shortcomings in my response, they are my sole responsibility. Professor Fendrich has a character disorder that makes her incapable of taking responsibility for her writing. I am urging her to enroll in a social-skills course to rectify the situation.