Douglas Coupland on McLuhan

Hat tip to Robert Jackson for THIS link.

However, the title (“Why McLuhan’s chilling vision still matters today”) mystifies me. There’s nothing chilling in the article that I can see. But what you may not know if you’ve never written for a newspaper is that, unlike with books and journal articles, the editors choose the article titles for you. As an author for mainstream periodicals you’ll often be shocked by what they call your article without consulting you. (Clement Greenberg became royally pissed more than once at the misleading titles they chose for his reviews.)

Coupland’s article contains my laugh-of-the-day quote:

“And let’s face it, Google isn’t making us stupider, it’s simply making us realise that omniscience is actually slightly boring.”

I’m not sure I’d call McLuhan’s personality “bombastic,” either. He was slightly theatrical, but it’s never rubbed me one bit the wrong way, and I’m not sure why it keeps coming up. So an academic enjoyed being famous and milked it a bit. So what? Why does that bother everyone so much? Would everyone rather have academics never be famous?