The author really hates phrase "banality of evil" ,but he never presents an argument other than that he really, really, thinks it's a dumb phrase. He says Adolf Eichmann wasn't banal. Fair enough. But back to the phrase. Why is it a "bankrupt and sub-prime expression?"

He dismisses the idea that "Evil comes not only in the form of mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash types, but in the form of paper pushers who followed evil orders." Really? Are you saying those people don't exist? Or are you saying that they do exist but are in reality colorful characters, delighting in their malice?

Oh that's right, the article then veered off into chatter about who Hannah Arendt slept with.

RR also really, really dislikes Billy Joel.

traugott:

RR also really, really dislikes Billy Joel.

Why am I not surprised? I've been suspicious of Ron Rosenbaum's critical motives since 1987, when the September issue of Mademoiselle featured his open letter to Steven Spielberg, "Too cute for words," asking what had gone wrong with Spielberg's work as of that date. Rosenberg disqualified himself to answer that question when he claimed that Spielberg's "brilliant beginning" was represented by Star Wars. He never mentioned Jaws.

It's not just his evident iconoclastic impulses run amok, it's his shoddy journalism that disqualifies him as a critic anybody should take seriously.

I wondered the same thing as the OP. This article wandered so far off topic I had no idea what it was still supposed to be about.

But I agree that we need more mustache-twirling evil characters. Especially those who wear capes and who can cackle maniacally.