Another good chapter. But that's pretty much all your writing. I have to admit, this did not end like I thought it would. I'm interested to see what kind of villain this professor, who was bullied by sjws and snowflakes, turns out to be.
Sadly, the students in his class were not at all over the top caricatures. Anyone who thinks they are should watch a few videos of Milo Yiannopoulos attempting to give a speech at a campus. At least this professor's students were not blowing air horns or pulling the fire alarm. What a sad time we live in when you can't really adequately satirize the cancel culture, because it's already so absurd.
Aw jeez. Look, I've been a fan since the Seanachai days, and I like your work a lot! But Pernicia is such a lazy caricature! You're a smarter dude than this! You use words like "triggered" and "rape culture" like they are punchlines in and of themselves, as if you've never had a conversation with someone who uses those terms in earnest.
(For example, no one would use the term "mansplaining" in the way that Pernicia uses it here. Mansplaining is a description of a very specific behavioral tic, where a man will, unsolicited, explain to a woman something very obvious that she probably already knows. If you're in a class, what the professor says is by definition *solicited* and new information)
You put the argument in the mouth of a childish college student who literally screams until she harries the professor out of the room. You're not engaging with an argument; you're just demonstrating your disrespect for your ideological opponents.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a killjoy who can't stand satire, but good satire isn't just mockingly repeating the words of your ideological opponents like a playground bully.
And I even agree with what I think your argument is, that we should not discard the classics just because they don't conform with modern sensibilities. Banning or censoring, say, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it uses language that we abhor today, impoverishes the student of literature and history. It's important to study the work, as it was, in its context.
Anyways: the reason I'm writing this absurdly long comment is because I like your work and I'm hoping to improve future work. I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to scream you out of the room.
Yes, J.D. of course I remember you! You've been with me the whole way and I'm very grateful for it.
It is very clear that you're not trying to scream me out of the room and I appreciate your comment. I think maybe this is a deeper discussion than can be had in these tiny comment windows? You want to do a podcast interview and hash it out? Or just have a non-recorded conversation. Just reply to the email. I have put some thoughts below, but feel like this is a very big topic so forgive me if they are a little scattered.
She's intentionally 2D Were I writing a book about Pernicia or in a different genre or about an ideological conflict I would worked to render her character in more depth. But she's a tertiary character at best. I'm not Tom Wolfe writing about college girls.
I disrespect all ideologies, but try not to disrespect opponents.
If you'd like to locate a fundamental conviction/argument of mine in this chapter it would be this -- If you want to be usefully and properly critical of something you must engage with it and understand it MORE deeply than if you agree with it.
I do have concerns with Woke Culture, Critical Theory and 2nd Wave Feminism (as I understand them) but discussions of ideology aren't particularly entertaining. And I've come to believe that they are bit irrelevant anyway. Where these ideologies have offered useful critique we've are seeing positive change in society and that's good. But in and of themselves, I don't think they will last. Because the people who believe these ideologies -- and by believe I mean carry them out in action -- haven't seemed to produce any great or lasting works of art. They're not making beautiful things that people are going nuts for. In the words of Matt Taibbi, it's the "All Stick, No Carrot revolution."
Since critical theory thinks meta-narratives are false, I'm not sure how greatness could be achieved by people who believe those kind of things. I'm all in favor of greatness whatever the source. If you tell me that Mozart strangled one of his children I really don't care. Nothing to be done for it now. But to not listen to Mozart's music because he wasn't perfect is insane.
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply! I spent some time travelling to visit some family out of town, which is was a little more stressful in These Unprecedented Times TM, and got distracted. I'd be happy to discuss more over email, if you prefer. I feel more comfortable in writing than over a podcast though.
After letting this percolate for a while: It's not out of the question that someone, particularly a teenager, would use this language as a conversational bludgeon. It also would make sense that a teenager would pick up some terms and not actually understand what they mean.
My problem with Pernicia is that she so closely resembles this common caricature of feminists that I hear from conservative talk radio hosts and political cartoons. So it felt like you were implicitly making the same argument that they do, that feminists are shrieking shrews who cannot be reasoned with. (Which I don't think you actually believe)
I totally agree with the actual argument you stated above, that you have to engage with and understand what you disagree with more than what you agree with. (Ironic, since I was worried that Pernicia represented a lack of understanding and engagement with feminist thinking.)
I share the concern that people would discard great works of art because they reflect values we don't share today or because their creators did bad things. I think the ideal critical response is to provide context, not to censor.
For present-day artists, we have a different problem: We have so much art being created that no one can possibly engage with it all. We can afford to push evil people off the stage to make room for better people.
I am curious what your measuring stick for greatness in art is though? It seems absurd to ask for an objective measue, but how do you separate "art that resonates with me personally" from "art that is capital-G Great"?
The caricature is the point. The chapter is from his point of view and that's how he sees her.
"Push evil people off the stage..." Who's evil? Who decides? And if they are truly evil, why not push them into a gas chamber? The Streisand Effect fairly ensures that when you "push someone off the stage," they just get a bigger audience.
I've actually written an essay about this question. "The Western Canon with one 'N'. I'll post it soonish.
Much of the modern humanities seems to argue against Canonicity itself. That some things are better than others. It's an abnegation of the critical responsibility. And rooted in a fundamental error. Reality is not socially constructed and there are not an equal number of equally valid interpretations of a text (or anything else). I talked about my views on this a bit in "Why You Should Make Things" https://patrickemclean.substack.com/p/why-you-should-make-things
Since 1800 ish, there's always more art being produced than we can engage with. most of it is terrible. What's great is what lasts. That strangeness and freshness that a deep reader or thinker can't find anywhere else. Individual thinking or theoretical framework is irrelevant here. It scratches deep itches within us.
Another thing that seems to lead to canonicity is that a work deals with an eternal problem in a powerful way. This seems to be one of the great powers of religious texts. They're wrestling with the fundamental problems of being alive in the world.
Another reasons things are canonical is they influence everything that comes after them. So, no matter what you might think of them -- what petty, dull post-modern critical theory hack piece an impotent academic may write about them -- they are a center of gravity of meaning in the culture. The Bible, Shakespeare, Emerson, Poe, Parker, Perotin, Bach... I mean whoever you'd care to include.
Think modern comedy. What do you have to know to be funny? Really funny? Monty Python, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, all the Mel Brooks movies, A certain list of Saturday Night Live sketches -- I'd really have to think about it and ask a bunch of really funny people, but there's a list. There's definitely a list. And whether we are entirely comfortable with it or not, Bill Cosby is on that list. His behavior is abhorrent. But his comedy is funny and has influenced every comedian who came after him. If you can find a way to reconcile these facts, I'll travel it. But I can't. If you want to understand stand-up comedy, I don't see how you can ignore Bill Cosby. Can you?
Context is less relevant than you'd think. Once produced the work stands on it's own. From an artistic standpoint who cares if John of Patmos beat his wife or killed his brother? Or the Catholic Church conducted an inquisition, some pretty bloody crusades and covered up priests molesting children. These things are terrible, but it's not the point. The Book of Revelation is one of the craziest, most hallucinogenic things ever written. Whether a writer considers themselves Christian, Jewish, Mormon, or Pastafarian. It will serve them well to read the Bible, be able to work with its rhythms and images and think about it seriously.
Another good chapter. But that's pretty much all your writing. I have to admit, this did not end like I thought it would. I'm interested to see what kind of villain this professor, who was bullied by sjws and snowflakes, turns out to be.
Sadly, the students in his class were not at all over the top caricatures. Anyone who thinks they are should watch a few videos of Milo Yiannopoulos attempting to give a speech at a campus. At least this professor's students were not blowing air horns or pulling the fire alarm. What a sad time we live in when you can't really adequately satirize the cancel culture, because it's already so absurd.
I really enjoyed this, thanks for writing. Now that my financial situation has stabilized I will be subscribing this week.
Aw jeez. Look, I've been a fan since the Seanachai days, and I like your work a lot! But Pernicia is such a lazy caricature! You're a smarter dude than this! You use words like "triggered" and "rape culture" like they are punchlines in and of themselves, as if you've never had a conversation with someone who uses those terms in earnest.
(For example, no one would use the term "mansplaining" in the way that Pernicia uses it here. Mansplaining is a description of a very specific behavioral tic, where a man will, unsolicited, explain to a woman something very obvious that she probably already knows. If you're in a class, what the professor says is by definition *solicited* and new information)
You put the argument in the mouth of a childish college student who literally screams until she harries the professor out of the room. You're not engaging with an argument; you're just demonstrating your disrespect for your ideological opponents.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a killjoy who can't stand satire, but good satire isn't just mockingly repeating the words of your ideological opponents like a playground bully.
And I even agree with what I think your argument is, that we should not discard the classics just because they don't conform with modern sensibilities. Banning or censoring, say, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it uses language that we abhor today, impoverishes the student of literature and history. It's important to study the work, as it was, in its context.
Anyways: the reason I'm writing this absurdly long comment is because I like your work and I'm hoping to improve future work. I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to scream you out of the room.
Yes, J.D. of course I remember you! You've been with me the whole way and I'm very grateful for it.
It is very clear that you're not trying to scream me out of the room and I appreciate your comment. I think maybe this is a deeper discussion than can be had in these tiny comment windows? You want to do a podcast interview and hash it out? Or just have a non-recorded conversation. Just reply to the email. I have put some thoughts below, but feel like this is a very big topic so forgive me if they are a little scattered.
She's intentionally 2D Were I writing a book about Pernicia or in a different genre or about an ideological conflict I would worked to render her character in more depth. But she's a tertiary character at best. I'm not Tom Wolfe writing about college girls.
I'm also not engaging with any argument here.This is fiction. What I am trying to do _here_ is drive the poor old professor around the bend. This is based loosely on things that do actually happen on college campuses. Most notably the shrieking girl at Yale. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/
I disrespect all ideologies, but try not to disrespect opponents.
If you'd like to locate a fundamental conviction/argument of mine in this chapter it would be this -- If you want to be usefully and properly critical of something you must engage with it and understand it MORE deeply than if you agree with it.
I do have concerns with Woke Culture, Critical Theory and 2nd Wave Feminism (as I understand them) but discussions of ideology aren't particularly entertaining. And I've come to believe that they are bit irrelevant anyway. Where these ideologies have offered useful critique we've are seeing positive change in society and that's good. But in and of themselves, I don't think they will last. Because the people who believe these ideologies -- and by believe I mean carry them out in action -- haven't seemed to produce any great or lasting works of art. They're not making beautiful things that people are going nuts for. In the words of Matt Taibbi, it's the "All Stick, No Carrot revolution."
Since critical theory thinks meta-narratives are false, I'm not sure how greatness could be achieved by people who believe those kind of things. I'm all in favor of greatness whatever the source. If you tell me that Mozart strangled one of his children I really don't care. Nothing to be done for it now. But to not listen to Mozart's music because he wasn't perfect is insane.
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply! I spent some time travelling to visit some family out of town, which is was a little more stressful in These Unprecedented Times TM, and got distracted. I'd be happy to discuss more over email, if you prefer. I feel more comfortable in writing than over a podcast though.
After letting this percolate for a while: It's not out of the question that someone, particularly a teenager, would use this language as a conversational bludgeon. It also would make sense that a teenager would pick up some terms and not actually understand what they mean.
My problem with Pernicia is that she so closely resembles this common caricature of feminists that I hear from conservative talk radio hosts and political cartoons. So it felt like you were implicitly making the same argument that they do, that feminists are shrieking shrews who cannot be reasoned with. (Which I don't think you actually believe)
I totally agree with the actual argument you stated above, that you have to engage with and understand what you disagree with more than what you agree with. (Ironic, since I was worried that Pernicia represented a lack of understanding and engagement with feminist thinking.)
I share the concern that people would discard great works of art because they reflect values we don't share today or because their creators did bad things. I think the ideal critical response is to provide context, not to censor.
For present-day artists, we have a different problem: We have so much art being created that no one can possibly engage with it all. We can afford to push evil people off the stage to make room for better people.
I am curious what your measuring stick for greatness in art is though? It seems absurd to ask for an objective measue, but how do you separate "art that resonates with me personally" from "art that is capital-G Great"?
The caricature is the point. The chapter is from his point of view and that's how he sees her.
"Push evil people off the stage..." Who's evil? Who decides? And if they are truly evil, why not push them into a gas chamber? The Streisand Effect fairly ensures that when you "push someone off the stage," they just get a bigger audience.
I've actually written an essay about this question. "The Western Canon with one 'N'. I'll post it soonish.
Much of the modern humanities seems to argue against Canonicity itself. That some things are better than others. It's an abnegation of the critical responsibility. And rooted in a fundamental error. Reality is not socially constructed and there are not an equal number of equally valid interpretations of a text (or anything else). I talked about my views on this a bit in "Why You Should Make Things" https://patrickemclean.substack.com/p/why-you-should-make-things
Since 1800 ish, there's always more art being produced than we can engage with. most of it is terrible. What's great is what lasts. That strangeness and freshness that a deep reader or thinker can't find anywhere else. Individual thinking or theoretical framework is irrelevant here. It scratches deep itches within us.
Another thing that seems to lead to canonicity is that a work deals with an eternal problem in a powerful way. This seems to be one of the great powers of religious texts. They're wrestling with the fundamental problems of being alive in the world.
Another reasons things are canonical is they influence everything that comes after them. So, no matter what you might think of them -- what petty, dull post-modern critical theory hack piece an impotent academic may write about them -- they are a center of gravity of meaning in the culture. The Bible, Shakespeare, Emerson, Poe, Parker, Perotin, Bach... I mean whoever you'd care to include.
Think modern comedy. What do you have to know to be funny? Really funny? Monty Python, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, all the Mel Brooks movies, A certain list of Saturday Night Live sketches -- I'd really have to think about it and ask a bunch of really funny people, but there's a list. There's definitely a list. And whether we are entirely comfortable with it or not, Bill Cosby is on that list. His behavior is abhorrent. But his comedy is funny and has influenced every comedian who came after him. If you can find a way to reconcile these facts, I'll travel it. But I can't. If you want to understand stand-up comedy, I don't see how you can ignore Bill Cosby. Can you?
Context is less relevant than you'd think. Once produced the work stands on it's own. From an artistic standpoint who cares if John of Patmos beat his wife or killed his brother? Or the Catholic Church conducted an inquisition, some pretty bloody crusades and covered up priests molesting children. These things are terrible, but it's not the point. The Book of Revelation is one of the craziest, most hallucinogenic things ever written. Whether a writer considers themselves Christian, Jewish, Mormon, or Pastafarian. It will serve them well to read the Bible, be able to work with its rhythms and images and think about it seriously.