The thing about men not reading fiction etc is that presumably the only way to know what they think or like or want is to ask them. I find this conversation about men so weird because it's like we're all loudly whispering about somebody in the room.
Though I think I also have a certain lack of sympathy with literate adults—kids are different—who just don't read at all. There are _so many books!_ Hundreds of years of books! Just go back a few decades if nobody's writing something that interests you right now.…
Since you've mentioned cant a few times recently - Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote in his wartime journals: "Dead metaphors are the unfailing resource of cant and hypocrisy [...] Slipshod language, opaque meaningless metaphors, not only excuse the mind from the rigours of thought, they protect the conscience from the sense of responsibility." Relatedly, I think technical jargon in certain subject areas, aimed at a professional or academic in-group, tends to successfully avoid both cant and imprecision (dead metaphors are hardly precise). Bad jargon of a politically charged obscurantist kind is often like dead metaphor. "Performative" in the non-linguistic sense is a good example. Why are some behaviours particularly comparable to dramatic performance? Do you just mean to say the behaviour corresponds to "social constructs"? Doesn't this risk exceptionalism; what exactly is and isn't socially constructed? These questions are rarely addressed. The metaphor is hollow.
The writer of that NY Times piece should've stopped after the first paragraph. The data that (1) 75% of the authors on the NYT fiction best-seller list are female (2) female readers account for ~80% of fiction sales is illuminating. After that Morris becomes afraid of his words, you can hear it in the paragraph transitions:
"But the lack of concern about the fate of male writers was striking.
To be clear, I welcome the end of male dominance in literature..."
For one essay, one would imagine that it would fine to *really* focus on how to get men to read without needing to dedicate half the words to left-wing shibboleths. One paragraph would've been enough.
I just bought Collaborative Circles. Looks great! Exactly my kind of thing.
Oh cool! lmk what you think. I emailed with him and he was so great.
The thing about men not reading fiction etc is that presumably the only way to know what they think or like or want is to ask them. I find this conversation about men so weird because it's like we're all loudly whispering about somebody in the room.
Though I think I also have a certain lack of sympathy with literate adults—kids are different—who just don't read at all. There are _so many books!_ Hundreds of years of books! Just go back a few decades if nobody's writing something that interests you right now.…
Fully agree!
Thank you for the nice writeup!
Also, I really like your more dyspeptic writing -- the end of this post made me laugh today.
Thanks! I am trying to be less grouchy but... it comes naturally!
We are what we are
yeah…
Since you've mentioned cant a few times recently - Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote in his wartime journals: "Dead metaphors are the unfailing resource of cant and hypocrisy [...] Slipshod language, opaque meaningless metaphors, not only excuse the mind from the rigours of thought, they protect the conscience from the sense of responsibility." Relatedly, I think technical jargon in certain subject areas, aimed at a professional or academic in-group, tends to successfully avoid both cant and imprecision (dead metaphors are hardly precise). Bad jargon of a politically charged obscurantist kind is often like dead metaphor. "Performative" in the non-linguistic sense is a good example. Why are some behaviours particularly comparable to dramatic performance? Do you just mean to say the behaviour corresponds to "social constructs"? Doesn't this risk exceptionalism; what exactly is and isn't socially constructed? These questions are rarely addressed. The metaphor is hollow.
ah yes I like this distinction a lot!
How much I love reading these reviews of reviews, Oliver! Thank you for writing this.
ah I'm so glad :)
The writer of that NY Times piece should've stopped after the first paragraph. The data that (1) 75% of the authors on the NYT fiction best-seller list are female (2) female readers account for ~80% of fiction sales is illuminating. After that Morris becomes afraid of his words, you can hear it in the paragraph transitions:
"But the lack of concern about the fate of male writers was striking.
To be clear, I welcome the end of male dominance in literature..."
For one essay, one would imagine that it would fine to *really* focus on how to get men to read without needing to dedicate half the words to left-wing shibboleths. One paragraph would've been enough.