Nah, Scalex is still sits beneath that bar. Flowery language and appeals to what are perceived to be in-group intellectual signifiers doesn’t change the underlying fact that the blog is certifiable garbage.
*but where do I find the actually good writing*?? I swear that's half the problem: when I first read SSC, I was thrilled at the thoughtfulness and originality, because compared to so much of the writing in the MSM, it really was thoughtful and original in a genuinely refreshing way. It was the blog version of this reimagining of the famous Pachelbel Canon in D, the classical piece that everyone knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y7b0Y-Qx7E. Then after a while (and here the comparison with Il Giardino Armonico ends), I realized how sickening the community around SSC could be and how predictable his writing and biases could be, but all that does is return me to where I started, opening the NYT Opinion section and then closing it in disgust/disappointment again!
There are of course books that are genuinely insightful and original in a way that SSC doesn't even begin to approach, but then that's not even really fair to SSC. You can't *just* read books, because they're too slow; as obnoxious as twitter and reddit fights are, you do get some spectrum of quick-reacting opinion and insight that sharpens your perspective, as long as you're always suspicious that the slice of opinion/insight you're seeing might only be the misleading slice represented by all of us too-online people.
See, that's smooth brain thinking. The galaxy brain take is that you want someone who manages to shrug off direct, public association with a well-known child sex trafficker to the stars in your corner because he's very clearly impervious.
You know what? As a subscriber of the New Yorker, absolutely not.
Like, I know the New Yorker is absolutely bourgeois, but the
overwhelming majority of opinion pieces- or pieces of any sort- you find
in there are way, way better written than Scott’s work. John Cassidy,
Elizabeth Kolbert, John McPhee, Masha Gessen, and just about every one
of the other regular New Yorker contributors blows Scott out of the
water in every respect. (Especially prose quality. John McPhee’s skill
with words makes me just want to give up even trying sometimes, it’s so
good.)
Sure, the NYT and other papers publish a lot of absolute trash
clickbait opinion pieces with hardly any editorial oversight, but it’s
really important to remember that there actually are brilliant writers
still working in mainstream journalism, if you know where to look, and
their standards are so much higher than Scott’s. A simple percentile
comparison (especially one Peven Stinker just pulled out of his ass) is
useless for actually exhibiting the width of the gap between Scott and
an actually excellent writer.
Honestly, that’s such an insanely low bar, i’m not sure he’s even wrong.
[removed]
If I were Siskind, I wouldn’t want to be defended by someone with multiple ties to Jeffrey Epstein. But that’s just me.
Never listen to anyone who doesn’t follow the Curly Girl Method.
The world is more profoundly idiotic than can be imagined.
‘The ultimate refutation’ starts with a disclaimer that this is partially incorrect, and going after nrx is not one of scotts priorities.
This isnt as great a defense of scotts character as people think it is.
You know what? As a subscriber of the New Yorker, absolutely not. Like, I know the New Yorker is absolutely bourgeois, but the overwhelming majority of opinion pieces- or pieces of any sort- you find in there are way, way better written than Scott’s work. John Cassidy, Elizabeth Kolbert, John McPhee, Masha Gessen, and just about every one of the other regular New Yorker contributors blows Scott out of the water in every respect. (Especially prose quality. John McPhee’s skill with words makes me just want to give up even trying sometimes, it’s so good.)
Sure, the NYT and other papers publish a lot of absolute trash clickbait opinion pieces with hardly any editorial oversight, but it’s really important to remember that there actually are brilliant writers still working in mainstream journalism, if you know where to look, and their standards are so much higher than Scott’s. A simple percentile comparison (especially one Peven Stinker just pulled out of his ass) is useless for actually exhibiting the width of the gap between Scott and an actually excellent writer.
pinker really is a psychologist