posted on February 15, 2021 10:24 AM by
u/Consistent_Actuator
37
u/CunningPlanHaver52 pointsat 1613403091.000000
There’s a certain type of person in STEM who is so unfamiliar with
the use of metaphor and analogy in arguments that the first person they
encounter using them looks like the second coming of Orwell.
Lol, good sneer. I wouldn't want to imply that Orwell sets the absolute standard by which others must be judged, but he would be included in most people's lists of "good essayists".
Where would you set the bar, out of curiosity?
Other than myself? For political fiction I’ve had Bolano and Celine sitting on my desk lately - each of their flaws aside, particularly Celine’s. I actually re-read 1984 somewhat recently and it was better than I remembered.
Incidentally there’s a great - strange and deeply flawed - book by Anthony Burgess called *1985* that’s worth checking out. One part is a very deep lit crit dive into Orwell, the other is a frankly shite right-wing re-write of the ideas of *1984* for England in the 1970s. And I say that as an otherwise huge fan of Anthony Burgess.
Brian O’Nolan’s stuff, particularly his columns and letters, are very good on politics - more so than people who only read *At Swim Two Birds* think. I’ve been meaning to read *Darkness at Noon* for a while now, which was the model for *1984* to some extent if I remember correctly. Oh, and Nabokov’s *Bend Sinister* follows similar themes to *1984* and had a profound effect on me.
*Bend Sinister* is underrated. *Invitation to a Beheading* is along similar lines, and not as good, but still worthwhile.
In my original comment I had in mind Orwell's social commentary in e.g. last chapters of *Road to Wigan Pier* or *Politics and the English Language*, each of which are worth 1000 Scotts.
Will check out your recommendations. (Wasn't Celine some sort of weird fascist?)
Celine was both a Nazi collaborator and a great writer. *Journey to the End of the Night* is a great book about the surreality of the First World War and the impact it had on his psyche. Unfortunately it looks like as with many people at the time it drove him crazy enough to endorse the nazis.
Dealing with the other stuff: the reason I brought up *Bend Sinister* is that while it is isn’t as explicit as *1984* what it’s doing, it deals with the same themes in a similar style and in my opinion more intelligently. I haven’t read *Invitation to a Beheading* but I’ll give it a go.
I came here to mock this guys take (I was gonna type person, but without even checking let’s face it... this is a guy gushing all over Scott)
This is a very particular kind of take, the kind where more is seen as better. It’s a very sad kind of world view, the kind where you think Ben Shapiro is the best at arguments and is so unemotional.
Literally everything is opposite with these people. Up is down. Hot is cold. Wrong is right. It’s insane!
it’s probably just me, but I suspect Sergey Alexashenko has not
actually read many of the writers of “our generation” prior to declaring
Alexander one of the best of them
It most certainly is not just you. I cannot understand how shallow the depth of Mr. Alexashenko's read queue must be to conclude Alexander is "one of the most talented writers of our time." Like others here, yes, there are bits of Alexander's writing I find witty, or, less frequently, insightful in a novel way. But really, Mr. Alexashenko, I invite you to step out of your comfort zone because you ain't read nothing yet.
Also, Prolix != Prolific.
Thinking about becoming the type of guy who’s really impressed by
self-consciously grandiose hyperbole, references to things I remember
hearing about in college, lukewarm retellings of how to detect logical
fallacies and do self-care, epic non-sequiturs, and phrases like “a
watery sun shone in an oily sky.”
tbf that one's supposed to be surreal and nonsensical, it's some short story he wrote about smoking DMT iirc. a lot of people really like that story but it wasn't for me lol
Yeah adding the long quotes would have prob made the community look
worse, and now without vague allusions, but with direct quote.
(It would have created a nice new intellectual exercise, get mad that
specific quote was picked and explain how that proves the dastardly plot
by the evil nyt to bring him down).
E: ow look ‘but scotts quote is wrong google actively hides
information’ and ‘i agree that google hide things, glad we are awake’ in
the comments. Lol
Also marxbro just demolishing one of scotts pro liberalism stances
with one link.
I didn't mean a specific conversation, I meant in the comments there in reaction to the 'good' scott quote:
“Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword. Liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules, slowly growing until eventually an equilibrium is disturbed. Its battle cry is not “Death to the unbelievers!” but “If you’re nice, you can join our cuddle pile!””
Marxbro replied with:
""Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword."
I guess all that colonialism stuff didn't exist. Vietnam War? Didn't happen either. Here's an enlightening read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:_A_Counter-History"
“The sea was made of strontium; the beach was made of rye. Above my
head, a watery sun shone in an oily sky. A thousand stars of sertraline
whirled round quetiapine moons, and the sand sizzled sharp like cooking
oil that hissed and sang and threatened to boil the octahedral
dunes.”
idk a lot of people liked it but i thought it was pretty meh. like the surreal imagery amounted to "the [unusual adjective-noun pair] was contrasted by the [chemical name for an antidepressant-noun"].
like that's already lazy enough, but just knowing he's a psychiatrist makes all the antidepressants in there seem extra low-effort imo. i thought it was an interesting concept (trying to prove DMT gods are real by asking them to do tricky computations) but tediously drilled into the ground so that i was ready for it to end way before it did.
I don't why, but reading this extract gives me the feeling that this guy read Cosmicomics by Italo Calvino, and tried to copy the writing style without realising what makes them good.
I always thought the source of that quote ([https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/)) was one of his good pieces. He's not talking about how hospitals give care that's "too good" in general, he's talking about right-to-die, like the OP mentioned in the other comment replying to you, and how we make elderly people with chronic conditions suffer for years (when with a beloved pet basically everyone agrees the most ethical thing to do is to put them down when they're in that much pain).
I know not everyone agrees with euthanasia, but he makes a good argument that it should be allowed for people who do want it, just to avoid the amount of pain and agony many people have to go through at the end of life.
But poor people in the US get much, much worse health care than rich people, and in general, the health care system in the US is horrible to deal with if you're not rich-- that I agree with but I don't think that's what Scott was talking about.
don't forget this one!
>Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword. Liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules, slowly growing until eventually an equilibrium is disturbed. Its battle cry is not “Death to the unbelievers!” but “If you’re nice, you can join our cuddle pile!”
i cannot understand the mind that thinks this is an incredible, insightful quote, especially in the wake of COVID mismanagement and worldwide police brutality protests
There’s a certain type of person in STEM who is so unfamiliar with the use of metaphor and analogy in arguments that the first person they encounter using them looks like the second coming of Orwell.
I see op already mined this for flair, but:
Not even Poe’s Law can save us now…
Scott Alexander definitely is one of the writers of our generation
Yeah how can the NYT not include these incredibly wordy, self important, and difficult to understand quotes
it’s probably just me, but I suspect Sergey Alexashenko has not actually read many of the writers of “our generation” prior to declaring Alexander one of the best of them
Thinking about becoming the type of guy who’s really impressed by self-consciously grandiose hyperbole, references to things I remember hearing about in college, lukewarm retellings of how to detect logical fallacies and do self-care, epic non-sequiturs, and phrases like “a watery sun shone in an oily sky.”
Yeah adding the long quotes would have prob made the community look worse, and now without vague allusions, but with direct quote.
(It would have created a nice new intellectual exercise, get mad that specific quote was picked and explain how that proves the dastardly plot by the evil nyt to bring him down).
E: ow look ‘but scotts quote is wrong google actively hides information’ and ‘i agree that google hide things, glad we are awake’ in the comments. Lol
Also marxbro just demolishing one of scotts pro liberalism stances with one link.
Is this a drug trip?
[removed]