It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today.
It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.
Note that comment is toward "then going into rhapsodies about how free-spirited and unencumbered and holy and mad and visionary it all is". It is entirely valid comment. It is entirely 100% valid to make such comment even if you actually like the book.
What is bad is insisting that no one can point it out. That we all must pretend that acting like that is being cool free-spirit and visionary. That we cant analyze a book and make conclusions about what it celebrates, what it criticizes and what it just describes without any value judgement attached.
Somewhere along the lines people developed extremely thin skin toward what you can say about famous pieces of art. You cant really analyze them nor their characters. You must show only unfailing admiration of the characters and the book itself.
You definitely should have the right- and there should also be a firewall to socializing such experiments damage and fallouts. I just had also very negative experiences, where the mere thought experiment was considered "heresy" and as an attempt to recruit people for such a lifestyle. I can defend the freedom while defending the freedom, while not pushing the freedom from consequences.
Just jumping back to Scott for a moment though, one suspects he probably does enjoy books about people who have broken commandments. "A terrible book" about "terrible people" suggests both that the people are terrible and that the book itself is poorly written. There are two concepts there to grasp. He's leaving the option open of a wonderful book about "terrible people".
That was always one of the appeals of the Seinfeld show for example. Well written show about some really horrible people. Fun for the whole family.
Scott Alexander is a smart guy, but not everything needs to match taste. For instance, he describes the writer of the book Sadly, Porn as remarkably erudite and so on. The community he belongs to has the habit of describing each other as very smart, certainly, and particularly having pretensions to Hegel but overall he's quite trustworthy. In any case, on actually reading the book I found it less interestingly smart and more like something the character Salvatore in The Name of The Rose might say.
But text is a serialization of an idea and it's entirely possible I have the wrong deserializer. So that's one thing perhaps you and I now have in common. And I suspect Scott Alexander just lacks the deserializer for Jack Kerouac.
It’s true we should not judge people by today’s morals -one can’t be a visionary and predict tomorrows morals; but, that said it seems those people strayed well beyond what was acceptable even back then. So there is room for criticism.
I have, awhile ago. There isn’t much more to it than the quoted section.
It’s not really surprising to me that the author didn’t like it; Kerouac is probably the exact opposite person to him. But that doesn’t make it a good review.
The moral views of the average person circa 1930 are very different from one today.
But I read old books for their interesting stories, viewpoints on life, literary quality, etc. – not to tut-tut someone for having different moral views than me, a hundred years later.
So it doesn't bother me. Like I said, I really cannot understand the mindset of someone that reads a book from another era/civilization and focuses on critiquing the author's ethics. Just feels like such a limited way to interact with the world.
I don't see it. The 1930s weren't that long ago, there are still people alive who lived through them. If you were talking about ancient Egypt, you might have a point.
it's usually inappropriate to feed a troll, but I'll just say "olympic gold champion was congratulated by literally Adolf Hitler, but not his own country the Unite States - because he was black"
I recommend you read the book "Pimp" by Iceberg Slim, about a Black America in the early/mid 20th century.
Personally speaking, I found the book very 'awe-inspiring'/it made me go 'wow' a bunch, because I found the author's experience so completely different from my own :)
Its quite simplifying though, if you can discount a ton of people and experiences.
The best person to ever have lived, was thus a baby born to a prisoner in the 1600 which spend his life in prison doing nothing. We should all aspire and be inspired to be like that. Childlike and horrifically controlled by external systems.
> It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views.
It is not that much exhausting to not celebrate abuse. In fact, most people are not abusers, most books are not celebrating it. But, there are subcultures that do treat abuse as a cool inspirable thing to do. That is what the quote references. And it is exhausting to be around such cultures once you have seen or understand consequences of what they celebrate. And that ideology is how one gets Epstein enablers.
Vice signaling and principled opposition against "acknowledging there are victims here" are weird and destructive taboos.
>I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today.
Maybe this means we should not celebrate success itself, but acknowledge harm many successful people do to make themselves famous, rich and powerful. But more importantly, this claim of yours is frequently just not true. It is something people say to defend their heroes, trying to defend unusually horrible stuff that back then people themselves found horrible back then, fought against and criticized a lot. You can write about bad stuff historical person caused without framing it as good or cool thing, really. You can even acknowledge that their opposition had a point.
We know that being abuser is something that makes certain people admire you more.
And I don't agree that you should be rooting for protagonist. That's an extremely limited way of looking at literature, much less history. I can think of half a dozen books offhand that have unpleasant or anti-hero type protagonists.
That’s interesting. I was a huge Ellroy fan and I think that’s probably my favorite book. I always got the impression in his books the idea was the protagonists were heroes or, more accurately, could have been if there was any place for them in the Ellroy universe. Instead, they do sordid stuff because there really isn’t another way in the rigged game they live in. To feel like they have agency, they try to find a third way between the options of “good” and “evil” but usually wind up doomed, so who can say if they have agency at all. Except for Dudley, who is definitely not a hero in anyone’s universe. Though even he is a bit of a nod to the trope of heroic Irish cop who gets things done in spite of the system.
I don’t know if it’s him or me, but the last book gave me the feeling Ellroy has fully embraced the man-o-sphere. I can hardly judge him, given the story of his upbringing, but I think I am going to catch the next stop on his bus line.
I haven't read any of his other books, but Tabloid definitely didn't have that feeling you mentioned. It's more of a pervasive matter-of-fact "everyone is corrupt" vibe, even people like JFK, the FBI, cops, etc.
I should revisit it, but we came at it from different places (and good Lord I read it over a quarter century ago). There are some threads from previous Ellroy books (Pete Bondurant himself) and, assuming I recall any of this correctly after all this time, I feel like the Kemper Boyd character is the same basic Guy as Ed Exley from LA Confidential and the protagonist of White Jazz. Or maybe The Black Dahlia. But obviously it’s not all black and white, right?
In A Song of Fire and Ice (the series that spawned Game of Thrones, and has yet to be completed), you get to really hating on a character, then, their story gets told from their side (usually, before they are killed), and you find that maybe you don't hate them so much.
It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.