Funnily enough, I picked up and thought about reading ‘On Beauty’ just a couple of days ago. Instead, in another link to the article, I set about Malcom Bradbury’s very readable ‘The Modern British Novel’. Of course, Bradbury’s ‘History Man’ (referenced in the article) is a great book that foresaw all of this almost 50 years ago. Anyway, I don’t need to read ‘On Beauty’ now, having read Sarah’s excellent summary.
7882 fremic
3 years ago
Sounds like it is entirely stereotypes, which is good as stereotypes tend to be real, and also sounds like woke (cast of characters and setting) writing on woke, which is good as it is the only way to find out how they actually think. I cannot imagine I would ever pick it up, my sort of book being more Thesiger and history; non-fiction.
Calling him a technophobe for never using a smart phone, I am not sure the label fits. I have never owned a cell phone, never sent a text, never even used a smart phone and have no idea what swiping involves. It is my conspiracy loon side, as well as being more of a Social-Media phobe, and endless distraction phobe, I know I would instantly become addicted. From what I see from the outside is that phones consume the user, sort of a mind parasite. When on the Tube (before the lockdown imposed a two week quarantine to go to UK kept me from returning this year to see my ancient family, and still does) you look down the carriage and see every seated person clutching a phone in their hand, and most staring at it. People do not even put it away, they clutch it, at the ready. If that is not addiction nothing is.
The technophobe designation is interesting, as you say, it seems to assume the reasons a person may not choose to use tech. (Though a lot of so called phobias these days seem to assume particular reasons.)
My grandfather worked for years as a computer programmer, but even after he retired and these things became commonplace, he never owned any kind of personal computer or cell phone. He just didn’t seem to think they would improve his life.
Wendell Berry’s essay on why he doesn’t use a personal computer for his writing is similar – he gives any number of considered reasons why he prefers not to, but it’s seen as an anti-technology position.
David Morley
3 years ago
dissent from the orthodoxy on gender identity.
Of course in this case, today’s dissenters are yesterday’s orthodoxy – they just have’t kept up with the fads of politics and academia. When the dogma changes, it’s not always easy for the dogmatic to keep up.
Not so long ago it seemed expedient to feminists to unbundle gender from sex as if gendered behaviour differences could have no possible root in biology.
Since then, Judith Butler and others have pursued this to its logical conclusion, and have provided trans activists with an ideology to underpin their activism. In much the way that social constructivism underpinned the feminist activists of yesteryear.
Biological realism, as you term it, is a bit of a late discovery for these people – who previously could rightly have been described as biological minimalists.
Jennifer Britton
3 years ago
Slogans, “decolonize the canon” or “make America great again,” for example, are exasperating and mindless intellectual shackles used to cuff discussion and enable the unthinking and the angry. We will never resolve what irks us until we free our minds of these vocabulary items, ill-defined yet all too easy to remember and repeat. Unless were careful, soon we’ll be chanting “hate, hate,” shorter than “stop the steal,” “decolonize the canon,” “dead white male,” thereby reaching herd immunity to thought.
Diana Durham
3 years ago
“Calls to “decolonise the canon” have a certain justice,”–is one of those clauses a writer throws in to a wobbly argument just to be safe. You don’t really know what you mean. How about instead of ‘decolonising’ we institute a de-plagiarising of literature by shoddy, shallow novels such as ‘On Beauty’ the synopsis of which comprises the bulk of your incoherent article?
Funnily enough, I picked up and thought about reading ‘On Beauty’ just a couple of days ago. Instead, in another link to the article, I set about Malcom Bradbury’s very readable ‘The Modern British Novel’. Of course, Bradbury’s ‘History Man’ (referenced in the article) is a great book that foresaw all of this almost 50 years ago. Anyway, I don’t need to read ‘On Beauty’ now, having read Sarah’s excellent summary.
Sounds like it is entirely stereotypes, which is good as stereotypes tend to be real, and also sounds like woke (cast of characters and setting) writing on woke, which is good as it is the only way to find out how they actually think. I cannot imagine I would ever pick it up, my sort of book being more Thesiger and history; non-fiction.
Calling him a technophobe for never using a smart phone, I am not sure the label fits. I have never owned a cell phone, never sent a text, never even used a smart phone and have no idea what swiping involves. It is my conspiracy loon side, as well as being more of a Social-Media phobe, and endless distraction phobe, I know I would instantly become addicted. From what I see from the outside is that phones consume the user, sort of a mind parasite. When on the Tube (before the lockdown imposed a two week quarantine to go to UK kept me from returning this year to see my ancient family, and still does) you look down the carriage and see every seated person clutching a phone in their hand, and most staring at it. People do not even put it away, they clutch it, at the ready. If that is not addiction nothing is.
The technophobe designation is interesting, as you say, it seems to assume the reasons a person may not choose to use tech. (Though a lot of so called phobias these days seem to assume particular reasons.)
My grandfather worked for years as a computer programmer, but even after he retired and these things became commonplace, he never owned any kind of personal computer or cell phone. He just didn’t seem to think they would improve his life.
Wendell Berry’s essay on why he doesn’t use a personal computer for his writing is similar – he gives any number of considered reasons why he prefers not to, but it’s seen as an anti-technology position.
Of course in this case, today’s dissenters are yesterday’s orthodoxy – they just have’t kept up with the fads of politics and academia. When the dogma changes, it’s not always easy for the dogmatic to keep up.
So it’s dogmatic to insist on biological realism?
You’ve missed my point.
Not so long ago it seemed expedient to feminists to unbundle gender from sex as if gendered behaviour differences could have no possible root in biology.
Since then, Judith Butler and others have pursued this to its logical conclusion, and have provided trans activists with an ideology to underpin their activism. In much the way that social constructivism underpinned the feminist activists of yesteryear.
Biological realism, as you term it, is a bit of a late discovery for these people – who previously could rightly have been described as biological minimalists.
Slogans, “decolonize the canon” or “make America great again,” for example, are exasperating and mindless intellectual shackles used to cuff discussion and enable the unthinking and the angry. We will never resolve what irks us until we free our minds of these vocabulary items, ill-defined yet all too easy to remember and repeat. Unless were careful, soon we’ll be chanting “hate, hate,” shorter than “stop the steal,” “decolonize the canon,” “dead white male,” thereby reaching herd immunity to thought.
“Calls to “decolonise the canon” have a certain justice,”–is one of those clauses a writer throws in to a wobbly argument just to be safe. You don’t really know what you mean.
How about instead of ‘decolonising’ we institute a de-plagiarising of literature by shoddy, shallow novels such as ‘On Beauty’ the synopsis of which comprises the bulk of your incoherent article?
So because you don’t like books like On Beauty, your proposal is to burn them? I’m not sure you read the article