Main Edition
US
FR
After a years-long legal battle, philosopher Nina Power has found herself on the vanguard of a complex question: do artists have the responsibility to engage with dangerous ideas? She joined UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers to discuss the trial, why she still reads controversial books and what her story can tell us about the culture wars.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePerhaps Ms Power would find it helpful to take up a career or occupation that isn’t intellectualised. Gardening is often advertised as having a great therapeutic effect on those with mental distress.
Has all that reading this library of ‘edgy’ authors revealed anything useful? Raking over these hot embers of long-dead authors’ minds, does it not burn the feat to tread on them? What rest is there in that?
The tangled growth of these writers thoughts, are they not the briers and thorns that catch on the clothing of the spirit? Do such things allay worry? Are they a guide to anything but the dead end of a maze?
Are these books by these authors not really like the lure of the fowler? Their content like the net that is attached to the lure?
The word ‘net’ is one of definite imagery. Its requisite quality is that it should be more or less concealed. Even when seen by eyes ignorant of its purpose, it is little to look at. Taken in detail it is slight, even weak. But it is so woven mesh into mesh that it is formidably strong while perfectly elastic, as tenacious as it is frail.
These books and authors give no power to tread on the ‘serpents and scorpions and power of the enemy’ – the fowler standing close to his net – so that ‘nothing shall in any wise hurt you’. Looking at the net will not disentangle you from it.
Christians are a liminal people. As the Apostle Paul reminded his converts, they are strangers and pilgrims in the world. As outlanders it would not suit them to attempt to find an ‘abiding city’. They are a new creation and must not look back.
You’ve a great career in parody ahead.
I wish I knew what this commenter is talking about
Not good Freddie. You spent a lot of time trying to corner NP into making an apparent admission that she never actually made – but you did your best to make it seem that she had. As if you wanted from the outset the triumph of that admission. There was at times a patronising coldness and explain-yourself-young-lady headmasterishness in your approach. With dollops of faux sympathy and agreement thrown in, the better to trick her into almost saying things which she had repeatedly shown she did not think or believe. Not sure if this wasn’t the cruelest interview I’ve seen.
I still have ten minutes left but I feel as though we’ve watched different interviews? Freddie came across as sympathetic, and the purpose of the interview was to provide Nina with a platform to defend herself.
I’m a big fan of FS and UnHerd and agree that ordinarily his manner is as pleasant as it is searching. He’s very good at interviews – subtle and disarming. He achieves more without confrontation than and any of the more adversarial interviewers. This site is an oasis of civility where opposing ideas can be discussed without the foaming outrage that typify so many others. He wasn’t being his usual decent self, imho.