I genuinely had no understanding of the tsunami that was about to crash upon my account when I wrote that thread. The most peculiar thing I remember about that experience was that they take every admission of ignorance--even if it's only perceived--as a means to attack. I sent a tweet saying something along the lines of, "the only argument they are throwing at me is that I don't understand the difference between a parody and a satire"
I researched that for the thread so I was read up on my arguments. They were just throwing that accusation at me, but that didn't stop the masses leaping to the conclusion that I must've been an idiot. I got a million replies saying, "He doesn't understand the difference between a parody and a satire, lmao"
As if there had been a million English professors lurking on Twitter for that exact moment.
I can't help but be reminded of the shock i had on the ending of The Three Musketeers novel. They take the books main antagonist, a horrible and beautiful woman, across the border, proclaim her crimes and list exactly how she wronged every protagonist countless times throughout the novel, then judge her and carry out the sentence by hanging her and then beheading her.
It suddenly clicked for me why no film, TV or cartoon adaptation of this work ever bothered to show this part. It was not because it was too violent, but because it was too "icky" for a modern audience. It simply runs counter to everything modernity thought us to believe about women, therefore it can never be faithfully depicted. It must not be faithfully depicted.
The Three Musketeers was not even "deconstructed", it was deliberately turned into some childish story so that no one would bother to read the original book and see how dark it is. That is not to mention how the Victorians of the late 19th century censored the living shit out of the book to fit their cultural protestant sensibilities.
There is a yet a new sham Three Musketeers movie adaptation going on (currently on part 2), and it predictably humanizes this evil woman by changing every detail in the book to make her a victim of the patriarchy. The TV show 10 years ago did this as well, with complementary token black musketeers.
It seems prudish and subversive forces will never allow this great story to be told. It will forever remain "what they want it to be" rather than what it is. And as you say, normies don't have the patience to read a 800 page-long book from 1845, much less are equipped to understand it.
Thanks for this. As a boomer who finds ny visits to Substacks like The Parnas Perspective like stopping by a lunatic asylum with an insectoid hive mind, this helps me understand what I’m dealing with.
As I read this lovely essay I kept thinking of all my fellow millennials and a few Gen X folks I know who LOVE to talk about their trivia knowledge and their trivia teams and trivia events. For years now, I’ve found it strange that so many seemingly educated people are proud of their knowledge of trivial things. It’s an odd flex, when you consider the whole history of Western Civilization and what knowledge was garnered and necessary for us to develop to this point. I have a sense that this pride in trivia is related to “book slop”. Maybe we’ll call it “knowledge slop”
One of the best novels I read last year was The Duke's Children by Anthony Trollope. This contains a love-hexagon, and to my surprise, I was invested.
I soon realised why: each corner was torn between love and family obligations. Their internal feelings, though discussed, were secondary, and this made it a breath of fresh air.
The several love triangles in Phineas Finn also follow this same trajectory, and there is real tension when Madame Max offers the penniless Finn all of her wealth to re-start his Parliamentary Career (he quits over the issue of Irish tenants' rights), you're on tenterhooks as to whether he'll stick to the promise he made to Mary Flood Jones (which none of his London friends, Madame Max among them, know anything about).
That said, I highly recommend that you avoid Can You Forgive Her? at all costs. Here, Trollope writes a heroine who makes Tessa Durbeyfield seem like a paragon of decisiveness.
Thanks for this. As a Gen X'er, our liberal peers were more like Classical Liberals with irreverent, irreligious aesthetics. It too was performative and narcissistic, but you could argue with them and it was stimulating (though they still only saw through a relatively narrow lens). Where the supposed Liberal went is a narrow, dark place of anti-intellectual childishness. You have done a great job describing the indoctrination process with your own generation and it helps me understand the evolution a little more. I still don't understand why so many follow this narrow path but glad there seem to be enough of you who saw it and broke out.
It could be said that the Orange Oaf or Trumpzilla is a leading edge example of both religious and cultural illiteracy. And via his emotionally manipulative potty-mouthed rant pitches his appeal to his adoring MAGA (make america grotesque again) devotees.
Such was fully on display at his Madison Square Gardens e-rection rally. The Beavis & Butthead brigades.
I saw "the cook the thief his wife and her lover" from 1989 last night, which has become a cult classic in art house theaters. The "wife", Helen Mirren, bonding with the "lover" is consistent with this essay: if he isn't having sex with Mirren, he spends the entire movie reading. He doesn't even talk until about halfway into the movie. So while he's supposed to be metaphor for a revolutionary patriot, his only non-sexual action is to consume the written word... Literally.
Great essay. Your point about reconciling contradictions by redefining morality is a profound one, to me. Once you understand this is constantly done in our society (and mostly for the worse) it can become an anchor for your sanity.
I genuinely had no understanding of the tsunami that was about to crash upon my account when I wrote that thread. The most peculiar thing I remember about that experience was that they take every admission of ignorance--even if it's only perceived--as a means to attack. I sent a tweet saying something along the lines of, "the only argument they are throwing at me is that I don't understand the difference between a parody and a satire"
I researched that for the thread so I was read up on my arguments. They were just throwing that accusation at me, but that didn't stop the masses leaping to the conclusion that I must've been an idiot. I got a million replies saying, "He doesn't understand the difference between a parody and a satire, lmao"
As if there had been a million English professors lurking on Twitter for that exact moment.
And even if that had been true--that had NOTHING to do with my argument.
I can't help but be reminded of the shock i had on the ending of The Three Musketeers novel. They take the books main antagonist, a horrible and beautiful woman, across the border, proclaim her crimes and list exactly how she wronged every protagonist countless times throughout the novel, then judge her and carry out the sentence by hanging her and then beheading her.
It suddenly clicked for me why no film, TV or cartoon adaptation of this work ever bothered to show this part. It was not because it was too violent, but because it was too "icky" for a modern audience. It simply runs counter to everything modernity thought us to believe about women, therefore it can never be faithfully depicted. It must not be faithfully depicted.
The Three Musketeers was not even "deconstructed", it was deliberately turned into some childish story so that no one would bother to read the original book and see how dark it is. That is not to mention how the Victorians of the late 19th century censored the living shit out of the book to fit their cultural protestant sensibilities.
There is a yet a new sham Three Musketeers movie adaptation going on (currently on part 2), and it predictably humanizes this evil woman by changing every detail in the book to make her a victim of the patriarchy. The TV show 10 years ago did this as well, with complementary token black musketeers.
It seems prudish and subversive forces will never allow this great story to be told. It will forever remain "what they want it to be" rather than what it is. And as you say, normies don't have the patience to read a 800 page-long book from 1845, much less are equipped to understand it.
Thanks for this. As a boomer who finds ny visits to Substacks like The Parnas Perspective like stopping by a lunatic asylum with an insectoid hive mind, this helps me understand what I’m dealing with.
It vexes me as a teacher when I hear people say things like, “boys can’t sit still for long and read.” Who do you think used to write everything!?
There are many books in the library of the iterators on the virtues of the empire of mankind please read any and many!
Fantastic article, Dave. Can't wait for part 2.
As I read this lovely essay I kept thinking of all my fellow millennials and a few Gen X folks I know who LOVE to talk about their trivia knowledge and their trivia teams and trivia events. For years now, I’ve found it strange that so many seemingly educated people are proud of their knowledge of trivial things. It’s an odd flex, when you consider the whole history of Western Civilization and what knowledge was garnered and necessary for us to develop to this point. I have a sense that this pride in trivia is related to “book slop”. Maybe we’ll call it “knowledge slop”
I used to be a trivia guy myself until I realized that it’s a form of acedia. Shows how hollow people are now a days
One of the best novels I read last year was The Duke's Children by Anthony Trollope. This contains a love-hexagon, and to my surprise, I was invested.
I soon realised why: each corner was torn between love and family obligations. Their internal feelings, though discussed, were secondary, and this made it a breath of fresh air.
The several love triangles in Phineas Finn also follow this same trajectory, and there is real tension when Madame Max offers the penniless Finn all of her wealth to re-start his Parliamentary Career (he quits over the issue of Irish tenants' rights), you're on tenterhooks as to whether he'll stick to the promise he made to Mary Flood Jones (which none of his London friends, Madame Max among them, know anything about).
That said, I highly recommend that you avoid Can You Forgive Her? at all costs. Here, Trollope writes a heroine who makes Tessa Durbeyfield seem like a paragon of decisiveness.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the lib fixation on "banned books"
Thanks for this. As a Gen X'er, our liberal peers were more like Classical Liberals with irreverent, irreligious aesthetics. It too was performative and narcissistic, but you could argue with them and it was stimulating (though they still only saw through a relatively narrow lens). Where the supposed Liberal went is a narrow, dark place of anti-intellectual childishness. You have done a great job describing the indoctrination process with your own generation and it helps me understand the evolution a little more. I still don't understand why so many follow this narrow path but glad there seem to be enough of you who saw it and broke out.
It could be said that the Orange Oaf or Trumpzilla is a leading edge example of both religious and cultural illiteracy. And via his emotionally manipulative potty-mouthed rant pitches his appeal to his adoring MAGA (make america grotesque again) devotees.
Such was fully on display at his Madison Square Gardens e-rection rally. The Beavis & Butthead brigades.
Beavis & Butthead now rule OK!
I saw "the cook the thief his wife and her lover" from 1989 last night, which has become a cult classic in art house theaters. The "wife", Helen Mirren, bonding with the "lover" is consistent with this essay: if he isn't having sex with Mirren, he spends the entire movie reading. He doesn't even talk until about halfway into the movie. So while he's supposed to be metaphor for a revolutionary patriot, his only non-sexual action is to consume the written word... Literally.
Neat! I'm currently in the process of writing about some related concepts. Hope you don't mind if I quote you!
A good article from the 2000’s in, of all things, The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/07/a-readers-manifesto/302270/
Use archive.today to read
Great essay. Your point about reconciling contradictions by redefining morality is a profound one, to me. Once you understand this is constantly done in our society (and mostly for the worse) it can become an anchor for your sanity.