Skip to main content

Recent letters to the NYT, in response to David Brooks

Letter 1

We're really at a loss when our most emotionally evolved begin to experience pleasure when they participate in a system where a lot of promising human beings will receive little feedback on their excellence... for them, it'll all seem to slip out into a void of no-response. I think for this to be happening, most upper-middle-class liberals have to experiencing some kind of growth panic, some sense that their prosperity is selfish and spoiled of them, and warranting a punishment, and are in response helping nurture a society downgraded from the one they at some level know is much the much richer -- a fully open society... some hippie '60s vision, that actually would be possible if we weren't bent on repeating the '30s.

Some gigantic maw that demands lives be lost in hopelessness is becoming satisfied, for the masses, whatever their talent, having to have to will past guaranteed invisibility to manifest their best creative work (in this, you-are-either-exempt-from-being-a-troll-by-your-class-markers-or-are-always-partially-a-troll culture, you will not be seen if you're on the out, no matter how able), and for so many liberals to force deny themselves their upmost self-provisioning openness.

What came first -- trolls themselves? Or the psychic need to obscure genuine talent and human interestingness by casting this dispersion of "likely of troll DNA" over the bulk of the human lot, cuing people into understanding that the way to participate in the game that will most be met with approval, is not to try and contribute something unique, but to attempt to qualify yourself as much closer to your betters than the rest of the lot are ... as much less trollish than they. 

Letter 2

It is not a well known psychological theory, but there are some psychoanalysts who argue that the particular nature of our parents' need for us as children will determine how much growth we will permit for ourselves and for the society we live in, before it makes us feel like we've neglected our parents and drawn their ire. If we have reached a time where almost no one feels growth can continue without placating angry parental "alters," then the problem of privilege is not the same as it would have been in an earlier time when growth felt more permissible, like presumably post WW2 until late 70s.

Upper-middle-class liberals, in this way of seeing things, aren't only looking after their own privilege, for they at some level feel the sacrifice to their own pleasure that comes out of the creativity and useful wandering sapped out of everyone needing to build their resumes and secure As all the damn time -- it's a society of William Deresiewicz's excellent sheep -- and from our collective inability to disentangle ourselves from seeing everyone outside our circle as some variant of troll. They know the self-diminishment that comes out of finding themselves playing the role of aristocrats who delight that their children seem almost anthropologically different from everyone else's in America. For out of fear of what will happen to them if they speak for the lives of everyone, and thereby possibly creating a world where everyone wins, they know they’re at the service of some bitter societal god.


Popular posts from this blog

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …