6 ms·

Great post. In fact, this is the perfect article to counter the fist-shaking cries of "Why is this article posted on Hacker News?" The take-aways from this ar

by l33tbro 10y ago

Great post. In fact, this is the perfect article to counter the fist-shaking cries of "Why is this article posted on Hacker News?" The take-aways from this article are so broad that they are applicable to many disciplines, especially coding, technology, and entrepreneurship. Here we have two writers with very different ends. Joyce, the great poker of form, who must have mildly infuriated the utilitarian and reductive sensibilities of Wells. The letter makes me reflect on the tensions of my own life between engaging in more experimental flights of fancy (where I'm making something I really love) and, conversely, asking myself if other people may actually find value in what I'm doing. Either way, I find articles like this much more insightful than another Iphone headphone jack op-ed or whispers from the Elon Musk rumour mill.

f_allwein 10y ago
exactly. It also reminded me of Thomas Kuhn's idea of paradigm shifts - if nothing else, Joyce definitely represented a new paradigm, so representatives of the old would have scorned/ not understood him. Does not make his work better or worse, but explains why radically new approaches often meet with scepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
dev1n 10y ago
There was a time where HN front page was 50% philosophical literature and 50% tech news. I miss articles like this.
andybak 10y ago
> who must have mildly infuriated the utilitarian and reductive sensibilities of Wells. I get the feeling you came away siding with Joyce. I came away with hugely increased respect for Wells (who I didn't know a huge amount about going into this). Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment but 'utilitarian and reductive' seemed faintly damning whereas I was surprised how deeply he was considering the role of his work in relation to society and how nuanced his challenge to Joyce was. Especially for a 'mere' science fiction writer...
- l33tbro 10y ago
  I have enormous respect for Wells as a writer. By "reductive" I meant his style of prose in the context of the 4000 word sentences in Ulysses.
- justifier 10y ago
  interesting.. what gathered respect for wells were you able to gain from reading this? the letter is a series of self edifying straw men to me it reads like someone trying to speak confidently to hide a deeply rooted, or joyce induced, insecurity and ends up coming across as arrogant
  - nkurz 10y ago
    I can only speak for myself, but I had to the same positive pro-Wells feeling from the letter. I've read Joyce, but I've barely read Wells. This letter makes me want to. I read the letter as an honest but negative reaction to the Wake, while genuinely praising the prodigious talent of the writer. I don't know their relative ages[1], but I read it in the tone of a businessman father astonished by the virtuosity of his musician son --- astonished that the son followed through on his dreams, but still wondering why someone would dedicate their life to making pretty sounds. I think Well's both captures what Joyce is up to, and clearly expresses why it's not for him. I feel much the same toward Joyce. I've fought my way through the most of the Wake, and feel happy knowing that it exists without having much desire to read much more. Joyce's talent for language is obvious; his choice of where to dedicate that talent is not. In retrospect, it was probably a good choice, although one wonders how much impact a different path might have had too. [1] Looked it up: Wells was born in 1866, thus was just over 60 at the time of the letter. Joyce was born in 1882, thus was about 45. I was picturing Joyce as being a little younger from the tone of the letter, but the difference is about right.
    - justifier 10y ago
      i am unsure exactly what wells means by any of his words, but he's dead so i am unable to ask him if i were to follow well's example laid out in the letter i could just assert my own assumptions as fact and criticise those, but instead i will just try to explain how his words affect me also, it is important to note that it is difficult to truly know anything about this letter because we are unaware of any prior or subsequent correspondence > The outcome is that I don’t think I can do anything for the propaganda of your work. did wells mean for the word propaganda to be a subtle dig? does he mean 'promotion'? 'i don't think i can do anything for'.. who asked him to? did joyce? is wells just asserting that his approval should be important to joyce? if this letter was unsolicited i'd argue it's more about wells than joyce, and as it stands alone i find it abhorrent > Your training has been Catholic, Irish, insurrectionary; mine, such as it was, was scientific, constructive and, I suppose, English. on first glance this sentence had me suddenly wanting to read wells, until i read it again and realised he's 'just making pretty sounds' without any evidence or explicit reasoning which i would think any scientific and constructive mind would consider wholly necessary this hearkens back to my first notion about a correspondence but why does wells tell joyce what joyce's 'training' is? and then set his own assumed 'training' up as a counterpoint.. and a very appealing one at that wells continues on in this effort to assign opinion and motivation to joyce and then set himself as the better > And while you were brought up under the delusion of political suppression I was brought up under the delusion of political responsibility. It seems a fine thing for you to defy and break up. To me not in the least. this is another confusing message for me for me 'delusion of political suppression' is a horrible thing to accuse someone of and self assessing a 'delusion of political responsibility' is something endeared to me but it would seem to me someone who calls their own education one of a 'delusion of political responsibility' then i would assume that person thinks political responsibility is unnecessary but then he goes on to say that to 'defy and break up' is not for him.. so does he adhere to political responsibility even though he recognises it as a delusion? if so it would also seem rather unscientific and of the notion of being 'constructive' it seems you in your comment also have some loose verbage in the same vein: > although one wonders how much impact a different path might have had too. impact? how do you measure that? i mean look at your first sentence wherein you say you've read joyce and hardly wells.. so prior to this letter who has impacted you more? you could argue, 'sure, i've read joyce but it went through me' but you still read joyce those words and ideas have a direct influence on you whether you agree or disagree with their content or construction where as an ignorance of wells means his work only indirectly impacts you i think it is a silly effort to try to measure impact but since you deride joyce's assumed impact i will defend it joyce was a major influence on the beat generation who were a group of poets in san francisco in the 1950s whose work went on to shape contemporary civilisation by altering legal definitions of words which catalysed a number of the social movements that followed in the coming years this criticism and response of one of the beat poet's work plays perfectly with this letter: > His central criticism is that the Beat embrace of spontaneity is bound up in an anti-intellectual worship of the "primitive" that can easily turn toward mindlessness and violence. Podhoretz asserted that there was a link between the Beats and criminal delinquents. Ginsberg responded in a 1958 interview .. "The bit about anti-intellectualism is a piece of vanity, we had the same education, went to the same school, you know there are 'Intellectuals' and there are intellectuals. Podhoretz is just out of touch with twentieth-century literature, he's writing for the eighteenth-century mind. We have a personal literature now—Proust, Wolfe, Faulkner, Joyce." (o) is wells 'out of touch'? who cares? but speaking negatively about someone else's work to prop up your own, for me, makes me question the quality of your work more than the one you are deriding (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_Generation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_Generation#Criticism

by l33tbro 10y ago

f_allwein 10y ago

exactly. It also reminded me of Thomas Kuhn's idea of paradigm shifts - if nothing else, Joyce definitely represented a new paradigm, so representatives of the old would have scorned/ not understood him. Does not make his work better or worse, but explains why radically new approaches often meet with scepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

dev1n 10y ago

There was a time where HN front page was 50% philosophical literature and 50% tech news. I miss articles like this.

andybak 10y ago

> who must have mildly infuriated the utilitarian and reductive sensibilities of Wells. I get the feeling you came away siding with Joyce. I came away with hugely increased respect for Wells (who I didn't know a huge amount about going into this). Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment but 'utilitarian and reductive' seemed faintly damning whereas I was surprised how deeply he was considering the role of his work in relation to society and how nuanced his challenge to Joyce was. Especially for a 'mere' science fiction writer...

l33tbro 10y ago
I have enormous respect for Wells as a writer. By "reductive" I meant his style of prose in the context of the 4000 word sentences in Ulysses.
justifier 10y ago
interesting.. what gathered respect for wells were you able to gain from reading this? the letter is a series of self edifying straw men to me it reads like someone trying to speak confidently to hide a deeply rooted, or joyce induced, insecurity and ends up coming across as arrogant
- nkurz 10y ago
  I can only speak for myself, but I had to the same positive pro-Wells feeling from the letter. I've read Joyce, but I've barely read Wells. This letter makes me want to. I read the letter as an honest but negative reaction to the Wake, while genuinely praising the prodigious talent of the writer. I don't know their relative ages[1], but I read it in the tone of a businessman father astonished by the virtuosity of his musician son --- astonished that the son followed through on his dreams, but still wondering why someone would dedicate their life to making pretty sounds. I think Well's both captures what Joyce is up to, and clearly expresses why it's not for him. I feel much the same toward Joyce. I've fought my way through the most of the Wake, and feel happy knowing that it exists without having much desire to read much more. Joyce's talent for language is obvious; his choice of where to dedicate that talent is not. In retrospect, it was probably a good choice, although one wonders how much impact a different path might have had too. [1] Looked it up: Wells was born in 1866, thus was just over 60 at the time of the letter. Joyce was born in 1882, thus was about 45. I was picturing Joyce as being a little younger from the tone of the letter, but the difference is about right.
  - justifier 10y ago
    i am unsure exactly what wells means by any of his words, but he's dead so i am unable to ask him if i were to follow well's example laid out in the letter i could just assert my own assumptions as fact and criticise those, but instead i will just try to explain how his words affect me also, it is important to note that it is difficult to truly know anything about this letter because we are unaware of any prior or subsequent correspondence > The outcome is that I don’t think I can do anything for the propaganda of your work. did wells mean for the word propaganda to be a subtle dig? does he mean 'promotion'? 'i don't think i can do anything for'.. who asked him to? did joyce? is wells just asserting that his approval should be important to joyce? if this letter was unsolicited i'd argue it's more about wells than joyce, and as it stands alone i find it abhorrent > Your training has been Catholic, Irish, insurrectionary; mine, such as it was, was scientific, constructive and, I suppose, English. on first glance this sentence had me suddenly wanting to read wells, until i read it again and realised he's 'just making pretty sounds' without any evidence or explicit reasoning which i would think any scientific and constructive mind would consider wholly necessary this hearkens back to my first notion about a correspondence but why does wells tell joyce what joyce's 'training' is? and then set his own assumed 'training' up as a counterpoint.. and a very appealing one at that wells continues on in this effort to assign opinion and motivation to joyce and then set himself as the better > And while you were brought up under the delusion of political suppression I was brought up under the delusion of political responsibility. It seems a fine thing for you to defy and break up. To me not in the least. this is another confusing message for me for me 'delusion of political suppression' is a horrible thing to accuse someone of and self assessing a 'delusion of political responsibility' is something endeared to me but it would seem to me someone who calls their own education one of a 'delusion of political responsibility' then i would assume that person thinks political responsibility is unnecessary but then he goes on to say that to 'defy and break up' is not for him.. so does he adhere to political responsibility even though he recognises it as a delusion? if so it would also seem rather unscientific and of the notion of being 'constructive' it seems you in your comment also have some loose verbage in the same vein: > although one wonders how much impact a different path might have had too. impact? how do you measure that? i mean look at your first sentence wherein you say you've read joyce and hardly wells.. so prior to this letter who has impacted you more? you could argue, 'sure, i've read joyce but it went through me' but you still read joyce those words and ideas have a direct influence on you whether you agree or disagree with their content or construction where as an ignorance of wells means his work only indirectly impacts you i think it is a silly effort to try to measure impact but since you deride joyce's assumed impact i will defend it joyce was a major influence on the beat generation who were a group of poets in san francisco in the 1950s whose work went on to shape contemporary civilisation by altering legal definitions of words which catalysed a number of the social movements that followed in the coming years this criticism and response of one of the beat poet's work plays perfectly with this letter: > His central criticism is that the Beat embrace of spontaneity is bound up in an anti-intellectual worship of the "primitive" that can easily turn toward mindlessness and violence. Podhoretz asserted that there was a link between the Beats and criminal delinquents. Ginsberg responded in a 1958 interview .. "The bit about anti-intellectualism is a piece of vanity, we had the same education, went to the same school, you know there are 'Intellectuals' and there are intellectuals. Podhoretz is just out of touch with twentieth-century literature, he's writing for the eighteenth-century mind. We have a personal literature now—Proust, Wolfe, Faulkner, Joyce." (o) is wells 'out of touch'? who cares? but speaking negatively about someone else's work to prop up your own, for me, makes me question the quality of your work more than the one you are deriding (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_Generation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_Generation#Criticism