4 ms·

“I see fiction as being divided into two categories. Work that confirms and celebrates and panders and work that confounds and perplexes and challenges." This

“I see fiction as being divided into two categories. Work that confirms and celebrates and panders and work that confounds and perplexes and challenges." This type of thinking is toxic, akin the bullshit aphorisms spouted by politicians ("you're either with us or against us") or smug VCs ("if you're not working 14 hours per day, you're not an entrepreneur"). It forces authors and audiences to contort themselves into this black/white view of literature that tosses anything that's not "difficult" into a pile that's not worth creating or reading.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
netcan 8y ago
Even worse, it encourages cargo cults. Conspicuous busy-ness. Jargonized writing styles. Watches that are expensive because no one wants a cheap watch. The writer is observing something, but the causality is wrong. People read hard to read stuff because it's good. It's not good because it's hard.
slededit 8y ago
Do you not see the irony in calling something toxic? Your not saying its merely wrong - but that its on par with poison.
- theoh 8y ago
  It's OK to distinguish between healthy and diseased specimens of any organic phenomenon, thinking included. e.g. Trump is a toxic narcissist, etc. I can't really take this article seriously as a comment on literature because it uses ugly language like "attitudinal" and "outright funny". Articles in The Guardian usually reflect a particular part of English society that is highly privileged, politically centrist and conformist, and not as smart as it thinks it is. Those attributes probably also characterize the UK audience for literary fiction. It's annoying and smug, and I guess maybe saying that is ugly itself. Surely we should sometimes try to diagnose in good faith where thinking goes wrong. Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example. You might claim that toxicity is always relational, that it takes two. But there is such a thing as pathology when it comes to personality and mental health. To call something toxic is to call out a pathology for having a seriously negative impact on other people, whether those other people are themselves healthy or not.
  - slededit 8y ago
    > Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example. I don’t think that is very common at all. There are people we get along with better but active exclusion is extremely rare. This modern trend of throwing away people we don’t like is very unhealthy and not what a community is about.
    - theoh 8y ago
      You've been lucky, evidently. The idea that everyone is fundamentally OK, and that we just have to get along — well, in some cases, the effort that takes is just unsustainable. Maybe you're saying that you think there's no such thing as an abusive relationship. Maybe you think that whole concept is a modern invention. How likely do you think that really is?
      - slededit 8y ago
        The common usage of the term “toxic person” these days is they post things on Facebook I disagree with. Not that they physically assault someone. Going straight to abuse is pure hyperbole. Consider the origin of this thread - an idea was toxic not an action.
        theoh 8y ago
        The thinking and expression of the thoughts were deemed to be toxic by another commentary. In other words, the behaviour. Abusive interactions don't necessarily or even usually involve physical violence. The fact that you don't seem to appreciate that reinforces my impression that you've never really had to deal with this stuff. It's hyperbole to assume that when I said "abusive relationship" I meant physical violence. I'm in my 40s and I wouldn't have understood this stuff at 20. I'm also, as a victim of mental illness, someone who has in some ways been discarded by society. So I'm inclined to trust my perception that there is genuine suffering out there caused by toxic thinking and toxic ideas. "Toxic Psychiatry", for example, is the title of a book. You seem content to justify the way things are and minimize negative social phenomena. All I can say is that for a significant number of people, that kind of talk rings false, because their experience shows how empty it is.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

netcan 8y ago

Even worse, it encourages cargo cults. Conspicuous busy-ness. Jargonized writing styles. Watches that are expensive because no one wants a cheap watch. The writer is observing something, but the causality is wrong. People read hard to read stuff because it's good. It's not good because it's hard.

slededit 8y ago

Do you not see the irony in calling something toxic? Your not saying its merely wrong - but that its on par with poison.

theoh 8y ago
It's OK to distinguish between healthy and diseased specimens of any organic phenomenon, thinking included. e.g. Trump is a toxic narcissist, etc. I can't really take this article seriously as a comment on literature because it uses ugly language like "attitudinal" and "outright funny". Articles in The Guardian usually reflect a particular part of English society that is highly privileged, politically centrist and conformist, and not as smart as it thinks it is. Those attributes probably also characterize the UK audience for literary fiction. It's annoying and smug, and I guess maybe saying that is ugly itself. Surely we should sometimes try to diagnose in good faith where thinking goes wrong. Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example. You might claim that toxicity is always relational, that it takes two. But there is such a thing as pathology when it comes to personality and mental health. To call something toxic is to call out a pathology for having a seriously negative impact on other people, whether those other people are themselves healthy or not.
- slededit 8y ago
  > Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example. I don’t think that is very common at all. There are people we get along with better but active exclusion is extremely rare. This modern trend of throwing away people we don’t like is very unhealthy and not what a community is about.
  - theoh 8y ago
    You've been lucky, evidently. The idea that everyone is fundamentally OK, and that we just have to get along — well, in some cases, the effort that takes is just unsustainable. Maybe you're saying that you think there's no such thing as an abusive relationship. Maybe you think that whole concept is a modern invention. How likely do you think that really is?
    - slededit 8y ago
      The common usage of the term “toxic person” these days is they post things on Facebook I disagree with. Not that they physically assault someone. Going straight to abuse is pure hyperbole. Consider the origin of this thread - an idea was toxic not an action.
      - theoh 8y ago
        The thinking and expression of the thoughts were deemed to be toxic by another commentary. In other words, the behaviour. Abusive interactions don't necessarily or even usually involve physical violence. The fact that you don't seem to appreciate that reinforces my impression that you've never really had to deal with this stuff. It's hyperbole to assume that when I said "abusive relationship" I meant physical violence. I'm in my 40s and I wouldn't have understood this stuff at 20. I'm also, as a victim of mental illness, someone who has in some ways been discarded by society. So I'm inclined to trust my perception that there is genuine suffering out there caused by toxic thinking and toxic ideas. "Toxic Psychiatry", for example, is the title of a book. You seem content to justify the way things are and minimize negative social phenomena. All I can say is that for a significant number of people, that kind of talk rings false, because their experience shows how empty it is.