6 ms·

Really impressed with H. G. Wells here; he manages to: - imagine (correctly or incorrectly) a system of values/upbringing that might result in Finnegan's Wake

by svat 6y ago

Really impressed with H. G. Wells here; he manages to: - imagine (correctly or incorrectly) a system of values/upbringing that might result in Finnegan's Wake being seen as good or worthwhile [not his words, but for example: valuing “artistic” / “creative expression” over pleasure or illumination for the reader], - articulate his own values and why as a result he considers it not worth his time, - yet remain humble [you may not think so but this is how it appears to me] that this is just his own point of view and for others with different values, this “extraordinary experiment” may be worthwhile after all — or not. This ability to imagine another point of view, another system of preferences even, and come with a plausible explanation of it.

nickff 6y ago
I think you've hit upon the fascinating contrast in this review; a reviewer who is empathetic towards an almost disdainfully distant author. This style of multi-layered writing used to be more common, but I have not seen it in more recent reviews, which read more like ideological screeds.
themodelplumber 6y ago
I agree in part but also disagree: It has a certain accommodation to it--you are probably fine where you are. I'm fine over here. But why is this necessary, unless you basically hate a person and don't think you could ever reconcile? It's a psychology of tribalism. Unfortunately the letter also has a certain "shoot first, ask questions later" aspect to it. Like, why wouldn't Wells diplomatically _ask_ Joyce about the perspectives that informed his writing to the public in such a way? The "articulate his own values and why as a result he considers it not worth his time" aspect is also a bit of a cringe along the same lines. You can see it all the time today, in comments on things that are shared on various, ahem, online communities. Especially in response to new projects or posts that don't seem completely pragmatic or tuned for performance, as if everything is meant for a paying audience of common moviegoers. Why wasn't I consulted? I'm a common man! I represent your most common audience! Nah, I think Wells was also feeling afraid of being left out, tossed into the dustbin. Why else would you stake your entire identity so firmly in opposition to someone else, in a letter to that person, instead of keeping it open and asking questions? You're arguing for your own existence. Maslow has entered the chat with some cake and coffee and a monthly stipend. Finally he seems to project some pretty nasty subjective perceptions right into Joyce's rationale. It kinda pulls Joyce down from what Wells seems to treat as a high horse. But it also promotes Wells' own perceptions all the way down the page. Like he invited himself to a debate and forgot to summon a live opponent. TBH while it's amusing to read, and especially in a pompous voice, it also illustrates (to some, and hopefully) how we can learn to do much better for ourselves and others as a thoughtful corresponding audience.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  He doesn’t like Joyce, what’s so bad about that? I hate Dan Abramov for example, I think he’s the shittiest API writer that ever graced JavaScript (and that’s a wild feat, there are JQuery plugins with more intuitive APIs) what’s the big deal? Some people’s tastes vary. I can’t put it as eloquently as Wells. Reducers Actions Immutability, three fucking files for a basic fetch call. I honestly hate him. I wish I was HG Wells so I could write a nice well written letter telling him to stop. I hate Dan Abramov so much, I just had to get it out of the way somewhere. I figure Wells did too for Joyce.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    Why give away so much composure and relationship capital with a public shaming? Writing is a gift to subjective thoughts and emotions like these. And you can write, but mainly passionately? Don't stop with the soil. Get to the heart. This is what encrypted journals are for. Nobody needs to see your writing skill level, nobody's real-life experience is detonated by needlessly inflammatory words, and you get access to all the feelings and harsh thoughts you want, expressed until finally you break through the other side and start writing your own shit-free API.
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      So, if I were to write in a private encrypted journal about a brogrammer that hates Dan Abramov, I’d have him risk public shaming (because he recently broke up with his girlfriend, or something awful like 50 karma lost for attacking a paragon) and reply to you with: ‘Yeah but I want Dan Abramov to know he stinks, don’t care if he works for a FAANG, can’t big O your way out of writing a sensible API’ Then I’d have him close the browser tab, and describe the trite emptiness of the act. So in so many words, at some point, you must say what you mean. Think Wells needed to let people know ‘hey, that Joyce guy kinda stinks’. Wish I could write better, I’d be writing those letters all day. Surprised Wells restricted himself to just one.
      - dang 6y ago
mcv 6y ago
It's certainly an interesting mix of being extremely rude and judgmental while simultaneously also being very empathetic, culturally relativistic, and self-deprecatingly humble. It's a fascinating mix. It operates at several levels of brutal honestly and self-reflection.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  I'm not sure I'd call it rude. It's a blunt and frank letter to a friend, which I expect was taken in the spirit in which it was written. In modern terms it's shockingly literate and expressive. I think it's tragic that we almost never see writing like this today. (You can imagine the modern equivalent as some kind of semi-ironic "'Sup fam?' YouTube or Twitter feud, mixed with appeals to mash that subscribe button.) The only true sour note for me is the comment about delusions of persecution. The persecution of the Irish was very real, and it was tone deaf of Wells not to realise this.
  - nicky0 6y ago
    You omitted the other half of the delusion sentence. The fact is that Joyce wasn't personally oppressed, and Wells wasn't personally responsible. The delusion implied is that they were somehow personally oppressed/responsible by virtue of their cultural situation. Very relevant indeed to modern sensibilities.
  - dtwhitney 6y ago
    I thought it was kind of rude, but it depends on context. Did H.G. Wells and Joyce have a friendship, or did Wells just decide to write him a letter out of the blue? It is kind of rude to tell another person out of the blue that his book isn't worth your time, especially when said book took like 17 years to write. Either way, I'm glad this letter exists, as it validates my priors :)
discreteevent 6y ago
"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." Even though he admits these are both delusions, I think that Wells is lying to himself a bit here, considering that Joyce was operating in a system where he couldn't exercise political responsibility. I'm sure Wells would have also have wanted to break up that system if he was in the same position.
- ksdale 6y ago
  Isn’t that what he’s saying?

by svat 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

I think you've hit upon the fascinating contrast in this review; a reviewer who is empathetic towards an almost disdainfully distant author. This style of multi-layered writing used to be more common, but I have not seen it in more recent reviews, which read more like ideological screeds.

themodelplumber 6y ago

I agree in part but also disagree: It has a certain accommodation to it--you are probably fine where you are. I'm fine over here. But why is this necessary, unless you basically hate a person and don't think you could ever reconcile? It's a psychology of tribalism. Unfortunately the letter also has a certain "shoot first, ask questions later" aspect to it. Like, why wouldn't Wells diplomatically _ask_ Joyce about the perspectives that informed his writing to the public in such a way? The "articulate his own values and why as a result he considers it not worth his time" aspect is also a bit of a cringe along the same lines. You can see it all the time today, in comments on things that are shared on various, ahem, online communities. Especially in response to new projects or posts that don't seem completely pragmatic or tuned for performance, as if everything is meant for a paying audience of common moviegoers. Why wasn't I consulted? I'm a common man! I represent your most common audience! Nah, I think Wells was also feeling afraid of being left out, tossed into the dustbin. Why else would you stake your entire identity so firmly in opposition to someone else, in a letter to that person, instead of keeping it open and asking questions? You're arguing for your own existence. Maslow has entered the chat with some cake and coffee and a monthly stipend. Finally he seems to project some pretty nasty subjective perceptions right into Joyce's rationale. It kinda pulls Joyce down from what Wells seems to treat as a high horse. But it also promotes Wells' own perceptions all the way down the page. Like he invited himself to a debate and forgot to summon a live opponent. TBH while it's amusing to read, and especially in a pompous voice, it also illustrates (to some, and hopefully) how we can learn to do much better for ourselves and others as a thoughtful corresponding audience.

runawaybottle 6y ago
He doesn’t like Joyce, what’s so bad about that? I hate Dan Abramov for example, I think he’s the shittiest API writer that ever graced JavaScript (and that’s a wild feat, there are JQuery plugins with more intuitive APIs) what’s the big deal? Some people’s tastes vary. I can’t put it as eloquently as Wells. Reducers Actions Immutability, three fucking files for a basic fetch call. I honestly hate him. I wish I was HG Wells so I could write a nice well written letter telling him to stop. I hate Dan Abramov so much, I just had to get it out of the way somewhere. I figure Wells did too for Joyce.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  Why give away so much composure and relationship capital with a public shaming? Writing is a gift to subjective thoughts and emotions like these. And you can write, but mainly passionately? Don't stop with the soil. Get to the heart. This is what encrypted journals are for. Nobody needs to see your writing skill level, nobody's real-life experience is detonated by needlessly inflammatory words, and you get access to all the feelings and harsh thoughts you want, expressed until finally you break through the other side and start writing your own shit-free API.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    So, if I were to write in a private encrypted journal about a brogrammer that hates Dan Abramov, I’d have him risk public shaming (because he recently broke up with his girlfriend, or something awful like 50 karma lost for attacking a paragon) and reply to you with: ‘Yeah but I want Dan Abramov to know he stinks, don’t care if he works for a FAANG, can’t big O your way out of writing a sensible API’ Then I’d have him close the browser tab, and describe the trite emptiness of the act. So in so many words, at some point, you must say what you mean. Think Wells needed to let people know ‘hey, that Joyce guy kinda stinks’. Wish I could write better, I’d be writing those letters all day. Surprised Wells restricted himself to just one.
    - dang 6y ago

mcv 6y ago

It's certainly an interesting mix of being extremely rude and judgmental while simultaneously also being very empathetic, culturally relativistic, and self-deprecatingly humble. It's a fascinating mix. It operates at several levels of brutal honestly and self-reflection.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I'm not sure I'd call it rude. It's a blunt and frank letter to a friend, which I expect was taken in the spirit in which it was written. In modern terms it's shockingly literate and expressive. I think it's tragic that we almost never see writing like this today. (You can imagine the modern equivalent as some kind of semi-ironic "'Sup fam?' YouTube or Twitter feud, mixed with appeals to mash that subscribe button.) The only true sour note for me is the comment about delusions of persecution. The persecution of the Irish was very real, and it was tone deaf of Wells not to realise this.
- nicky0 6y ago
  You omitted the other half of the delusion sentence. The fact is that Joyce wasn't personally oppressed, and Wells wasn't personally responsible. The delusion implied is that they were somehow personally oppressed/responsible by virtue of their cultural situation. Very relevant indeed to modern sensibilities.
- dtwhitney 6y ago
  I thought it was kind of rude, but it depends on context. Did H.G. Wells and Joyce have a friendship, or did Wells just decide to write him a letter out of the blue? It is kind of rude to tell another person out of the blue that his book isn't worth your time, especially when said book took like 17 years to write. Either way, I'm glad this letter exists, as it validates my priors :)

discreteevent 6y ago

"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." Even though he admits these are both delusions, I think that Wells is lying to himself a bit here, considering that Joyce was operating in a system where he couldn't exercise political responsibility. I'm sure Wells would have also have wanted to break up that system if he was in the same position.

ksdale 6y ago
Isn’t that what he’s saying?