4 ms·

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, un

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
      Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this, please. Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait also. We've already had to ask you about this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - vinceguidry 6y ago
    The letter wasn't intended to be published, it was a personal letter that was published later, I would guess after both authors' deaths.
svat 6y ago
Interesting perception. I looked up the context of this letter: according to the books linked below and https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ — the timeline was this: - In 1917 (when Wells would have been ~51 and Joyce ~35), Wells had written “one of the most favourable reviews” of Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. This was very helpful to Joyce, and Joyce wrote a letter to Wells thanking him. Even earlier, Wells had helped Joyce secure a grant. - In 1928 (a few days before this letter), Wells and Joyce met for the first time and had lunch. During this lunch meeting they discussed Joyce's work, and Joyce “as was his fashion” asked Wells for a favour (probably enlisting his support when it finally came out as a book). - Wells then replied with this letter, which explains why the second sentence of Wells's letter has “I don’t think I can do anything for the propaganda of your work.” Joyce found the letter “friendly and honest”.[1] I think some of what you said may make more sense for an unsolicited letter, especially one posted in public (like the comments on online communities that you mention) — bothering to write to someone to attack them. Here, though, I'm afraid I can't share your perception that Wells was “afraid of being left out”, or “stak[ing his] entire identity” or “invited himself to a debate” — he was simply declining a request: “Sorry I can't help you in the way you asked: here's why, but good luck anyway”. One part of what you said that I can fully agree with is that it “promotes Wells' own perceptions all the way down the page”: because explaining his perception is the point, and it's one of the polite things you can do when saying No. [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eVGFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=PT158 https://books.google.com/books?id=eVGFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=... and https://books.google.com/books?id=8MkRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92 https://books.google.com/books?id=8MkRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=P... and https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  Ah, I see what you're saying. You're responding to the historical question of veracity of details as if I wrote them to say that Wells was literally just a this or that, but I'm writing metaphorically to intuit Wells' psychological position. A metaphorical debate--he wrote _as if_. Sorry I can't be more clear for now but this kind of mixing of language interpretations happens sometimes. For example in MBTI soft-theory land this happens quite often on a tech site like HN when an INTJ writes metaphorically and an INTP consumes literally for logical analysis. Instant disagreement is common.
Angostura 6y ago
> 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. Because you respect a person, but want to be honest about your opinion of their work?

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
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this, please. Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait also. We've already had to ask you about this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  The letter wasn't intended to be published, it was a personal letter that was published later, I would guess after both authors' deaths.

svat 6y ago

Interesting perception. I looked up the context of this letter: according to the books linked below and https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ — the timeline was this: - In 1917 (when Wells would have been ~51 and Joyce ~35), Wells had written “one of the most favourable reviews” of Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. This was very helpful to Joyce, and Joyce wrote a letter to Wells thanking him. Even earlier, Wells had helped Joyce secure a grant. - In 1928 (a few days before this letter), Wells and Joyce met for the first time and had lunch. During this lunch meeting they discussed Joyce's work, and Joyce “as was his fashion” asked Wells for a favour (probably enlisting his support when it finally came out as a book). - Wells then replied with this letter, which explains why the second sentence of Wells's letter has “I don’t think I can do anything for the propaganda of your work.” Joyce found the letter “friendly and honest”.[1] I think some of what you said may make more sense for an unsolicited letter, especially one posted in public (like the comments on online communities that you mention) — bothering to write to someone to attack them. Here, though, I'm afraid I can't share your perception that Wells was “afraid of being left out”, or “stak[ing his] entire identity” or “invited himself to a debate” — he was simply declining a request: “Sorry I can't help you in the way you asked: here's why, but good luck anyway”. One part of what you said that I can fully agree with is that it “promotes Wells' own perceptions all the way down the page”: because explaining his perception is the point, and it's one of the polite things you can do when saying No. [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eVGFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=PT158 https://books.google.com/books?id=eVGFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=... and https://books.google.com/books?id=8MkRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92 https://books.google.com/books?id=8MkRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=P... and https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/

themodelplumber 6y ago
Ah, I see what you're saying. You're responding to the historical question of veracity of details as if I wrote them to say that Wells was literally just a this or that, but I'm writing metaphorically to intuit Wells' psychological position. A metaphorical debate--he wrote _as if_. Sorry I can't be more clear for now but this kind of mixing of language interpretations happens sometimes. For example in MBTI soft-theory land this happens quite often on a tech site like HN when an INTJ writes metaphorically and an INTP consumes literally for logical analysis. Instant disagreement is common.

Angostura 6y ago

> 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. Because you respect a person, but want to be honest about your opinion of their work?