4 ms·

Interesting perception. I looked up the context of this letter: according to the books linked below and https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/ https://jamesjoyc

by 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.
- richthegeek 6y ago
  Your comment has a certain accommodation to it -- you are probably fine where you are (in INTP land). I'm fine over here (as an INTJ). But yes, nothing about your comment came across as hypothetical conjecture. The tone is overwhelmingly "here is my conclusion, watch me work vigorously back to it and then insinuate many bad things as a result of my mistake".
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    > you are probably fine where you are (in INTP land). I'm fine over here (as an INTJ). Which is still qualitatively a different type of accommodation, as I'm saying we are likely, or possibly both right while also respecting the approach taken. Do you see how this is different from missing the purpose of the approach taken, remarking on how it is not fit for consumption by the common man, and saying, "it's OK, there is room for us both to be wrong here?" > hypothetical conjecture Why, because I don't have Wells in the room to ask? Accusing someone of hypothetical conjecture on a reading of a historical document is poor form here, given the context. I was given historical data based on a conjectural map of my writing onto someone else's psychology. I gave a valid reason why such a map leads away from my intended meaning. If you have a specific critique about the other post's contents, please go ahead. Otherwise criticizing my tone, whether to make Wells and I "both wrong" or for some other reason is unfair to the spirit of the discussion.
notahacker 6y ago
I think the context is critical. As unsolicited commentary, the whole "I'm writing to say I don't particularly care for your book, and I think that's because you think in this way and I think in this way" tone looks presumpious, rude (especially with some snarky lines about Catholicism being 'starkly opposed to reality') and frankly full of self importance (why would Joyce even care to read a stranger's inconclusive assessment of assumed differences in how they think). As a continuation of discussions about values and motivations they might have had and solicited feedback on a book he didn't particularly enjoy it makes a lot more sense.

by svat 6y ago

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.

richthegeek 6y ago
Your comment has a certain accommodation to it -- you are probably fine where you are (in INTP land). I'm fine over here (as an INTJ). But yes, nothing about your comment came across as hypothetical conjecture. The tone is overwhelmingly "here is my conclusion, watch me work vigorously back to it and then insinuate many bad things as a result of my mistake".
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  > you are probably fine where you are (in INTP land). I'm fine over here (as an INTJ). Which is still qualitatively a different type of accommodation, as I'm saying we are likely, or possibly both right while also respecting the approach taken. Do you see how this is different from missing the purpose of the approach taken, remarking on how it is not fit for consumption by the common man, and saying, "it's OK, there is room for us both to be wrong here?" > hypothetical conjecture Why, because I don't have Wells in the room to ask? Accusing someone of hypothetical conjecture on a reading of a historical document is poor form here, given the context. I was given historical data based on a conjectural map of my writing onto someone else's psychology. I gave a valid reason why such a map leads away from my intended meaning. If you have a specific critique about the other post's contents, please go ahead. Otherwise criticizing my tone, whether to make Wells and I "both wrong" or for some other reason is unfair to the spirit of the discussion.

notahacker 6y ago

I think the context is critical. As unsolicited commentary, the whole "I'm writing to say I don't particularly care for your book, and I think that's because you think in this way and I think in this way" tone looks presumpious, rude (especially with some snarky lines about Catholicism being 'starkly opposed to reality') and frankly full of self importance (why would Joyce even care to read a stranger's inconclusive assessment of assumed differences in how they think). As a continuation of discussions about values and motivations they might have had and solicited feedback on a book he didn't particularly enjoy it makes a lot more sense.