4 ms·

It's not "clickbait" I would have never dared to open this link or read the blog or know ANYTHING about this book without the provocative title. I had seen thi

by jboog 6y ago

It's not "clickbait" I would have never dared to open this link or read the blog or know ANYTHING about this book without the provocative title. I had seen this article elsewhere so knew what this HN link was because of it. Why would most normal people be interested in a biography of an 18th century literary figure? I was an English lit major for god's sake and don't care that much about Samuel Johnson.

dang 6y ago
Your first and second sentences seem to be in a bit of tension with each other. Most normal people would not be interested. We're not all normal here, so there's a chance.
jackfoxy 6y ago
Without Boswell Johnson would have been a footnote to the history of English literature of no interest to English lit. undergrads, despite having compiled the first useful dictionary of the English language. > Why would most normal people be interested in a biography of an 18th century literary figure? Because, as other have noted, it opens the door on London's public house intellectual scene in the mid-18th century. And the character Johnson ends up being a fascinating raconteur, even if his literary works have not withstood the test of time. And it's not really that much of a biography, as we would think of a biography today. There's very little on Johnson's literary work which had propelled him to fame in his lifetime. A royal pension (happily for him) relieved Johnsonof having to produce any more works, I think sometime around the time Boswell met him. Johnson spent the last decades of his life as a popular man about town, with the sycophantic Boswell recording his conversations verbatim, which Johnson and others frequently teased Boswell about.
- jboog 6y ago
  What person who isn't already a literature/history nerd cares about London's public house scene in the mid-18th century? Not saying it isn't interesting. But journalism needs to be provocative to have a "hook" to bring people in who normally wouldn't bother to read about an 18th century literary figure. If the subject is Steve Jobs or Donald Trump you don't need to be provocative to get the eyeballs.

by jboog 6y ago

dang 6y ago

Your first and second sentences seem to be in a bit of tension with each other. Most normal people would not be interested. We're not all normal here, so there's a chance.

jackfoxy 6y ago

Without Boswell Johnson would have been a footnote to the history of English literature of no interest to English lit. undergrads, despite having compiled the first useful dictionary of the English language. > Why would most normal people be interested in a biography of an 18th century literary figure? Because, as other have noted, it opens the door on London's public house intellectual scene in the mid-18th century. And the character Johnson ends up being a fascinating raconteur, even if his literary works have not withstood the test of time. And it's not really that much of a biography, as we would think of a biography today. There's very little on Johnson's literary work which had propelled him to fame in his lifetime. A royal pension (happily for him) relieved Johnsonof having to produce any more works, I think sometime around the time Boswell met him. Johnson spent the last decades of his life as a popular man about town, with the sycophantic Boswell recording his conversations verbatim, which Johnson and others frequently teased Boswell about.

jboog 6y ago
What person who isn't already a literature/history nerd cares about London's public house scene in the mid-18th century? Not saying it isn't interesting. But journalism needs to be provocative to have a "hook" to bring people in who normally wouldn't bother to read about an 18th century literary figure. If the subject is Steve Jobs or Donald Trump you don't need to be provocative to get the eyeballs.