4 ms·

This writing is really awful, tumbling all over the place. The example that made me start to skim heavily: > Kennan’s father was something of a ne’er-do-well—n

This writing is really awful, tumbling all over the place. The example that made me start to skim heavily: > Kennan’s father was something of a ne’er-do-well—not a wastrel, exactly, but unambitious and, despite his expertise in what should have been the lucrative practice of tax law, inept at navigating the real world. As a result, the Kennan family was always pinched for money, though far from destitute: they lived in a big house (a gift from Kennan’s maternal grandparents) with servants and vacationed at an elegant lakeside summer retreat. The "orientalist" section is childish. It's common for people to psychoanalyze "the Russian mindset" as if it is immutable biology even to this day. It's a useful concept to criticize, and some use the phrase "orientalism" for that concept. The entire piece is so loaded with sections where the author is unable to contain their resentment, which can be quite legitimate, but likewise, they are unable to articulate or justify it -- making the whole endeavor useless. This is highly ironic, given it is a critique of a biography where the main point of contention is that the biographer/academy is guilty of this same offense.

hhs 3y ago
Hm, the book, "Kennan: A life between worlds", though, is an interesting read.
- dundarious 3y ago
  I would probably agree. Aside from my own interest in the topic and in Kennan, Michael Anton has made such a poor showing for himself and his critique, that even in my ignorance, Costigliola seems positively glowing in comparison.
bomewish 3y ago
The editor fell asleep at the wheel by the looks of it.
hackandthink 3y ago
This is dedication: >having authored a short book and over 40,000 posts on internet bulletin board Styleforum.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Anton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Anton
dang 3y ago
Hmm. I thought it was engagingly written and enjoyed it on that level. It also contains tons of fascinating details about Kennan that I had no idea about. It's interesting simply for being neither of the two things that articles about Kennan always are: hagiographical or polemical. (It's polemical about other things, in a few passages that are best ignored—but not about Kennan.)
- dundarious 3y ago
  I'd say it's plenty polemical, throughout. In and of itself, I don't have a problem with that, regardless of whether I disagree with the polemic. But the mass of self-contradictions (what non-null portrait is being drawn here: sub-wastrel ne'er-do-well with a successful private practice who can't navigate the real world and who has servants and an elegant summer house?), and the jaded and listless manner in which those polemics are doled out, each one basically amounting to just "but what do you expect these days, everything is X, Y, Z", makes it a real trudge to get through. Kennan is an interesting subject. I think that is safe to say, but I also think that is pretty much the limit of what I can say in unqualified agreement with the essay. In a much more qualified way, I share his criticism of the neoconservatives who still run US foreign policy, in both major parties. I would also recommend Stephen Kinzer's book, The Brothers, about Allen and John Foster Dulles, two figures who played far more active and significant roles, the consequences of which mark the world to this day.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Self-contradictions -- that's called "human nature." And you seem to have read something other than what it says (see above comment). It was a complicated world, but one thing hasn't changed: the qualities that get to the top of the heap are not the ones that make you intellectually interesting. He was someone that the people in power liked to listen to, now and then, but he was too mercurial to occupy their positions. Somewhat like his father, in that sentence you hate so much.
    - dundarious 3y ago
      The contradictions I'm talking about are in the writing, not in the subject. Contradictions like "he was idle and poor but he earned a lot at his successful business". The fact that he also spent a lot, so he was always tight on money, does not justify the "idle and poor" (ne'er-do-well and almost wastrel) parts. We all contain contradictions, but not "he was short but tall" ones like that.
AlbertCory 3y ago
> This writing is really awful, tumbling all over the place. I read that and thought it was a good summary of his childhood. What is it you find "awful" about it? Here's an exercise for you: rewrite it so it's not awful.
- dundarious 3y ago
  What non-null portrait is being drawn here: sub-wastrel ne'er-do-well with a successful private practice who can't navigate the real world and who has servants and an elegant summer house?
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    So you don't want to rewrite it? And I don't know what you mean by "non-null portrait." Let's look that awful sentence: Kennan’s father was something of a ne’er-do-well—not a wastrel, exactly, but unambitious and, despite his expertise in what should have been the lucrative practice of tax law, inept at navigating the real world. It does not say "successful," first of all. It says he was expert in tax law but somehow didn't manage to turn that into serious money. "Not a wastrel, exactly" suggests that he had some wastrel-like qualities. "Unambitious" and "inept at navigating" -- also character descriptions like you'd find in fiction. As for the servants: not that unusual in that age. Their house was "a gift from Kennan’s maternal grandparents." And it doesn't say they owned an elegant summer house; it says they "vacationed at an elegant lakeside summer retreat." For me it IS a character portrait, sorry. I guess you don't like the author's tone, which is legitimate, but you have not indicted the writing at all.
    - dundarious 3y ago
      Half of the statements contradict the other half. It's null in the sense that he's drawing an Euler diagram where the circles don't intersect. The author might have something he meant to say, but he didn't say it -- instead he seems to have just used words he likes. The only thing standing is "unambitious". That's why I don't attempt to rewrite it. There's hardly a coherent thought for me to express differently.

hhs 3y ago

Hm, the book, "Kennan: A life between worlds", though, is an interesting read.

dundarious 3y ago
I would probably agree. Aside from my own interest in the topic and in Kennan, Michael Anton has made such a poor showing for himself and his critique, that even in my ignorance, Costigliola seems positively glowing in comparison.

bomewish 3y ago

The editor fell asleep at the wheel by the looks of it.

hackandthink 3y ago

This is dedication: >having authored a short book and over 40,000 posts on internet bulletin board Styleforum.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Anton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Anton

dang 3y ago

Hmm. I thought it was engagingly written and enjoyed it on that level. It also contains tons of fascinating details about Kennan that I had no idea about. It's interesting simply for being neither of the two things that articles about Kennan always are: hagiographical or polemical. (It's polemical about other things, in a few passages that are best ignored—but not about Kennan.)

dundarious 3y ago
I'd say it's plenty polemical, throughout. In and of itself, I don't have a problem with that, regardless of whether I disagree with the polemic. But the mass of self-contradictions (what non-null portrait is being drawn here: sub-wastrel ne'er-do-well with a successful private practice who can't navigate the real world and who has servants and an elegant summer house?), and the jaded and listless manner in which those polemics are doled out, each one basically amounting to just "but what do you expect these days, everything is X, Y, Z", makes it a real trudge to get through. Kennan is an interesting subject. I think that is safe to say, but I also think that is pretty much the limit of what I can say in unqualified agreement with the essay. In a much more qualified way, I share his criticism of the neoconservatives who still run US foreign policy, in both major parties. I would also recommend Stephen Kinzer's book, The Brothers, about Allen and John Foster Dulles, two figures who played far more active and significant roles, the consequences of which mark the world to this day.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Self-contradictions -- that's called "human nature." And you seem to have read something other than what it says (see above comment). It was a complicated world, but one thing hasn't changed: the qualities that get to the top of the heap are not the ones that make you intellectually interesting. He was someone that the people in power liked to listen to, now and then, but he was too mercurial to occupy their positions. Somewhat like his father, in that sentence you hate so much.
  - dundarious 3y ago
    The contradictions I'm talking about are in the writing, not in the subject. Contradictions like "he was idle and poor but he earned a lot at his successful business". The fact that he also spent a lot, so he was always tight on money, does not justify the "idle and poor" (ne'er-do-well and almost wastrel) parts. We all contain contradictions, but not "he was short but tall" ones like that.

AlbertCory 3y ago

> This writing is really awful, tumbling all over the place. I read that and thought it was a good summary of his childhood. What is it you find "awful" about it? Here's an exercise for you: rewrite it so it's not awful.

dundarious 3y ago
What non-null portrait is being drawn here: sub-wastrel ne'er-do-well with a successful private practice who can't navigate the real world and who has servants and an elegant summer house?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  So you don't want to rewrite it? And I don't know what you mean by "non-null portrait." Let's look that awful sentence: Kennan’s father was something of a ne’er-do-well—not a wastrel, exactly, but unambitious and, despite his expertise in what should have been the lucrative practice of tax law, inept at navigating the real world. It does not say "successful," first of all. It says he was expert in tax law but somehow didn't manage to turn that into serious money. "Not a wastrel, exactly" suggests that he had some wastrel-like qualities. "Unambitious" and "inept at navigating" -- also character descriptions like you'd find in fiction. As for the servants: not that unusual in that age. Their house was "a gift from Kennan’s maternal grandparents." And it doesn't say they owned an elegant summer house; it says they "vacationed at an elegant lakeside summer retreat." For me it IS a character portrait, sorry. I guess you don't like the author's tone, which is legitimate, but you have not indicted the writing at all.
  - dundarious 3y ago
    Half of the statements contradict the other half. It's null in the sense that he's drawing an Euler diagram where the circles don't intersect. The author might have something he meant to say, but he didn't say it -- instead he seems to have just used words he likes. The only thing standing is "unambitious". That's why I don't attempt to rewrite it. There's hardly a coherent thought for me to express differently.