Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#11

Post by meric »

PaulHoule wrote: post #9

You get what people pay for. I was watching Fox News at the gym today, side by side with CNN. On CNN the news was about terrorist attacks, wars, and a blizzard in the Northeast. It might be the daily bummer, but it least it was News. On Fox News they are indignant because some people didn't like a movie that was released a month ago. This segways through something I can't get through the closed captions and then they…

The conservatives are so conservative they'd stick to Moses and Abraham in the Old Testament.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#12

Post by yodsanklai »

PaulHoule wrote: post #9

You get what people pay for. I was watching Fox News at the gym today, side by side with CNN. On CNN the news was about terrorist attacks, wars, and a blizzard in the Northeast. It might be the daily bummer, but it least it was News. On Fox News they are indignant because some people didn't like a movie that was released a month ago. This segways through something I can't get through the closed captions and then they…

> On CNN the news was about terrorist attacks, wars, and a blizzard in the Northeast

Whenever I go to the US, I get to watch CNN at the airport (this time a couple of days ago, waiting in the immigration line). It strikes me that I always see images about war. The US are in a state of perpetual (defensive) war just as described by Orwell.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#13

Post by mrxd »

dredmorbius wrote: post #7

Sigh. While I'm interested to see the discussion this generates, the prose is turgid. Nine pages wrapped around a small number of nuggets, including some interesting history, but the core of which is this (edited down further for brevity): The huge personal disappointment—and it puzzled me for a long time—was that junior professors did not, by and large, give us work I wanted to print [in "n+1"]. I knew their profess…

> Which I largely agree with… But my God, Mark! Fewer words.

So in fact you disagree. More junior professor writing that you don't have to reach up to grasp.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#14

Post by AnimalMuppet »

There's been a style change. People used to be impressed by high-sounding prose. Writing the way he favors impressed.

But things changed, and now people suspect that it's a smokescreen to hide BS behind. The present style is for clarity rather than impressiveness.

Interestingly, the article itself displays the problem. It tries to hard to have the impressive style. That style gets in the way of actually saying something. (In the end, the article does in fact say something. But the style makes it harder to wade through. Instead of "trying to get readers to reach higher", it becomes "selecting only those readers who are willing to put up with that", which is not the same thing.)

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#15

Post by eropple »

dredmorbius wrote: post #7

Sigh. While I'm interested to see the discussion this generates, the prose is turgid. Nine pages wrapped around a small number of nuggets, including some interesting history, but the core of which is this (edited down further for brevity): The huge personal disappointment—and it puzzled me for a long time—was that junior professors did not, by and large, give us work I wanted to print [in "n+1"]. I knew their profess…

From my perspective: aside from a mild overuse of adverbs, the words used in the piece are designed specifically to evoke a tone and a mindset. There is meaning in them when I read them. You may not catch it or not care if you do, but that doesn't mean it isn't there if you know where to look.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#16

Post by tormeh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #14

There's been a style change. People used to be impressed by high-sounding prose. Writing the way he favors impressed. But things changed, and now people suspect that it's a smokescreen to hide BS behind. The present style is for clarity rather than impressiveness. Interestingly, the article itself displays the problem. It tries to hard to have the impressive style. That style gets in the way of actually saying someth…

>now people suspect that it's a smokescreen to hide BS behind.

In fact, this is usually a good heuristic to tell whether someone is trying to get off the hook with saying nothing at all. Politicians love this. It's all about filling up the listener/reader's short term memory buffer and get them to lose track of what you were saying. Once you've done that you can basically loop for a pretty long time. Many are embarrassed enough of their mental limitations that they'll just pretend something important was said rather than confront the speaker or admit to themselves that they can't keep up.

That said, that kind of writing is gold when you're writing fiction with, say, Gaimanesque magic in it, because it allows you to be really woolly and create a sense of non-understanding and mystique.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#17

Post by dredmorbius »

mrxd wrote: post #13
dredmorbius wrote: post #7

Sigh. While I'm interested to see the discussion this generates, the prose is turgid. Nine pages wrapped around a small number of nuggets, including some interesting history, but the core of which is this (edited down further for brevity): The huge personal disappointment—and it puzzled me for a long time—was that junior professors did not, by and large, give us work I wanted to print [in "n+1"]. I knew their profess…

> Which I largely agree with… But my God, Mark! Fewer words. So in fact you disagree. More junior professor writing that you don't have to reach up to grasp.

This wasn't a case of needing to reach up, but to slog through.

To give a case of an author I've discovered recently who manages just the opposite: William Ophuls. He writes on a difficult, complex, and diverse topic (political systems response to a world of limits), but does so with an economy of words, a superfluity of information, an elegance, and all while maintaining interest and engagement. I'm still mulling over what he's written at a month or two's remove, and want to re-enter it again. I picked up a great deal reading his works, Plato's Revenge and Immoderate Greatness.

That is mastery of language.

Mark's writing isn't.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#18

Post by eruditely »

All public intellectuals that propose or push their body of work should be forced to offer warranty or insurance on said work so if the results do not turn out there can be consequences.

Just like every one else.

http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/10/25/speaking-honestly-...

Promise to truthful speech as opposed to free speech.

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#19

Post by freshhawk »

eruditely wrote: post #18

All public intellectuals that propose or push their body of work should be forced to offer warranty or insurance on said work so if the results do not turn out there can be consequences. Just like every one else. http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/10/25/speaking-honestly-... Promise to truthful speech as opposed to free speech.

So if this idea gains popularity and the chilling effect results in a decline in new ideas being presented for discussion and debate in the public sphere which then results in stagnation ... what consequences can I impose on you?

Re: What's Wrong with Public Intellectuals?

#20

Post by mrxd »

dredmorbius wrote: post #17
mrxd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which I largely agree with… But my God, Mark! Fewer words. So in fact you disagree. More junior professor writing that you don't have to reach up to grasp.

This wasn't a case of needing to reach up, but to slog through. To give a case of an author I've discovered recently who manages just the opposite: William Ophuls. He writes on a difficult, complex, and diverse topic (political systems response to a world of limits), but does so with an economy of words, a superfluity of information, an elegance, and all while maintaining interest and engagement. I'm still mulling ov…

> This wasn't a case of needing to reach up, but to slog through.

Is there a distinction?

Once I read a book that was partly about the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The author included a short quotation from one of his works translated into English, which I struggled to fully grasp. The original French version had been included as a footnote, so I decided to give that a shot with my limited high school French.

With the help of a dictionary and a lot of struggle, I was finally able to understand. But going back to the translation, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. It seemed like a perfectly good interpretation. I understood because I made something hard to understand even harder, not by making it easier. Increasing the difficulty forced me to slow down and focus.

You're free to define mastery of language as writing which feels effortless to read. But in my experience, the brain is a muscle which grows by putting it under strain. It may be beautiful, but for me that kind of writing is a waste of time.

Post reply on HN