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

Harper Lee has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Harper Lee has died

#161

Post by dvt »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #159
dvt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, so again: I don't buy this kind of bullshit relativism. There's strong empirical evidence that certain things (so called subjective things: art, food, literature) are better than other things in the same arena. As I suggested in my other comment, as I primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' and bringing forward some talking points instead of pretending like you're making some kind o…

Again with the snobbery. You're the only one here who hasn't produced an argument. In all of your other comments you refuse to explain for reasons that your ideas are too complicated. That's the very definition of snobbery. Refute my points instead of emptily pointing out I'm wrong.

I produced David Hume's arguments, which, I think, are a pretty good starting point. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with them, that's a shame, because he's a pretty smart guy.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#162

Post by frogpelt »

haberman wrote: post #136
frogpelt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gladwell is attempting to make the point that systemic racism took more than hearts and minds to be changed. I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, the only way you can change systemic problems is to convince the minds and hearts of people to change. You cannot simply make new laws and expect everything to go smoothly if few people have changed their minds or hearts. How will you enforce the new laws? And furthermore, h…

I'm trying to be charitable in my reading of your comment, but your argument seems to imply that the Supreme Court should have delayed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision until white southerners had already been convinced to desegregate. Or that the Civil War should rather have been a Civil Conversation, or a Civil Plea. Also I don't think it's meant as a criticism of the novel at all. It just means the novel i…

Points taken.

On your first point, I don't think the law needs to wait on everyone to change their minds and hearts. But enough lawmakers and voters have to change their minds and hearts for the systemic problems to go away.

On the second point, you're probably right. But something about the way he says it seems critical of fictional character behaviors.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#163

Post by shiro »

omginternets wrote: post #78
etep wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one could so thoroughly eviscerate my favorite novel except Malcolm Gladwell. I take his point. His criticism imagines a better hero, one who would righteously proclaim truth. But this is also unfair. Had A.F. done this, he would have lost his stature and surely everything he held precious. This is impossible for most, and it would be unrealistic to write the story in that way. In my view, the work stands strong,…

I'm not sure I understand what Gladwell is getting at. The point of TKAM isn't to put Atticus Finch on a pedestal -- it's to paint a portrait of southern society in the 1930's. At this Harper Lee undoubtedly excels, to the extent that she reveals the prejudice of well-meaning men as well as racists. It's easy to criticize racism -- plenty of writers in the 30's did it. It's much harder to accurately pinpoint the flaw…

Hmm, from Gladwell's article I did perceive his aim was at the naive interpretation of the novel, not at the novel itself nor Lee. To me the article was very informing; when I read the novel I did see it's not just about what's right and wrong, but had a feeling that I didn't really grasp the nuances.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#165

Post by omginternets »

shiro wrote: post #163
omginternets wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what Gladwell is getting at. The point of TKAM isn't to put Atticus Finch on a pedestal -- it's to paint a portrait of southern society in the 1930's. At this Harper Lee undoubtedly excels, to the extent that she reveals the prejudice of well-meaning men as well as racists. It's easy to criticize racism -- plenty of writers in the 30's did it. It's much harder to accurately pinpoint the flaw…

Hmm, from Gladwell's article I did perceive his aim was at the naive interpretation of the novel, not at the novel itself nor Lee. To me the article was very informing; when I read the novel I did see it's not just about what's right and wrong, but had a feeling that I didn't really grasp the nuances.

In that case, fair enough. I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this :)

I suppose what bothers me most particularly is the appeal to legal expertise in the analysis. I think this is missing the point completely, and I fail to see how that can be a criticism of anything but the author. We learn that Lee isn't a legal expert, but this isn't a book about law per se. Rather, it's a book about society, so the moral and ethical contradictions in Finch's character constitute a feature, not a bug, and the legal narrative drives the story -- nothing more.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#166

Post by hartpuff »

clock_tower wrote: post #153
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that essentially an ad hominem?

Against which party? I don't trust Orwell's judgement -- fighting for POUM, and making the argument above, weren't the only errors he made -- and I don't think Gladwell should have trusted it either. (But then, Gladwell wrote a book called _The World is Flat_ in 2000, and it was about free trade, not fundamentalism; he's not exactly someone who I look to as a paragon of good judgement either.)

POUM was anti-Fascist and anti-Stalinist. If you think it was an error to support such a party in Spain at that time, I'm afraid it says more about your judgement than Orwell's.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#167

Post by moron4hire »

dvt wrote: post #161
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again with the snobbery. You're the only one here who hasn't produced an argument. In all of your other comments you refuse to explain for reasons that your ideas are too complicated. That's the very definition of snobbery. Refute my points instead of emptily pointing out I'm wrong.

I produced David Hume's arguments, which, I think, are a pretty good starting point. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with them, that's a shame, because he's a pretty smart guy.

Nobody is going to read a book to reply to a forum comment. You should be articulate enough to explain what you mean without pointing, "there, that, that's what I mean."

Re: Harper Lee has died

#168

Post by brudgers »

huntleydavis wrote: post #82
brudgers wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people find the submission intellectually gratifying then it conforms to the spirit of Hacker News submission guidelines. Given the impact of Harper Lee's writing on US culture, it is not surprising if many people do.

I suppose the free form nature of HackerNews and the wide sprawling community make a lot of topics fair game. I recant my sentiment.

I've come to think that the breadth of HackerNews is what makes HN "The HN for X" for most all X's.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#169

Post by griffinmahon »

clock_tower wrote: post #153
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that essentially an ad hominem?

Against which party? I don't trust Orwell's judgement -- fighting for POUM, and making the argument above, weren't the only errors he made -- and I don't think Gladwell should have trusted it either. (But then, Gladwell wrote a book called _The World is Flat_ in 2000, and it was about free trade, not fundamentalism; he's not exactly someone who I look to as a paragon of good judgement either.)

In addition to your misreading of Homage to Catalonia, you also misattributed -- the author you're looking for is Thomas Friedman.

Re: Harper Lee has died

#170

Post by therealdrag0 »

drhayes9 wrote: post #60
therealdrag0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bummer that all the popular fantasy is not the best writing. (I do quite enjoy GRRM and Abercrombie.) Are there any, may lesser known, fantasy that is more literary?

I second the Gene Wolf recommendation. Huge fan of China Mieville, but that's closer to "new weird" than "fantasy". Mieville's books are complex and gripping.

Cool. Listening to the Audible clip of "Perdido Street Station". Sounds the nicest of the suggestions so far :)
Post reply on HN