The piece on Maus was really compelling. I like especially that it put the rawness of Maus as perhaps more important to the discussion than its Holocaust content.
I was with you until the two tests, which felt somewhat academic to me. IMO It’s not so much having something new and important to say. Good writing will always be what it is, good writing. True and from the heart. A good painter will reinterpret the most overused subjects (a nude, a bowl of fruit) and bring them out magnificently.
It’s not so much being in a “position” to speak for others, but of being moved, inspired to speak in relatable (sometimes simple) ways, to reach people the other guy couldn’t.
The comments sections worldover are scrappy places, where the jewels are shining among the rubble. It we want to be jewels, we must be able to spot the glimmering fragments, and then engage with them. In the world of posts, just like in literature, it’s our creativity that counts. The posts we write, though fleeting, are important-- because they are an opportunity (we rarely take) to INTERACT. Even then, our brilliant ideas are nothing, without our beautiful words to give them sway. If we’re really good, kind, questioning, etc. these words can also elicit beauty in others.
What works for me may not work for others. For my part, I feel a need to put limits on myself otherwise I'll be spouting off left and right and devoting a lot of energy to repacking what other people have already said or are saying better or are saying with a bigger reach. I feel like I need to protect my muse--or at the very least, find a way to prioritize.
He is one of my favorite writers. And I also value some of the insights offered by Heidegger. In neither case do I attach their talent to who they are human being. Schopenhauer kicked his dog and wrote about ethics. Go figure.
For Waters to think that he is an existential threat to the Israeli government (as he helpfully explains in the video you linked) is laughable beyond belief. Waters is less than an annoying mosquito. An irrelevant has-been (or if we believe David Gilmore) a never-was
It's sad that Dostoyevsky, one of the greatest writers who ever lived, was also an asshole Jew hater. But it is what it is. He was certainly the rule, not the exception, in 19th century Russia
I found Notes from Underground a very insightful book into the mind of the mediocre, isolated man.
Unfortunately, there isn't enough justice in this world to guarantee that the base and antisemitic people will be failures in their work.
Werner Heisenberg was one of the founders of quantum mechanics and his operator-based formulation has far reaching impact even today in mathematics. He also led the Nazi Atomic Bomb project.
Your article about Maus changed my mind on the issue. I was especially struck by your point that there are appropriate ages for students to encounter challenging works, and that if we expose them to the works too young, they not only might become upset, they will almost certainly not get much learning out of the experience. Having kids wait until they’re ready is not the same thing as banning a work. Speaking out as you and Rowling do really does work.
Thank you. Very interesting topic. But I will be able to answer only after I reread some of Dostoevsky's works again. The thing is that I last read Dostoevsky forty years ago, and since then I have had no desire to reread his works, although the need to rethink this requires it.
The reason is that Dostoevsky is a very mediocre writer, and the fact that you accepted, interpreted and conveyed the idea that he wanted to convey to you does not mean that he did it well. This is my personal opinion, it may change if I reread Dostoevsky again (although I very much doubt it).
And the fact that he was an anti-Semite is not a surprise. In a culture where everyone, from the janitor sweeping the street to rulers and university professors (how surprising) were not just anti-Semites, but were also convinced that Jews cannot live among people, not being an anti-Semite was not accepted.
I think he's worth a reread. He's a particular kind of writer with specific interests, character-based, dialogue-based, focused on post-Christian Russia and the moral quandaries that leaves folks in. I find all that fascinating because it resonates with so much that I struggle with today and wish others would struggle with.
Oi, sorry you lost that post!
I wrote such a long response to this piece that I decided that it should probably be a post. Then I swiped wrong and erased the whole thing.
Maybe I will link to your post and write two response posts. If I do it, you will see that your piece is linked.
I hope to read your Maus post also.
So much food for thought and things to mull over.
The piece on Maus was really compelling. I like especially that it put the rawness of Maus as perhaps more important to the discussion than its Holocaust content.
I hope I didn’t misunderstand.
I was with you until the two tests, which felt somewhat academic to me. IMO It’s not so much having something new and important to say. Good writing will always be what it is, good writing. True and from the heart. A good painter will reinterpret the most overused subjects (a nude, a bowl of fruit) and bring them out magnificently.
It’s not so much being in a “position” to speak for others, but of being moved, inspired to speak in relatable (sometimes simple) ways, to reach people the other guy couldn’t.
The comments sections worldover are scrappy places, where the jewels are shining among the rubble. It we want to be jewels, we must be able to spot the glimmering fragments, and then engage with them. In the world of posts, just like in literature, it’s our creativity that counts. The posts we write, though fleeting, are important-- because they are an opportunity (we rarely take) to INTERACT. Even then, our brilliant ideas are nothing, without our beautiful words to give them sway. If we’re really good, kind, questioning, etc. these words can also elicit beauty in others.
What works for me may not work for others. For my part, I feel a need to put limits on myself otherwise I'll be spouting off left and right and devoting a lot of energy to repacking what other people have already said or are saying better or are saying with a bigger reach. I feel like I need to protect my muse--or at the very least, find a way to prioritize.
Haven't had a chance to read this post in detail, but I'll say 2 things:
1. The only work of Big D's I've read is "Crime and Punishment" (in translation) and I found to be *massively* overrated.
2. When it first came out, a friend of mine posted that Mosaic article to a "frum nerd" WhatsApp group we belong to.
He is one of my favorite writers. And I also value some of the insights offered by Heidegger. In neither case do I attach their talent to who they are human being. Schopenhauer kicked his dog and wrote about ethics. Go figure.
For Waters to think that he is an existential threat to the Israeli government (as he helpfully explains in the video you linked) is laughable beyond belief. Waters is less than an annoying mosquito. An irrelevant has-been (or if we believe David Gilmore) a never-was
It's sad that Dostoyevsky, one of the greatest writers who ever lived, was also an asshole Jew hater. But it is what it is. He was certainly the rule, not the exception, in 19th century Russia
I found Notes from Underground a very insightful book into the mind of the mediocre, isolated man.
Unfortunately, there isn't enough justice in this world to guarantee that the base and antisemitic people will be failures in their work.
Werner Heisenberg was one of the founders of quantum mechanics and his operator-based formulation has far reaching impact even today in mathematics. He also led the Nazi Atomic Bomb project.
Your article about Maus changed my mind on the issue. I was especially struck by your point that there are appropriate ages for students to encounter challenging works, and that if we expose them to the works too young, they not only might become upset, they will almost certainly not get much learning out of the experience. Having kids wait until they’re ready is not the same thing as banning a work. Speaking out as you and Rowling do really does work.
Thank you. Very interesting topic. But I will be able to answer only after I reread some of Dostoevsky's works again. The thing is that I last read Dostoevsky forty years ago, and since then I have had no desire to reread his works, although the need to rethink this requires it.
The reason is that Dostoevsky is a very mediocre writer, and the fact that you accepted, interpreted and conveyed the idea that he wanted to convey to you does not mean that he did it well. This is my personal opinion, it may change if I reread Dostoevsky again (although I very much doubt it).
And the fact that he was an anti-Semite is not a surprise. In a culture where everyone, from the janitor sweeping the street to rulers and university professors (how surprising) were not just anti-Semites, but were also convinced that Jews cannot live among people, not being an anti-Semite was not accepted.
I think he's worth a reread. He's a particular kind of writer with specific interests, character-based, dialogue-based, focused on post-Christian Russia and the moral quandaries that leaves folks in. I find all that fascinating because it resonates with so much that I struggle with today and wish others would struggle with.