My one problem with it is that I was *also* going to pitch something to Sam slagging on Rothfeld (in a polite, classy, positive engagement way, saying she's slightly wrong about Kant and art-for-art's-sake) and I feel like we can only use her as a piñata so many times before we start to seem like weirdos.
haha that's true. I wouldn't change a thing about MJE's essay, and the way BR mixes argument with anecdotes about herself almost forces you to write about her personal life if you want to engage with her ideas.
But after a certain point engaging with her feels like sending an extra ten page postscript to the breakup letter you've already written to the woman you once chatted with while waiting in line at the DMV.
Oh you do flatter me, Mr. Squirrel! I think there may be a gap in the market for a new publication: the SRBR (Substack Review of Becca Rothfeld). We’d keep things classy, of course, not like this those lurid grifters at Becca Rothfeld Watch…
Haha! I don’t know what it is but Becca brings it out in people. I like Becca! I think she’s a good writer, but I’ve also found myself writing a piece denouncing her.
I only had positive interactions with her (ofc this isn't true of everybody but she's a polemical writer, those are the breaks), and we share a background in German philosophy.
She incarnates a certain worldview very well, both as a writer and as a personality. So it is easy to define yourself against her. otoh I understand why she didn't want to hang around on this website as our resident personification of The Establishment.
As for BR, one wouldn't necessarily expect the Washington Post's nonfiction book critic to see eye-to-eye with a bunch of Substackers; economically, it's a zero-sum game. Hence her argument with Sam. If you could get a BA by subscribing to enough Substacks, I might find the relentless attacks on academia a bit more alarming. It's true that that's not all it is--she seems to have a very bold, very personal approach to arguing about contemporary social norms that's guaranteed to provoke disagreement--but I think the structural problem is also very real.
I do think it is mostly the way she grounds her arguments in writing about herself. So when you respond to her, you wind up judging her. Its completely fair for MJE to do this, but fair or not she probably doesn't want to hang out on a website where a bunch of men are making snide remarks about her sex life.
I find that this gives adds a slightly unpleasant je-ne-sais-quoi even to arguments with her about the value of editors and mainstream publications etc. But I don't know what to do about it, except maybe not use her as a hook for writing about Théophile Gautier (who would have killed on Substack and really lit up the LES scene).
I know what you mean, and I think that's true of what MJE is writing here. I personally felt her explanation for falling birth rates left something to be desired, for example. But her debates with Ross and Sam really did seem to me to be motivated by an irresolvable conflict of interests. Which, I hasten to add, is fair enough on both sides. But I guess I'm more sympathetic than most to the position of the institutional defender among the counter-elite!
Haha, well you’re definitely our favorite institutional defender among the counter-elite! Honestly, I think you see a couple of things that your fellow institutional defenders don’t always. One is that the intellectual institutions are really going through a crisis and just aren’t able to nourish fulfilling long-term careers in the way that they maybe once did. And the other is that there need not be a conflict. The new platforms aren’t trying to take a piece of the same pie. They’re basically expanding the toolbox of what’s available to intellectuals/creatives.
Oh yeah, I'll admit that her claim that parenthood is "pretty asocial" both really annoyed me and seemed typical of a certain kind of liberalism which I dislike. But of course her whole shtick is to provoke and to personify what she understands by liberalism!
To be slightly meaner to her, her style of writing makes it so that debates about birthrates or establishment publications vs. Substack (which you describe very fairly) become debates about Becca and her choices. But perhaps this makes me uncomfortable because I don't aspire to that kind of personal writing and I doubt I'd be good at it.
Speaking of Freud, the situation MJE describes at the top of this article reminds me of his essay on Humour. In short, humour is a way of circumventing the suffering of the ego by adopting the attitude of the superego. Whether it's true I'm not completely sure, but it certainly is an interesting theory.
really enjoyed this - curious if you have thoughts on Garth Greenwell's collection 'Cleanness.' it touches on these same themes, I'd say with mixed success. I think it's greatest strength is it's ability to look unflinchingly at both the pleasures of gay love/sex and also the matrix of shame that they often are charted onto.
Thank you! I did consider writing about Greenwell, but I will need to reread 'Cleanness' to have anything coherent to say. I remember appreciating the operatic quality of potentially murderous sex being somehow cathartic, although I've since become more sensitive to how kink seems to have contributed to the depersonalisation of sex.
This is great, the best ROL thing so far.
My one problem with it is that I was *also* going to pitch something to Sam slagging on Rothfeld (in a polite, classy, positive engagement way, saying she's slightly wrong about Kant and art-for-art's-sake) and I feel like we can only use her as a piñata so many times before we start to seem like weirdos.
I wouldn’t too much about seeming like a weirdo lol! I feel like that ship sailed at a minimum when I got on Substack.
haha that's true. I wouldn't change a thing about MJE's essay, and the way BR mixes argument with anecdotes about herself almost forces you to write about her personal life if you want to engage with her ideas.
But after a certain point engaging with her feels like sending an extra ten page postscript to the breakup letter you've already written to the woman you once chatted with while waiting in line at the DMV.
*worry
Oh you do flatter me, Mr. Squirrel! I think there may be a gap in the market for a new publication: the SRBR (Substack Review of Becca Rothfeld). We’d keep things classy, of course, not like this those lurid grifters at Becca Rothfeld Watch…
That’s hilarious!
Haha! I don’t know what it is but Becca brings it out in people. I like Becca! I think she’s a good writer, but I’ve also found myself writing a piece denouncing her.
I only had positive interactions with her (ofc this isn't true of everybody but she's a polemical writer, those are the breaks), and we share a background in German philosophy.
She incarnates a certain worldview very well, both as a writer and as a personality. So it is easy to define yourself against her. otoh I understand why she didn't want to hang around on this website as our resident personification of The Establishment.
Great piece, MJE.
As for BR, one wouldn't necessarily expect the Washington Post's nonfiction book critic to see eye-to-eye with a bunch of Substackers; economically, it's a zero-sum game. Hence her argument with Sam. If you could get a BA by subscribing to enough Substacks, I might find the relentless attacks on academia a bit more alarming. It's true that that's not all it is--she seems to have a very bold, very personal approach to arguing about contemporary social norms that's guaranteed to provoke disagreement--but I think the structural problem is also very real.
I do think it is mostly the way she grounds her arguments in writing about herself. So when you respond to her, you wind up judging her. Its completely fair for MJE to do this, but fair or not she probably doesn't want to hang out on a website where a bunch of men are making snide remarks about her sex life.
I find that this gives adds a slightly unpleasant je-ne-sais-quoi even to arguments with her about the value of editors and mainstream publications etc. But I don't know what to do about it, except maybe not use her as a hook for writing about Théophile Gautier (who would have killed on Substack and really lit up the LES scene).
I know what you mean, and I think that's true of what MJE is writing here. I personally felt her explanation for falling birth rates left something to be desired, for example. But her debates with Ross and Sam really did seem to me to be motivated by an irresolvable conflict of interests. Which, I hasten to add, is fair enough on both sides. But I guess I'm more sympathetic than most to the position of the institutional defender among the counter-elite!
Haha, well you’re definitely our favorite institutional defender among the counter-elite! Honestly, I think you see a couple of things that your fellow institutional defenders don’t always. One is that the intellectual institutions are really going through a crisis and just aren’t able to nourish fulfilling long-term careers in the way that they maybe once did. And the other is that there need not be a conflict. The new platforms aren’t trying to take a piece of the same pie. They’re basically expanding the toolbox of what’s available to intellectuals/creatives.
Oh yeah, I'll admit that her claim that parenthood is "pretty asocial" both really annoyed me and seemed typical of a certain kind of liberalism which I dislike. But of course her whole shtick is to provoke and to personify what she understands by liberalism!
To be slightly meaner to her, her style of writing makes it so that debates about birthrates or establishment publications vs. Substack (which you describe very fairly) become debates about Becca and her choices. But perhaps this makes me uncomfortable because I don't aspire to that kind of personal writing and I doubt I'd be good at it.
Great essay
Great essay. Relate to figuring out your sexuality from reading Alan Hollinghurst and Harry/Draco fanfiction.
Speaking of Freud, the situation MJE describes at the top of this article reminds me of his essay on Humour. In short, humour is a way of circumventing the suffering of the ego by adopting the attitude of the superego. Whether it's true I'm not completely sure, but it certainly is an interesting theory.
really enjoyed this - curious if you have thoughts on Garth Greenwell's collection 'Cleanness.' it touches on these same themes, I'd say with mixed success. I think it's greatest strength is it's ability to look unflinchingly at both the pleasures of gay love/sex and also the matrix of shame that they often are charted onto.
Thank you! I did consider writing about Greenwell, but I will need to reread 'Cleanness' to have anything coherent to say. I remember appreciating the operatic quality of potentially murderous sex being somehow cathartic, although I've since become more sensitive to how kink seems to have contributed to the depersonalisation of sex.
i wouldnt say erasure--just leaving some things up to the imagination; good essay
Well done. With every thoughtful and honest piece like this, American society inches a little further away from the dark ages.