The Believer is actually pretty cool, despite being a project of Dave Eggers.
I demand that you change the post title back so my comment doesn't seem so stupid.
Sorry, we cross-acted there. Tough luck.
For the record, the title of the post—which changed as I submitted comment 1—used to be "Sometimes I look at people & think Jesus what happened here.", with what capitalization needs to be changed changed.
Hey, you got into Stanford, you can be stupid some of the time.
Back on topic: I haven't read the Heartbreaking Work, though I have read some shorter pieces and interviews with Eggers, and I was just trying to think of what about him rubs me the wrong way. Is it that he's so damn earnest? Is there an air of condescension about him? I'm not sure. Guesses?
Self-satisfaction, maybe? There was a review of Heartbreaking Work (which I did read, and thought quite cool in a Lisa Pea kind of way) in TNR under the title "Being and Knowingness". Something about the whole "group of clever fellows who know they're clever and like being clever together" vibe the McSweeney's crowd sometimes gives off irks me, but at least part of that is because I wish I were part of a group of clever fellows and fellettes who do clever stuff.
I think the phenomenon of being a member of a like-minded people, whose like-mindedness includes a penchant for omphaloskepsis, frequently manifests itself as an air of condescension or self-satisfaction.
Man, if you got your PhD from Stanford, that would increase your chances of getting an academic job to, like, 34%.
I've never read anything of Eggers' besides AHWOSG, because I've definitely caught the vibe from others that he's a self-important prick. Having said that, I really liked AHWOSG, probably as the result of being a self-important prick myself.
And while I really enjoy what you guys write here, doesn't "group of clever fellows who know they're clever and like being clever together" kind of describe Unfogged? Or any other intellectual (I use the term loosely) gathering? I mean, you guys are the Algonquin Roundtable, with cock jokes.
("guys" and "fellows" used in the non-gender-specific sense, before someone jumps all over my ass)
For me it's that below the well-crafted artifice of Heartbreaking is a mediocre writer. At points in the novel he exposes the Author Whose Heart Is True, always signified by a freeform kind of rambling, punctuation-less prose, and I always felt deeply annoyed by the fact that he was doing that and, worse still, not doing it very well.
There is something aggravating about an artist who tries to anticipate every potential criticism and then make that the work—I take it that that's what gets most people.
and now I really wish I'd used "Heartbreaking Work" instead of the ungainly "AHWOSG". I need to be able to grep my life.
Kind of like Wes Anderson's movies, in my book: Cute, quirky, mostly just a soundtrack though.
(Rushmore is a bit better than that.)
I'm with Kriston, especially the "Author Whose Heart Is True" bit. What pissed me off about AHWOSG is sort of encapsulated by the "Mexican kids" bit. If you haven't read it, or need reminding, Eggers' wallet goes missing, and he immediately assumes that the "Mexican kids" stole it. He's wrong, and the whole ugly, racist incident is given this sort of abashed postscript, as though he *expects* the reader to be disarmed -- and charmed -- by his fetching honesty in retelling the matter. As if HONESTY were the point! It makes me want to spit, or hit him.
Rushmore rules. The "O-R they?" line cracks me up every time, not because of the line itself, which is kinda obvious, but because of Bill Murray choking on his drink in way that just fits. Also, the Scottish kid is brilliant.
As for Dave Eggers, never read him. Is "AHWOSG/Heartbreaking Work" worth reading?
Here's the review Ben mentioned. "Self-satisfied" resonates with what I know about him. And, picking up Kriston's point, this line from the review sounds right:
The book displays a great deal of self-consciousness and very little self-reflection.
Huh. I read HWSG quickly once, and found it enjoyable. The first sections worked pretty well: *just telling the story* won't work when the story is riddled with tragic cliches simply in virtue of its accuracy. So the meta-stuff provides a way around that. Anyway, that's how it seemed when I read it. The deeper into the book I got, the less satisfying it was, but it has its moments.
I found it an enjoyable read, Walter, and a quick one, so the time portion of the "worth reading" equation is pretty negligible.
Is there an air of condescension about him? I'm not sure. Guesses?
Could the self-descriptive phrase you're searching for be "player hater?" That said, I largely agree with what I take to be w-lfs-n's point. It's OK for the prettiest girl to get kissed most, but she's not really that pretty.
Point One: I highly recommend this Eggers parody.
Point Two: The Believer once published an interview with Galen Strawson on free will. Fuckin' A.
Here's the link, baa.
Why do I get called a player hater for the mildest criticism of Eggers in this thread? Why do you hate me, scmTim?
baa, that's one of my favorite things ever. It was funny before I read Eggers, and then it was even better.
So, Labs and baa, do people take Stawson's argument--as he sketches it in the interview--seriously?
Ogged -
Three off-the-top-of-my-head theories:
(1) You are mistaken. I don't hate you, and that you think otherwise is simply a reflection of your rampant neuroses.
(2) I see a bit of myself in, among other things, your Jordan-love, your affection for outdoors-y women while not being outdoors-y yourself, and (sadly, for now) your drought. Any hostility you sense in the post should be regarded as an expression of self-loathing.
(3) Unfogged is a frat-HAUS; snarking in the comments is what's done. But FL's got a PhD in philosophy, as does Weiner, and w-lfs-n just got accepted to Stanford's program; I am afraid of them. (I should note for purposes of illustration that I am convinced that John Holbo could (and might someday) write a blog post that convinces me to swallow my own tongue). I am, of course, afraid of anyone who choses the moniker "BitchPhD." And so on.
At the moment, I'm partial to #2. (Probably an effect of my own drought).
Oooh, late-comming theory #4: I am Dave Eggers, and you started it.
I hate you because I AM you. Terrific. Anyway Eggers, w-lfs-n started it.
I just read the Strawson interview, and now, in keeping of my bizzare ogged-personality-stalking, I also want FL and baa (or ogged or Weiner or w-lfs-n) to speak to Strawson's claim. Except I want it from the other side - it feels like he is, at a minimum, not wrong (or, I guess, that his dad's claim (as stated in the article) is right). I'm curious as to your skepticism of it, ogged. Why?
I remember reading at least part of that interview when it came out and not thinking much of the argument advanced therein. (I think. It might have been some other article about how we have no free will. But I think it was the Believer one.)
Determinism is for sure alive and well, but it's hard to make much sense of the tool-o-riffic argument advanced for determinism by Strawson in that article.
1. A self-cause is contradictory balderdash. Sez who?
2. Must one be "responsible tout court" for an action in order to be responsible in the common-sense manner? I'm willing to stipulate that I'm not responsible for the big bang, does Strawson think he's won at this point?
3. A lot of this what one infers to be Strawson's argument appears to rely on an (unexamined) commitment to a intro physics notion of causality. Might we not want to scrutinize that?
Baa-
I know you're a Republican and a two-time Bush supporter, but sometimes - well, I have a better understanding of "man-crush," I guess.
I see #2, #1 sounds like something I'll never understand, and I'll go to the book for #3. I didn't find the argument in the article to be very full, but it seems to limn a reasonable argument. I guess I'm wondering if there is a standard-model response to general claims of determinism.
I'm not sure the physics matters much to Strawson. His is an unusual kind of determinism, and I think it boils down to this: we can't cause our preferences, and therefore, acting upon a preference is not compatible with acting freely. In a trivial way that's true, but it doesn't do much for his claim that by "free will" he "what nearly everyone means."
There are two problems: first, (just restating baa's 2), there a conflation of categories (or of scale, if you like): we all (give or take) have an unchosen preference to stay alive, but things will get tendentious quickly if we try to account for things like our choices in "interior lighting" with reference to that.
Next, in any given situation, it's not as if there's just one "preference" at issue. We're constantly weighing one desire against another, thinking about the short and long term, considering other people's preferences, etc. In fact, that calculus of preferences is what deliberation and choice are all about. Unless Strawson is making a tautological point--any choice must be the result of your preferences and since you can't cause your preferences, your choices are not free--then his understanding of free will isn't much like the normal understanding at all, because we normally take efficacious deliberation to be a sign of freedom.
Sorry to go on, but it's another of these arguments where if you define the terms just so, you can come up with a provocative claim. Blech.
Hmm, I just read the article and I can't say that I understand Strawson's argument very well.
Suppose:
1. A does something.
2. That something happens to be morally wrong in the society in which A lives.
3. There are calls to punish A for his act.
Strawson seems to be arguing that because there is no free will, A is not ultimately morally responsible for his action. Therefore A should not be punished or even blamed for his act.
However, suppose:
1. B (perhaps an individual, or perhaps the society/state in which A lives) goes ahead and punishes A anyway. (Perhaps one of B's unchosen preferences is to punish the guilty.)
Now, Strawson seems to think that this is inappropriate: it may be ok - or at least natural - to want to punish A, but that punishment should not be carried out because A is not morally responsible.
But I don't know how, according to his own argument, Strawson could blame/reprimand B for punishing A. After all, B, like A, performed an action. If A can't be held accountable for his action how can B?
It seems like Strawson is assuming a world in which a punishment (or reward) for an action is not itself an action - or, alternatively, a world in which a punishment/reward for an action operates under different rules of causality (or causal attribution) than the original action. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Take away the self-satisfaction, clubbiness, and self-conscious (and often cloying) cleverness, and what would you have of Unfogged?
Cock jokes, of course. And damn fines ones, most likely.
I will say seriously though, that I don't know that we're at all clubby in intent. It's come about that there are "regulars" who have been here longer, so there are lots of inside jokes, but the group is, pretty clearly, permeable. Washerdryer is a big part of the discussion in another thread today, and he's been around here for just a few weeks. Even Tripp and CW, who are regulars by any measure, are fairly new to commenting here. So it might be clubby, but it's a club anyone is welcome to join if they're so inclined, and they'll be welcomed as long as they're not, you know, boring, or idiots.
"J-wol?" Do I even want to know?
At night, the ice weaselscomment-spammers come.