The article "Who's Afraid of Tom Wolfe?" explores the mixed critical reception of Tom Wolfe's fiction, particularly focusing on A Man in Full. While acknowledging Wolfe's journalistic talent and cultural influence, the author dissects the criticisms leveled against his novels: simplistic prose, cartoonish characters, and sprawling, unwieldy plots. The piece ultimately suggests that the negative reactions stem from a discomfort with Wolfe's satirical portrayal of societal elites and his embrace of realism, which challenges prevailing literary trends favoring minimalism and postmodernism. Wolfe's ambition and popularity, the article implies, threaten the established literary guard, leading to a dismissive attitude toward his work despite its insightful social commentary.
Neal Stephenson's "Wrong 5" argues that Thomas More's Utopia hypocritically condemns individual acquisitiveness while simultaneously advocating for England's imperial expansion and resource extraction under the guise of "improvement." More portrays Utopians as morally superior for rejecting private property, yet Stephenson contends this stance ignores the exploitative nature of acquiring resources and labor to establish and maintain Utopia's seemingly idyllic state. He highlights the inherent contradiction of More, a wealthy lawyer serving a rapacious empire, decrying individual greed while remaining silent about the systemic greed driving England's colonial ambitions. Essentially, Stephenson posits that Utopia serves as a veiled justification for powerful entities seizing resources under the pretense of societal betterment, a process mirroring England's contemporary actions.
The Hacker News comments generally agree with Stephenson's critique of Thomas More's Utopia, finding his vision naive and impractical. Several commenters point out the hypocrisy of More's personal wealth and position contrasting with the communist ideals he espouses in Utopia. Some discuss the inherent difficulties and contradictions in attempting to design a perfect society, citing issues of human nature and the potential for tyranny. Others find value in utopian thought experiments, even if flawed, as they can spark discussion and inspire incremental improvements. A few commenters delve into More's religious context and the historical influences on his writing, suggesting that modern interpretations may miss nuances of his intent. One commenter highlights the darkly satirical elements of Utopia, arguing that it shouldn't be taken entirely at face value.
Stephanie Yue Duhem's essay argues that the virality of Rupi Kaur's poetry stems from its easily digestible, relatable, and emotionally charged content, rather than its literary merit. Duhem suggests that Kaur's work resonates with a broad audience precisely because it avoids complex language and challenging themes, opting instead for simple, declarative statements about common experiences like heartbreak and trauma. This accessibility, combined with visually appealing formatting on social media, contributes to its widespread appeal. Essentially, Duhem posits that Kaur’s work, and other similar viral poetry, thrives not on its artistic depth, but on its capacity to be readily consumed and shared as easily digestible emotional content.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the article's premise, finding the discussed poem simplistic and lacking depth. Several commenters dissected the poem's flaws, citing its predictable rhyming scheme, cliché imagery, and unoriginal message. Some suggested the virality stems from relatable, easily digestible content that resonates with a broad audience rather than poetic merit. Others discussed the nature of virality itself, suggesting algorithms amplify mediocrity and that the poem's success doesn't necessarily reflect its quality. A few commenters defended the poem, arguing that its simplicity and emotional resonance are valuable, even if it lacks sophisticated poetic techniques. The discussion also touched on the democratization of poetry through social media and the subjective nature of art appreciation.
John McPhee's "The Pinball Philosophy" explores the world of competitive pinball through the lens of Roger Sharpe, a top-ranked player in 1970s New York City. The piece delves into the intense focus, strategy, and almost mystical approach Sharpe takes to the game, highlighting the nuanced skills involved beyond mere luck. It contrasts his zen-like calm and calculated nudges with the frenetic energy of pinball parlors, ultimately portraying pinball not as a mindless pastime, but as a demanding game of skill requiring precision, anticipation, and a deep understanding of the machine's mechanics. Sharpe's pursuit of mastery reveals a unique subculture where dedicated players strive for perfect games and fleeting moments of control in a world of chaos and flashing lights.
HN users largely enjoyed McPhee's writing style, praising its evocative descriptions and engaging narrative. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes about pinball, reflecting on its enduring appeal and the unique focus it demands. Some discussed the cultural and historical context of pinball, including its past association with gambling and its resurgence as a hobby. A few users expressed interest in the technical aspects of pinball machine design and operation. The overall sentiment was positive, with many commenters appreciating the rediscovery of this older article. A couple noted the philosophical connections McPhee makes, linking pinball to broader life lessons about skill, chance, and persistence.
Fraser McDonald's diary entry in the London Review of Books reflects on the centenary of Nan Shepherd's birth and the enduring power of her nature writing, particularly The Living Mountain. McDonald contrasts Shepherd's intimate, embodied experience of the Cairngorms with the more detached, scientific approach of contemporary nature writers like Robert Macfarlane. He emphasizes Shepherd's focus on direct sensory perception and her rejection of anthropomorphism, highlighting her unique ability to merge with the mountain landscape and find a profound sense of belonging within it. The piece also touches upon Shepherd's other works, including her poetry and novels, and her dedication to representing the distinct character of Northeast Scotland.
HN commenters largely appreciate the diary excerpt focusing on Nan Shepherd's nature writing and her connection to the Cairngorms. Several share personal experiences of reading Shepherd's work, particularly "The Living Mountain," praising its evocative descriptions and philosophical insights. Some discuss the challenges of modern nature writing, contrasting it with Shepherd's focus on immersive observation and internal reflection. A few commenters also touch on the beauty of the Cairngorms themselves, recommending visits and sharing related resources. The overall sentiment is one of admiration for Shepherd's writing and the power of nature to inspire deep connection.
This New York Times article explores the art of allusion in poetry, examining how poets weave references and quotations into their work to enrich meaning and create layers of interpretation. It discusses the spectrum of allusive techniques, from subtle echoes to direct quotations, and how these references can function as homage, critique, or even a form of dialogue with previous writers. The article emphasizes that effective allusions deepen a poem's resonance, inviting readers to engage with a broader literary landscape and uncover hidden connections, while acknowledging that clumsy or obscure allusions can alienate the audience. Ultimately, the piece suggests that mastering the art of allusion is crucial for poets aiming to create complex and enduring work.
Hacker News users generally agree with the NYT article's premise that allusions enrich poetry but shouldn't be obscure for obscurity's sake. Several commenters highlight the importance of allusions adding layers of meaning and sparking connections for informed readers, while acknowledging the potential for alienating those unfamiliar with the references. Some suggest that successful allusions should be subtly woven into the work, enhancing rather than distracting from the poem's core message. One compelling comment argues that allusions function like hyperlinks, allowing poets to "link" to vast bodies of existing work and enrich the current piece with pre-existing context. Another suggests the value of allusions lies in evoking a specific feeling associated with the referenced work, rather than requiring encyclopedic knowledge of the source. A few users express frustration with overly obscure allusions, viewing them as pretentious and a barrier to enjoyment.
Summary of Comments ( 10 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43258010
HN commenters largely agree that Wolfe's decline in quality began after A Man in Full, with some attributing it to his reliance on formulaic social satire and others to his adoption of a more conservative viewpoint. Several suggest that his earlier works like The Right Stuff and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test remain classics of New Journalism, praising Wolfe's immersive reporting and energetic prose. Some counter that Wolfe's work was always shallow, stylistic flourish over substance, and enjoyed more popularity than deserved. A few commenters discuss his influence on other writers and the legacy of New Journalism more broadly. One highly upvoted comment notes the irony of Wolfe, who mocked academia, now being the subject of academic analysis.
The Hacker News post titled "Who's Afraid of Tom Wolfe?" generated several comments discussing Tom Wolfe's literary impact, his perceived decline in later works, and his stylistic choices. Several commenters engage with the linked article's premise and offer their own perspectives.
One of the most compelling threads begins with a commenter who argues that Wolfe's later works became increasingly polemical and predictable, suggesting that his focus shifted from astute observation to pushing a specific agenda. This sparked a discussion about whether this shift was a genuine decline or simply a different phase in Wolfe's career, with some arguing that even his later works contained valuable insights.
Another interesting exchange focuses on Wolfe's distinctive style. While some praised his innovative use of punctuation and onomatopoeia, others found it distracting and gimmicky, arguing that it detracted from the substance of his writing. This led to a broader conversation about the role of style in literature and whether it should be prioritized over content.
Several comments directly addressed the article's assertion about Wolfe's depiction of contemporary literary figures. Some agreed with the article's assessment, while others offered alternative interpretations, arguing that Wolfe's portrayal was more nuanced than the article suggested.
Some commenters offered personal anecdotes about their experiences reading Wolfe, sharing which books resonated with them and how their perceptions of his work changed over time. One commenter expressed a renewed interest in revisiting Wolfe's work after reading the discussion, highlighting the power of online forums to spark literary rediscovery.
A few comments touched upon Wolfe's influence on other writers, with some suggesting that his impact on New Journalism and contemporary fiction is often underestimated.
Overall, the comments section offers a mixed bag of opinions on Tom Wolfe's legacy, reflecting the complex and often contradictory nature of his work. While some express admiration for his innovative style and sharp social commentary, others criticize his later works and question his lasting influence. The discussion provides a valuable platform for exploring different perspectives on Wolfe's place in the literary canon.