November 21, 2021

"Asked"?! That's putting it mildly.

I'm reading "Here’s a Fact: We’re Routinely Asked to Use Leftist Fictions" by John McWhorter (in the NYT).

"[W]e think of it as ordinary to not give voice to our questions about things that clearly merit them, terrified by the response that objectors often receive. History teaches us that this is never a good thing."

McWhorter is underplaying the problem. We don't just think it's ordinary to refrain from saying certain things (such as, to name the example he stresses, the existence of race-preferences in higher education admissions). We think it's abnormal to the point of toxicity not to refrain.

We (as a culture) are deeply engaged in teaching young people that they must lie. The "white lie" is no longer merely permissible. It's required.  I wonder if young people have retained any of the old-fashioned commitment to truth. It's obviously not the highest value anymore.

I was surprised to run across this aphorism on Facebook the other day: "That Which Can Be Destroyed By the Truth Should Be." There were lots of comments celebrating this abstraction. I considered delivering truth that would destroy their bullshit celebration of a principle I doubt they believe. 

But I refrained. I consider my reputation as a nice (enough) person on Facebook to be worth preserving. But I didn't believe the aphorism. I just had a mischievous urge to show them their admiration of it was itself a lie. But such urges are better confined to this blog, where no one runs into me by accident. 

Anyway, whose aphorism is that? Quote Investigator has done the research, here. The answer is not Carl Sagan.

The earliest strong match known to QI appeared in the 1994 novel “Seeker’s Mask” by P. C. Hodgell (Patricia C. Hodgell). In the following scene two characters named Jame and Kirien were conversing, and the adage was spoken by Kirien....
Jame winced, remembering the awful revelation of her own soul-image. “Perhaps,” she said, “we can’t endure to know ourselves too well. Perhaps, the truth can sometimes destroy.”

“That which can be destroyed by the truth should be,” said that implacable voice. Could any Arrin-ken have spoken with more authority? “Of what would you choose to remain in ignorance?”
It is important to recognize that a quotation from a novel sometimes represents the opinion of a character and not the belief of an author. Indeed, the fictional person expressing the thought may grow and change dramatically during a story arc; hence, even that person may disown the quotation.

It's an interesting quote, and I haven't read the novel, but if I were reading a novel and came to that passage, I would start looking for reasons why the "implacable voice" — Kirien — might have nefarioius plans. You can go too far with truth all the time. For one thing, you could be wrong about what is true and too eager to destroy everything that doesn't fit your idea of the truth.

But that's a subtlety that only becomes important among people who care about truth. We're living in a culture where lying — or at least shutting up — is the higher value. 

Notice that McWhorter doesn't use the word "lie." He says "fiction."

ADDED: McWhorter also uses the word "prevaricate": "That this is not to be mentioned is a kind of politesse requiring that we prevaricate about a subject already difficult enough to discuss and adjudicate.."

UPDATE: "'If something can be destroyed by truth, it should be' — Part 2."



Yesterday, I blogged:

71 comments:

madAsHell said...

Like......"A transgender woman (guy shaving his dick off) can have a baby."

retail lawyer said...

"McWhorter is underplaying the problem." Yes, but the striking thing is that this appeared in the NYT! How did this happen, and where are the legions of NYT employees complaining of being made to feel unsafe by this article?

Achilles said...

This entire conflict is about the aristocracy demanding to be able to make rules for the little people that they do not follow themselves.

Equality under the law is the central conflict here.

It would be easy peasy lemon squeasy to get the wealthy to pay their "fair share." Flat tax. No deductions. Done. There is a reason they refuse to do so.

Tribal spoils and superiority conflicts are always about living off the effort of others. This means being able to rape and fondle the lower castes as well as take their stuff.

Only a small caste of nobility wants this so they have to be dishonest about what they are doing and what they want.

One of the perks they demand is control over other people and forcing people to accept obvious lies makes progressives happy and warm inside.

There is no reconcile with people like this.

Tim said...

I have read the entire series and it is pretty good if somewhat dark fantasy. I doubt that Hidgell and I agree on anything politically, but there are some really good parts in the books.

mikee said...

If the truth will destroy something, that thing should be destroyed? NO. If and only if a thing deserves destruction should it be destroyed, no matter if that thing was built upon an untruth originally.

It is undoubtedly true that a building will burn, but that is no damn reason to burn down buildings.

gilbar said...

of Course we can't ask those Racist questions!
If we did, we'd be headed back to 1619, back to our Racist Past!

The Racist Past, when Racists would be applauded for saying RACIST things like:
...children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of that character.

... one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers

...be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand together


Is THAT, the sort of RACIST PLACE you Want to live in?
A place where Blacks and whites are Forced to graduate together? Live together? BE together?
Thank Gaia for the Democrat Party, and their struggle to end all of that!!

JK Brown said...

It still angers them and will cause many to come after you, but one manner to push back is not to argue. Rather it is to simply state, factual observations about the fiction they promote. Such as offer no judgement on racial preferences in higher ed admissions, but rather simply state what it is, how it is achieved, specific actions taken. Then let that marinate in their minds. Some will be distressed by the truth if you leave out the argument.

We are in such a moment now where one can easily debunk the narrative of race in the Rittenhouse case by simply stating the objective fact that the three men injured in the "incident" were objectively white males...from birth. Or that Rittenhouse lived 20 minutes from Kenosha, by happenstance across the state line as many in border communities do.

Slowly, many will develop discipline of their intellect and regulation of their emotions that is necessary for critical thought on a topic.

rhhardin said...

The mot juste is often helpful.

Yancey Ward said...

So, what thing the truth could destroy was the topic in the Facebook discussion?

Mark said...

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be

Well, see, the thing is this -- For a long time now, that has been ideologically understood as that which can be destroyed by "the truth" should be, especially Truth.

In our time, we see all sorts of objective truth being condemned as "disinformation" in favor of all sorts of invented fictions labeled as "truth" in order to supplant objective truth.

But this is not new. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who call falsehood truth and the truth falsehood. Woe too to those agnostic relativists who ask "What is truth?" and then wash their hands of it all.

Big Mike said...

Yes, but the striking thing is that this appeared in the NYT! How did this happen, and where are the legions of NYT employees complaining of being made to feel unsafe by this article?

@retail lawyer, let me explain. The people who write for the Times imagine that their “Truth” isthe TRUTH (writ large) and John McWhorter must therefore be writing about those evil, QAnon-loving, right-wingers. Besides, McWhorter is black so he therefore has to be on their side.

If he knows what’s good for him.

Jersey Fled said...

David Mamet: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience. Denial of truth allows easier trespass."

Joe Smith said...

The problem with the 'right' is, they're always on defense.

The left always frames the conversation first: 'Men are women, prove us wrong.'

The arguments are absurd on their face, but they take the initiative and get there first, so conservatives are left (always) with an uphill battle.

Add 99% of the media, 99% of education, and 100% of Hollywood to their cause, and it's a heavy lift...

Scot said...

Galileo was confined to house arrest the last ten years of his life by the Keepers of the Truth, the Catholic Church. He dared to challenge them with his discovery of the moons of Jupiter & the phases of Venus. Feels like we have gone 400 years back in time & are persecuted by new Keepers of the Truth, or as Sowell calls them, the Anointed.

Readering said...

What mikee said.

Kevin said...

I was surprised to run across this aphorism on Facebook the other day: "That Which Can Be Destroyed By the Truth Should Be."

Their biggest lie is they're telling the truth.

In Kenosha they just turned three white guys into black people so they can call Rittenhouse a white supremacist.

Kevin said...

The problem with the 'right' is, they're always on defense.

That is the nature of conservatism.

It is the nature of progressivism to not care whether the entire country is destroyed in the pursuit of your ideals.

Joe Smith said...

'The problem with the 'right' is, they're always on defense.'

I'm quoting myself to add this:

It makes sense that they do this, because they have a goal...socialism/Marxism.

The right just wants to be left alone. They aren't trying to shape peoples' lives in any real sense.

But the left...they are true believers. They must always be moving forward, and see government, education, and media as a tool to further their goal of communism.

Prove me wrong...

The Crack Emcee said...

Jersey Fled said...

David Mamet: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience. Denial of truth allows easier trespass."

Aaron Rodgers was immunized. He didn't know water wasn't medicine.

Now he's back to work, with no further discussion of the NewAge phenomena.

The Crack Emcee said...

Joe Smith said...

"The problem with the 'right' is, they're always on defense."

Bullshit. If they hadn't ruined their brand, with the same sort of spiritual nonsense - but from the religious angle - the opening NewAge is exploiting would never have been there.

J. Farmer said...

Here’s a Fact: We’re Routinely Asked to Use Leftist Fictions

So long as this issue is framed in partisan terms, it will never be addressed. It is undoubtedly true that institutions are dominated by the opinions and interests of an elite minority. Some of these opinions/interests can be described as left-wing and others can be described as right-wing. Trying to place elite opinion on a left-right spectrum is a fool's errand. If you wanted to affix an ideological label to elite opinion, it would be closer to "bourgeois bohemian" or "radical centrism." This is why there tends to be overlap between the opinions of the "far left" and of the "far right".

And that's how you end up with Tucker Carlson approvingly citing Noam Chomsky: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

rcocean said...

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be"

Not too sure I agree. In fact, this sort of agressiveness is how you end up with Communist dictatorship and gulags. Because lenin, stalin, Mao thought Communist ideology was the truth. As so did Hitler with Nazism. So, yeah "What is truth?"

I prefer: Live not by Lies.

Lurker21 said...

I suppose liberal Democrat McWhorter is the Times new house conservative. He can't be any worse at it than his predecessors, Kristol, Brooks, Stephens, Douthat. Just stick with what you know and care about. Johnny, and don't get drawn into the borg.

Skeptical Voter said...

Objective "truth" and the progressive "narrative" would have to be introduced if they should ever, by happenstance, meet.

Bilwick said...

"Asked" is certainly not a word in the working Leftist vocabulary. One doesn't wield a mailed fist to "ask" things of people.

Joe Smith said...

'Bullshit.'

I wrote out a long and detailed reply but just deleted it.

I won't argue with people of bad faith.

Wa St Blogger said...

Achilles said:
This entire conflict is about the aristocracy demanding to be able to make rules for the little people that they do not follow themselves.

The conflict is really about people with power using it to achieve their goals, oftentimes in a manner that enhances their own well-being. Just look at how blue cities manage to enact policies that somehow benefit the people of power rather than the people they purport to want to help. If the helping also harms those whom they disdain, all the better.

Almost all conflict is about the allocation of resources, so most people support things that give them better access to or more resources and have no qualms about who looses access to resources. However, if you push to hard and to far, some of the losers will decide to take away your biggest resource, your life. Always remember that every conflict has the option to end up fatal.

William said...

Some truths are truer than others and some are just truthier......Anyway, sexual mores and religion are not based on scientifically demonstrable facts. In my lifetime, I've seen people look cross eyed more often at the truths of Catholic priests than at the truths of gay activists.

Lem said...

Truth wins out even when is left unspoken.

I think that's what is intended in Luke 19:40

"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

"Truth finds a way"

Achilles said...

This is not a Republican Democrat thing.

This is not a Conservative liberal progressive thing.

This is the Aristocracy and their serfs vs. Free Citizen thing.

The Aristocracy has always wanted their two tier system and there is always a group of people that don't mind being 2nd class citizens as long as they get to stomp on someone.

The aristocracy never changes. But that group of serfs they use to keep everyone else in line does.

Sebastian said...

"We think it's abnormal to the point of toxicity not to refrain. We (as a culture) are deeply engaged in teaching young people that they must lie."

Althouse! Is that you? Next, you'll be telling us that the MSM spout propaganda, that schools teach lying, that the ruling class demands submission--that we are all Havelian greengrocers.

When you get people to lie without resistance, to live within the lie, that's when you've defeated them. American progressives are close. The culture war is almost won. But not quite.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

Galileo had it easy. Here's what will get you more than house arrest these days:

"Eppure ce ne sono solo due."

Pookie Number 2 said...

And that's how you end up with Tucker Carlson approvingly citing Noam Chomsky.

Why is this an example of the “far left” and “far right” overlapping? It seems to be just an example of Noam Chomsky saying something reasonable, and Tucker Carlson agreeing. Even I agree with it! :)

Skippy Tisdale said...

"Is THAT, the sort of RACIST PLACE you Want to live in?
A place where Blacks and whites are Forced to graduate together? Live together? BE together?"

I was okay with every aspect of that until I learned that we all had to join hands and sing an old negro spiritual. Because THAT, my friends is cultural appropriation and I want no part of it.

Skippy Tisdale said...

Kyle Rittenhouse answered for us all.

Skippy Tisdale said...

Don't feed the pasty-faced troll.

Drago said...

Farmer: "Trying to place elite opinion on a left-right spectrum is a fool's errand."

Precisely. Always true to some extent but never more true in the US than now.

Drago said...

Scot: "Galileo was confined to house arrest the last ten years of his life by the Keepers of the Truth, the Catholic Church."

And Gallileo was supported strongly by....other Keepers of the Truth within the Catholic Church.

Half the story is not really the story at all, is it?

Narayanan said...

for all those claiming/alleging the men Kyle shot in self-defense were all white "
if they voted for Biden they are black by Presidential proclamation.
--------
calling McWhorter : why not provide instances of fiction and refute them? instead of sissy whining?
is it leftist fiction : the men Kyle shot in self-defense were black.
Proof to be refuted : if they voted for Biden they are black by Presidential proclamation.

!!change my mind!!

n.n said...

Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), including: racism, sexism, genderism (too?), ageism, and other class-based bigotry, breeds adversity.

Fiction. Framing. Handmade tales. #HateLovesAbortion

Dave64 said...

There is the truth and then there is The Truth™ that the Left believes in! You cannot destroy their Truth™, you can only be consumed by it.

Guildofcannonballs said...

The Satanic Rocky Horror Picture Show proved, via the reaction to it --if not individually eo ipso-- that trusting rubes or alternatively (at times) high intellects to go along with the falsehood that since some character ultimately* suffers somehow at the end of the Satanism displayed as mere joyous, indeed necessary, fulfillment of humanity, the Satanic art is somehow not Satanic is bullshit.

*Hell is a joke, slavery likewise

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Narayanan said...

if they voted for Biden they are black by Presidential proclamation.

Rosenbaum couldn't have, he was a convicted felon. (I know, I know!)

Not 100% sure about the other two, but I would be surprised if both were.

tim maguire said...

Joe Smith said...The problem with the 'right' is, they're always on defense.

The left always frames the conversation first: 'Men are women, prove us wrong.'


The left has known for generations something the right is still figuring out—the people who control the terms of debate have the debate half won before it even starts.

It is not climate change, nobody denies that the climate changes. it is CAGW, catastrophic warming driven by human behaviour. It is not pro-choice, as though they were supporting the general right to make choices. It is a specific choice—to have an abortion. That is not pro-choice, it is pro-abortion. And so it goes...

wildswan said...

McWhorter and Althouse, Jordan Peterson and Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan, and now, Bill Maher, are not conservatives except insofar as that they want to conserve free speech and open minds. We may all end up in the camps together - me for opposing abortion (conservative) and they for saying I should be allowed to say why I oppose abortion (liberal). But I have a dream where we all win back America together. Aren't we a majority?

Gerda Sprinchorn said...

"That Which Can Be Destroyed By the Truth Should Be."

This gets weirder the longer you think about it.

What is the set of things "that can be destroyed by the truth"? What makes them different from the set of things "that cannot be destroyed by the truth"? I can't form any clear notion of what this set encompasses and does not encompass.

Then a non-sequitur: this set of things should be destroyed, presumably by the truth. Why? Why is this set of things particularly singled out for destruction? What if some are too trivial for destruction and would waste our time? What if we can only destroy a limited number of things in this set; shouldn't we prioritize?

Perhaps it is just fun to destroy things with "the truth"? It makes us feel better? Maybe, but that's a pretty weak directive.

If there is a valid point here, it needs elaboration. The quote sounds nice, but on closer examination, it sounds too pat and vague.

Howard said...

It is a left right thing. The reason the left is being criticised for it's prevarications is that they're mostly assumed to be telling the truth. The right-wingers are assumed to be lying all the time. So the lefty lies are more like a man bites dog story, therefore newswarthy

n.n said...

Some people... persons speak truth through projection. Some speak truth to facts. Some speak truth through conflation [of logical domains]. Caveat emptor.

MrEdd said...

"But I refrained. I consider my reputation as a nice (enough) person on Facebook to be worth preserving. But I didn't believe the aphorism. I just had a mischievous urge to show them their admiration of it was itself a lie. But such urges are better confined to this blog, where no one runs into me by accident."

That fearful hesitation became too much to bear. My wife was embarrassed by the "truths" I posted. They were actually mostly sly observations on the untruths we find necessary to suffer to navigate the diverse political and social beliefs (probably mostly poses) of friends and family. Facebook is a minefield. I would often post quotes from this blog and its often quite insightful commenters. However, I finally realized that no one was getting it. At least, if they did, no one I cared about was acknowledging it. The choir chimed in, of course, but that was no victory. So, I decided to stop feeding the algorithms and the data merchants. It is actually pretty hard to completely exit Facebook. But well worth it. I am retiring soon, maybe I'll take a stab at a blog then. But, no more Facebook, Twitter or any other such social media platform. As some of your commentary have admonished you about the NYT, stopping feeding the enemy.

Loren W Laurent said...

When I am in a heterosexual phase I want a man.

When I am in a lesbian phase I want a woman.

Yet now, somehow, society expects me to accept a man with a dick as a woman, and a woman with no dick as a man. Depending on my current proclivity, I am supposed to accept the opposite of what I want when I want the opposite.

My not wanting this supposedly makes me makes me intolerant.

Well, then I AM intolerant.

I dated a woman with a cock once. Almost everything she wanted to talk about involved how difficult it was to be a woman with a cock. Sure: I get it. But I also enjoy conversation that isn't so dependent on fundamentally existential contexts. Like, can we appreciate the wine without talking about the looks you might have received on the bus in the framework of marginalized gender issues?

I'm sorry, but your existential crisis stops at my not wanting to suck your cock.

-Loren

farmgirl said...

Today is the Feast of Christ: King of the Universe in the Catholic Church. I admit- I listen to different homilies just like I read all of the comments- it’s like viewing something from many angles to get the bigger picture. The gospel features Truth…

https://youtu.be/Y6n49Eox-IY

J. Farmer said...

@Pookie Number 2:

Why is this an example of the “far left” and “far right” overlapping? It seems to be just an example of Noam Chomsky saying something reasonable, and Tucker Carlson agreeing. Even I agree with it! :)

I made a poor attempt to convey sarcasm with square quotes. As you note, the validity of the statement has nothing to do with where it's placed on some geometric axis. It's an example of how ideological and partisan labels are frequently used not to describe but to discredit. People are often unaware that the word "progressive" was resurrected by the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980s because the word "liberal" had become radioactive.

mikee said...

Gerda: I would add that there are a whole lotta things that can be destroyed by untruth, often more easily than by truth. What we gonna do about that?

Achilles said...

Howard said...

It is a left right thing. The reason the left is being criticised for it's prevarications is that they're mostly assumed to be telling the truth. The right-wingers are assumed to be lying all the time. So the lefty lies are more like a man bites dog story, therefore newswarthy

This person voted for a child groping rapist who has taken billions of dollars from foreign governments. He supports absolute depravity.

So of course he still believes in Russian Collusion.

His entire political paradigm is based on lies like Hunter's Laptop being Russian disinformation.

Hillary didn't take 145 million dollars from the Russians and if she did it was fine.

Bill didn't Rape Jaunita Brodderick. Well maybe he did but that was decades ago.

Trump raped a woman on a plane in the middle of over 50 people.

After that he raped another woman in a public changing room.

The Brett Kavanaugh ran a rape ring in high school.

He believes so many lies because he has to.

There is no lie the left can tell that Howard will not believe and use to attack his political opponents.

Because Howard is a terrible person who cannot be honest about who he is and what he supports.

Achilles said...

Right now the Aristocracy is pushing open borders and letting illegal aliens stream into the country. They are shipping them into communities all over the country.

There are no COVID mandates on them.

But US citizens are required to get vaccinated or lose their jobs.

These policies are as popular with the average US citizen of any race or sex or religion as smallpox.

Nobody can defend this.

So the current Regime lies.

And their supporters lie.

Because they have to.

Freeman Hunt said...

McWhorter's kind of a badass for writing that in the NYT.

Narr said...

"Newswarthy"?

Really, Howard.

Drago said...

Howard: "It is a left right thing. The reason the left is being criticised for it's prevarications is that they're mostly assumed to be telling the truth."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL!!!

You are one of the biggest lefty prevaricators on this site so its absolutely perfect that you wrote the druvel above.

Perfect.

Here's a quick refresher for you specifically: how is it you spent half a year daily opining on your antifa street thug heroes being the equivalent of our Normandy D-Day warriors and even argue these idiot street thug lefties deserved military retirement pay for their "service" to our country...only to turn on a dime when the new narrative was rolled out by Lying Lefty Dem Central and then claiming antifa didnt even exist?

Hilariously mendacious to the maximum extent possible.

Bender said...

Let's not drag in the fictitious version of the Galileo story to make a point about truth.

Galileo was celebrated by many in the Church -- including the Pope. It was when he started picking fights with theologians that he got into trouble. Not to mention insisting that certain hypotheses of his were simply to be accepted as true centuries before they were actually proven scientifically.

Most of the accounts of Galileo vs. the Catholic Church found in modern history books is misleading and fairly false in many respects.

Fernandinande said...

Like......"A transgender woman (guy shaving his dick off) can have a baby."

He could have something that identifies as a baby.

Bilwick said...

It may be more than Howard being a terrible person. (I mean, I'm sure he is, because good people don't turn a blind eye to Democide; but that's another story.) He's also a State-cultist, and religionists can convince themselves of quite a bit of crap.

Big Mike said...

It seems to be just an example of Noam Chomsky accidentally saying something reasonable

@Pookie, FIFY

Gahrie said...

People are often unaware that the word "progressive" was resurrected by the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980s because the word "liberal" had become radioactive.

Or that the Democrats moved away from the term Progressive because the term had become radioactive. In fact I predict that the Republican campaign slogan will revive the one Harding used to end the first progressive Era, "A Return to Normalcy".

They even had their own version of "never Trumpers" back then led by Teddy Roosevelt who was a "never Tafter".

Josephbleau said...

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be"

So by the contrapositive, if it should not be destroyed, it cannot be destroyed by the truth. To make the statement valid it should be changed to "That which can be destroyed by the truth can be destroyed.” And leave it at that.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Or that the Democrats moved away from the term Progressive because the term had become radioactive. In fact I predict that the Republican campaign slogan will revive the one Harding used to end the first progressive Era, "A Return to Normalcy".

When did the term become radioactive? The progressive movement was not confined to a political party, but the era was dominated by the Republican Party. As you noted, it was the split between Roosevelt and Taft in 1912 that opened the door for Wilson's victory. The progressive era most certainly did not end in 1920. Harding was a compromise candidate for the Republican Party since he had support among the conservative and progressive wings of the party. Herbert Hoover considered himself a member of the progressive wing of the Republican Party.

@Big Mike:

It seems to be just an example of Noam Chomsky accidentally saying something reasonable

@Pookie, FIFY


This is a good example of someone just unquestionable repeating a fiction. If you want to have an opinion of Chomsky's work, you're going to have to read it and engage with it. This book is the source of the quote if you're interested.

GP1935 said...

Interesting to see the source of that sentence. Hodgell's first book in the series, God Stalk, published in the 80s, remains one of the best first novels I've seen in the Fantasy genre. Dark, twisty, mature without being lurid. Sadly, she managed only one sequel before a string of horrible luck with publishers (several went bankrupt out from under her) forced her to resort to a career in Academia. In the last few years fortunately she has been able to resume storytelling.

Bilwick said...

Of course, there is nothing "progressive" about statism, a throwback (using Sir Henry Maine's terminology) to the society of Status (as opposed to the society of Contract).


Nicolas Darkwater said...

I would refer you to the great Paul Newman/Sally Fields movie "Absence of Malice", about the abusive excess of modern journalism.

"That's true, but it's not accurate."

Nicolas Darkwater said...

I would refer you to the great Paul Newman/Sally Fields movie "Absence of Malice", about the abusive excess of modern journalism.

"That's true, but it's not accurate."

gpm said...

Loved McWhorter's Lexicon Valley posts (in part because I love language stuff), about the only podcasts I've ever listened to. Then he was moving to Substack. Then he wasn't because he was going to write for the toads at NYT. Haven't yet sorted out what's going on with him, though I want something like Lexicon Valley and don't really care that much about his political opinions.

--gpm