This is a David Brooks essay in the NYT that starts out with some good insight into Wolfe's writing:
Wolfe was known for his style, but it was his worldview that made him. He read Max Weber at Yale and it all clicked: Life is a contest for status. Some people think humans are driven by money, or love, or to heal the wounds they suffered in childhood, but Wolfe put the relentless scramble up the pecking order at the center of his worldview. It gave him his brilliant eye for surfaces, for the care with which people put on their social displays. He had the ability to name the status rules that envelop us in ways we are hardly aware of. He had a knack for capturing what it feels like to be caught up in a certain sort of social dilemma.
There's a great photograph of Wolfe positioned in his living space, but look at the caption: "Wolfe’s goal was to be like Balzac, not JD Vance...." Oh, no. Why is Vance here (even in the negative ("not JD Vance"))? I search the page for "Vance" so I can zero in on it (rather than actually read this essay, as I'd planned):
Wolfe’s goal was to be like Balzac, not JD Vance.
Wolfe died in 2018, so it's unlikely Wolfe thought in these terms. Vance did have his bestseller, published in 2016, but that can't be what Brooks is talking about.... can it?
[Wolfe] was a provocateur, not an advocate. He came to examine fashions, not legislate morality.... [M]ostly he stationed himself where writers are supposed to station themselves, off to the side, observing, never quite belonging. It’s lonely there, but it allowed him a peek at what was emerging: The new coastal elites had made themselves insufferable to working-class Americans, and sooner or later there would be hell to pay....
Well, maybe Brooks does mean to say something coherent about Vance, but he doesn't come out and say it... something like: Vance should have stationed himself where writers are supposed to station themselves, off to the side, observing, never becoming a part of relentlessly scrambling up the pecking order at the center of his worldview....
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
So, I guess Brooks is explaining Tom Wolfe to the troglodydic readers of the NYT in terms they can understand. Brooksie can use political shorthand as a substitute for clarity as he drags Times readers out of their caves into the sunlight of his understanding. They stand there, bedazzled, grunting and scratching themselves. Nice.
It's interesting to note how many of the specific complaints of the old GOP pundits boil down to "these people who have replaced us don't know their proper place!"
Vance was ok as long as he was a writer with a journalist-approved personal story but now that he's close to a position of power his formerly-praiseworthy ambition and intellect are dangerous and uncouth.
“ The new coastal elites had made themselves insufferable to working-class Americans, and sooner or later there would be hell to pay....” Brooks got that right. The coastal elites are the main beneficiaries of the CAGW scam.
I can see a place for both approaches in writing - standing to the side, observing, as well as getting neck-deep into your subject and maybe even getting a little lost in your own passion. (I am the last remaining person who have read Hillbilly Elegy, so I have no idea whether Vance retains his equanimity in it.)
I was kind of talking with my youngest about this yesterday, describing Into Thin Air versus Into the Wild to him. (We were hiking in mountainous bear country, so the subject matter seemed appropriate, and I had motivation to keep up conversation.) My recollection is that in the first, Krakauer used more the observational approach; in the second, he was more elegiac, which bugged me, because the dude in Into the Wild wasn't a prophet or a holy hermit, he was a young man who prepared insufficiently for an ordeal that he seemed to think was going to be some kind of Hollywood adventure. But Krakauer writes as if he admires him.
I'm the last remaining person who HASN'T read Hillbilly Elegy.
I don't know if I would rather resign myself to this comment format or continue to rail against it.
By mentioning Vance in this way Brooks is positioning himself for status in today's political climate. He has to slight the now uncool kid in order to maintain his presumed voice of literary elitism. Brooks is what Wolfe would now deftly takedown. Wolfe would have a heyday with today's media environment.
I don't like this new comment format. Ot only does text not wrap on phones, it also lacks the handy feature of the old approach to "view original post" which I liked when I forgot a spelling or particular phrasing I wanted to mention. Now I have to leave the comme.ts altogether. And nested replies mean I miss more comments unless I want to scroll through the thread again.
I'm sure there's some plus to the new style but I don't see it.
Brooks, of course, would applaud it if others at the NY Times showed it favor.
Brooks needs to position himself so that the fawners at various Hamptons Summer Parties can come up to him and say "I liked how you dealt with Vance in your latest column" as they all sip their cocktails served by the lower class.
Wolfe title for a book on current news columnists: Smoldering of the Vanities.
Hillbilly Elegy ? Seriously? Brooks is scrambling for his own status, dragging JD Vance into a discussion about Wolfe. Wolfe was only ever a writer, or a writer contributing commentary in public, with social issues as his principle subject. I would say that JD Vance is not a fair comparison, or even a noteworthy one.
I found Hillbill Elegy to be easily readable, a fair accounting of the milestones in one man's life journey, but it's not particularly artful, or even captivating. There are too many gaps, too much glossed-over material in the timeline; it should have been grittier, in my opinion.
But hey: I'm just a reader, not a critic from the NYT trying to nudge a Presidential Election, so what do I know?
There are plenty of politicians who have "written" autobiographies; most of them are useless piles of unreadable dreck and self-serving slogans. Brooks could use any one of them as an example of something of which he disapproves, but he must - absolutely MUST - find some way to disapprove of JD Vance, a man who actually made something of himself from a life of poor circumstance.
A phrase was invented in honor of David Brooks: "You don't hate the media enough."
Jamie, an older comment was helpful to me. You can read in the old format by clicking on the time at the end of Althouse’s post. However, we seem to be stuck with the new format for replying.
Brooks wants to make sure he can still sit at the cool kidz table.
I think I've read Hillbilly Elegy. Couldn't tell you one thing about it, but that's my normal take-away on books: I forget what I've read almost immediately.
Does anyone other than NYT readers and PBS viewers care about what Brooks thinks, writes or says? The guy’s sole objective is to increase his status and wealth by telling the Acela Class what it wants to hear.
I have no control over the comment format.
I don't know. I have read a bit of Wolfe's work, and there was an essential conservatism there that doesn't suggest to me that he would have disapproved of Vance. Wolfe was an admirer of the genuine and despised people who got to the top by means of cheap short cuts, maybe like affairs with powerful politicians, rather than by writing a book which earned its place in the culture through its own merits.
But Brooks is a part of the artificial cultural apparatus that Wolfe despised, even as he might imagine that he clawed his way to the top by his merits, and not by his willingness to kiss the asses of the powerful, while dressing it up in fancy language.
Brooks (or the editors) aren't making a couch joke, are they?
What word is stronger than "tedious"? Mega-tedious? SMOD-tedious?
Statuspheres competing to be the ruler of all is a terrific analysis tool. But all the winner gets is a statue on a horse or a new way to do something named after themselves…and then they die like Wolfe did. So God always wins.
Brooks is obligated to grind out a couple articles a month and he was spent 30 years ago. Every offering is the same with different sparklers and lights adorning the samr old same old.
If Trump-Vance wins, I'll probably get around to reading Hillbilly Elegy.
Vance should have stationed himself where writers are supposed to station themselves, off to the side, observing, never becoming a part of relentlessly scrambling up the pecking order at the center of his worldview..
Says who JD Vance is a writer? Lots of politicians have written books — Dwight Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, for instance. What’s different is that Vance actually wrote his book. Of course it’s pretty well known that Arthur Schlesinger was Kennedy’s ghostwriter for Profiles in Courage, and computer analysis has pointed to Bill Ayers as having written large parts of both of Obama’s autobiographies, so as the author of Hillbilly Elegy perhaps Vance is a bit unique.
I did read "Hillbilly Elegy" and recommend it. He was obviously very intelligent so survived his childhood with little damage.
So the new and improved "plan" was released to the press? Will we now see Vance' name pop-up in every/any article as the "thing to not be like" and as the "example of who not to be"? Sort of like how "Trump" is the left's short-hand / code for "double-plus un-good"? I guess this is the new normal, like ANYTHING remotely environmental must include something about bad old , destroying the world any day now climate change.
"where writers are supposed to station themselves, off to the side, observing"
which is extremely hard to do when you're writing an autobiography!
Obama's first "autobiography" is fiction. I'm reading Garrow's book.
Brooks should stick to pants creases. He knows from pants creases. Anything else, not so much.
"He was obviously very intelligent so survived his childhood with little damage."
From "Why Do Geniuses Commit Crime?"
"Crime is typically thought of as a low-IQ activity, and most scientific research bears this out.... Curiously, however, this trend doesn't seem to hold for individuals whose IQ scores place them in the top 0.1% of intelligence.... The 'geniuses' admitted to more crimes overall, and particularly committed more property crimes, white-collar crimes, and violent crimes.... 'One strong predictor of trouble is a mismatch in the brain between IQ and EF [executive function]...' ... '[I]f someone's IQ greatly outstrips their EF, then you essentially have a drag-racer without a steering wheel: the car can easily careen out of control and send the owner flying off the path of acceptable behavior.'... '[S]ometimes very intelligent people develop a disregard for laws because they all too easily see the hypocrisy of the people who make and enforce those laws. Second, it is common for very intelligent people to feel that their existence is ultimately meaningless. When you feel that there is no point to being, then it is not a very long stretch to the conclusion that man-made laws are also meaningless.'..."
Observing and writing about insufferability in a vivid and memorable way is not entirely unrelated to laying down moral lines.
Maybe Vance's goal was to be more like Theodore Roosevelt than like Balzac.
Whenever I see David Brooks' name, I think "T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII" - the true spirit of Republicanism (self-annointed)
'Why is Vance here?' Because these NYT mopes can't help themselves.
Vance mentioned once. Yale mentioned twice.
"They stand there, bedazzled, grunting and scratching themselves."
Great sentence, Tom Wolfe might have agreed.
I've always been told that Ted Sorenson was the ghost writer of "Profiles in Courage". I read that in fourth grade, probably after JFK was assassinated.
I wonder if the JD Vance line was inserted by -- or at the suggestion of -- an NYT opinion editor. If Brooks was trying to use Wolfe to take a swipe at Vance, it's a pretty odd slam. (Vance is no Balzac!)
I'm as willing as the next guy to think the worst of Brooks, but the sneer at Vance looks bolted on. Reread it skipping that line, with no thought of Vance. Maybe he just wanted to write about Wolfe.
Tom Wolfe ended up pretty high on the status totem pole, without trying to (or without appearing to try). David Brooks hasn't done so badly himself, though he clearly puts in a lot of effort.
Wolfe had things both ways. He celebrated Middle America and the ordinary American, but his emphasis on "status detail" fit the upper classes' snobbery and obsession with status, as well as our current tribalism very well, so he could enjoy Manhattan society while being a tribune of the common man -- at least until "real" "literary" novelists decided he was due for a slap down.
Brooks is trying to follow Wolfe's role as pop sociologist, but he doesn't get out of his bubble often enough or long enough to have much that's new or interesting to say. Wolfe wasn't afraid to jump into the chaos of life. Brooks is happy on his perch at the Times. Neither is Weber or Balzac.
I think Brooks would have been more astute by using Gore Vidal instead of Wolfe. Vidal was about the pure American aristocracy. Wolfe was about high end normals seeking the lesser levels of status. Marketers, astronauts, and hippies are cool, but not at the Van Voorhees level.
Ah, but Brooks, like Wolfe, is parochial to his Manhattan, with a smattering of DC. But status is different in different places.
Paul Graham wrote a good essay on the topic in May 2008, 'Cities and Ambition'
https://paulgraham.com/cities.html
Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you could do more; you should try harder.
The surprising thing is how different these messages can be. New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer.
What I like about Boston (or rather Cambridge) is that the message there is: you should be smarter. You really should get around to reading all those books you've been meaning to.
When you ask what message a city sends, you sometimes get surprising answers. As much as they respect brains in Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should be more powerful.
That's not quite the same message New York sends. Power matters in New York too of course, but New York is pretty impressed by a billion dollars even if you merely inherited it. In Silicon Valley no one would care except a few real estate agents. What matters in Silicon Valley is how much effect you have on the world. The reason people there care about Larry and Sergey is not their wealth but the fact that they control Google, which affects practically everyone.
No, Jamie. I'm the last remaining person who hasn't read it!
"Brooks is obligated to grind out a couple articles a month and he was spent 30 years ago. Every offering is the same with different sparklers and lights adorning the same old same old."
Ditto Dowd. Blow occasionally manages to come up with a new form of obnoxious self-congratulation. You could grate cheese with Collins. You have to wonder why the Times keeps these losers around.
Wolfe wrote about people from hardscrabble backgrounds like chuck yeager also the character in that college drame alexandra thomas
Most of them are psychopaths, like Ted Kaczynski. who had a very high IQ.
I remember Newsweek shoehorning a negative comment about Bob Dole into a totally unrelated movie review back in the '90's. probably the moment I realized it was all a load of bollocks.
Not being much of an intellectual, I do however enjoy the written word and Wolfe was a master. In Radical Chic he hilariously exposed Bernstein and friends as hopelessly naive and ignorant, lapping up Black Panther Bullshit as if it were nectar of the gods.
I can appreciate Vance, although I haven’t read Hillbilly Elegy and I’m not a hillbilly, as I also come from a low class background, one I call NEUWT (New England Urban White Trash) complete with a totally dysfunctional family, alcoholic parents, chaotic household, eight kids and very little hope for the future.
Like Vance, I joined the military (US ARMY) after high school, but of course I haven’t been quite as successful. I thought of writing about my experiences, but never imagined that it would be of interest of anyone. Perhaps as a catharsis? This thread has convinced me to read his book.
Also appreciate the higher level of discourse in this thread, much better than “Jane, you ignorant slut!”
1) Get ex-boyfriend back
2) Stop divorce.
3) Save dying marriage/relationship
4) Herpes cure..
5) Resolve relationship/marital issues
6) Reclaim Soulmate.
7) Make Ex run after you
8) Return/reunite with Ex
9) Make him committed.
10) Make your ex-husband/wife to love just you
Email robinsonbuckler11@gmail.com
Rodin's Balzac is today more well known than Balzac's works. Baltimore Museum of Art had in its outdoor sculpture garden a reduced size nude study for the Balzac statue made by Rodin, showing the rather rotund fellow striding forward, arms crossed and chin thrust out. That nude, full sized, is supposedly under the giant cloak of the finished statue, or so I have read. My child used to pose in front of the smaller version, when they were both the same size in his early years, imitating the stance and defiant facial expression..
It's so routine that I'm surprised Althouse remarked on it. They do it in the movies all the time. For example if you look at the decor of the Dukes' study in Trading Places, you will find a photo of Nixon. Quite out of character - no one who loves himself as much as either Duke brother would have anyone else on his wall than himself.
Nope. That would be me. Anytime a book, a TV show, or video clip gets thrown around as a "must" I purposely avoid it.
Why did my response to Ann's post about IQ disappear?
I'd rather see Chuck back as a regular participant in the comments than this new spammer. I am not a big fan of spam cluttering up any form of communication online or on the phone. I have never had a car warranty, much less one that was about to run out and "sexy, single women in my area" are NOT dying to meet me.
If possible I would like to see commenters 'who do not read books' react to characters Gail Wynand and Elsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead = what aspect of the American character?
"Wolfe’s goal was to be like Balzac, not JD Vance...."
The comment is more than a little weird. Wolfe probably heard of Vance, since Vance came out with his bestseller, Hillbilly Elegy a couple of years before Wolfe died. This raises the question: Why would a renowned writer of Wolfe's stature, in the twilight of his career, want to be like a first time writer with a memoir?
In any case, it was more likely that Vance was trying to be something like Wolfe, not the other way around. I haven't read Vance's memoir, but given its genre, it would be similar to what Wolfe did: He would entertainingly describe people and events. He may have wanted his readers to come to certain conclusions, but he didn't directly tell the reader what he personally thought about any of it.
This is in contrast to Brooks. He tells you as much as you need to know, so that he can tell you what he thinks about it.
Vance is sort of bifurcated, he wrote about his life experiences, but now he is a man of action: He made money in venture capital, was elected Senator from Ohio and is on the ticket to be vice president. He's now the sort of person Wolfe might write about, if Wolfe was still alive and working.
Brooks probably feels superior to Vance and yet Brooks doesn't DO anything and Vance is DOING things. Meanwhile Brooks stands to the side with commentary. Why can't Vance know his place and be a poor-man's Wolfe? What gall to aspire to be somebody off the pages of a Wolfe book!
Wolfe was obsessed with others obsession with social status. The pursuit of social status just isn’t that interesting. The theme had been explored too many times before Bonfire of the Vanities. It’s not surprising Brooks enjoys Wolfe. He’s also obsessed with social status.
Lovernios said...
"They stand there, bedazzled, grunting and scratching themselves."
Great sentence, Tom Wolfe might have agreed.
Seconded!
Also, whenever I read something written by Brooks, I always think of Rand's Elsworth Toohey, a smarmy man willing to say anything to preserve the status quo of the Democrats are the ruling party. Which I guess is an answer to Narayana's query.
"Balzac not Vance." Seems like a snide way of implying that Wolfe wanted to be an intellectual coomenter on the zeitgeist, not hillbilly trash educated beyond his understanding - and who let this, this, crass boor into my Reublican cocktail party?
Not our kind, dear, that Vance fellow.
Or the good old evil villain meglomania "You pathetic fools! You shall never stop me, I shall destroy you all! (Ask me how!)"
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
I never met Brooks or Vance. I did meet Wolfe briefly after a talk he gave to an organization to which I belonged, shortly before his death. A true gentleman, and a great talent.
I think I read ALL of Wolfe's books, and Vance's one book. I used to enjoy reading Brooks's occasional essays (was he is the NYT?).
When you were a kid, did you ever play Little League Baseball or have a friend or relative who did? Imagine the star (STAR!!!) of the Little League team commenting on whether Mickey Mantel was a really good batter. That's what I think of when I read Brooks's comments on Vance. Comments about Wolfe would be like criticizing Dimaggio.
Not being much of an intellectual, I do however enjoy the written word and Wolfe was a master. In Radical Chic he hilariously exposed Bernstein and friends as hopelessly naive and ignorant, lapping up Black Panther Bullshit as if it were nectar of the gods.
I can appreciate Vance, although I haven’t read Hillbilly Elegy and I’m not a hillbilly, as I also come from a low class background, one I call NEUWT (New England Urban White Trash) complete with a totally dysfunctional family, alcoholic parents, chaotic household, eight kids and very little hope for the future.
Like Vance, I joined the military (US ARMY) after high school, but of course I haven’t been quite as successful. I thought of writing about my experiences, but never imagined that it would be of interest of anyone. Perhaps as a catharsis? This thread has convinced me to read his book.
My favorite Wolfe book was “ From Bauhaus to Althouse.”
Ah. Pity about that.
Because you’re an asshole.
Jamie,
I'm the last remaining person who HASN'T read Hillbilly Elegy."
Au contraire.
I loved Tom Wolfe. I think J.D. Vance is pretty damn good for a politician.
I fail to see what one has to do with the other, except that both wrote really good books.
In any case, it was more likely that Vance was trying to be something like Wolfe, not the other way around. I haven't read Vance's memoir, but given its genre, it would be similar to what Wolfe did: He would entertainingly describe people and events. He may have wanted his readers to come to certain conclusions, but he didn't directly tell the reader what he personally thought about any of it.
Vance and his book have absolutely nothing to do with, or in common with, Wolfe.
And I highly recommend reading both.
Brooks is a dope.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा