Great interview. I was particularly intrigued with Nick's take on Gatsby, which I'm in the midst of re-reading. It's similar to my take on Appointment in Samarra, which I've come to prefer over Gatsby for Appointment's grittiness and attention to detail. I think Appointment is underrated.
Appointment represents a conflict between ancestry and money as status. And money wins. I doubt that was O'Hara's intention. Made me think of the decline of Noblesse Oblige.
In case there's an interest, below is a link to my post.
Such a great insight. “The ones who’d come of age a decade later were more like ministers who were teaching young preachers the one correct interpretation of the Bible so that they could go out and enforce a single reading of every aspect of American culture. “
Right? That nails it. Every group has its accepted interpretation of American life, but most don’t have a lock on the cultural power centers, such as academia. It’s troubling—or at least deeply irksome—to think participating in those circles requires accepting this hegemonic interpretation. Obviously, there are outliers and people who figure out how to thrive with idiosyncratic views, but they're pushing against an enforced consensus.
Great interview! I didn’t know Gillespie’s work or ideas at all before reading this and now I’m interested. I’ve always been suspicious of libertarians, but here’s a guy who’s obviously poked into corners and made connections I’d never have been able to make. I may not agree with all of it but he’s clearly not casual or lazy about his analysis. I think some libertarians may be, but that’s true of every political leaning. There are always people who come to a way of thinking as a way of avoiding thinking. Gillespie is a grand exception, it appears.
I think Gillespie’s analysis here really helpful here on a lot of levels: what’s wrong with the humanities, what’s happening in the free speech debates, and the rest. My favorite bit here: The Philip K. Dick observation. It really does feel like that sometimes.
It’s interesting to me that he sounds so reasonable and informed. I’ve known libertarians who were strident and self-righteous; he doesn’t strike me that way.
There are always ideologues in every camp. But libertarianism—I count myself as one—is more a temperament than an ideology. It’s a bent toward personal autonomy and against authoritarianism. Some people can get strident about it, but there’s nothing inherent to libertarianism that gets you there. I think that’s more a personality thing.
The best and only response when someone says they haven't read or seen some important book or film is "wow what pleasure you have ahead of you. I wish I could read/see it again for the first time." Also this classic xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/1053/
So would I! I find the populist turn on the right kind of baffling. I suppose you could look at Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as populists, but their positions tended toward something resembling classical liberalism, especially its commitment for limited government. The new breed of populist is, sadly, nationalistic and authoritarian. Nothing limited about that.
Great interview. I was particularly intrigued with Nick's take on Gatsby, which I'm in the midst of re-reading. It's similar to my take on Appointment in Samarra, which I've come to prefer over Gatsby for Appointment's grittiness and attention to detail. I think Appointment is underrated.
Appointment represents a conflict between ancestry and money as status. And money wins. I doubt that was O'Hara's intention. Made me think of the decline of Noblesse Oblige.
In case there's an interest, below is a link to my post.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/is-noblesse-oblige-still-relevant
robertsdavidn.substack.com/about (free)
Thanks for sharing that, David!
I have not read Rage to Live, but thanks for letting me know that the same theme appears there.
Such a great insight. “The ones who’d come of age a decade later were more like ministers who were teaching young preachers the one correct interpretation of the Bible so that they could go out and enforce a single reading of every aspect of American culture. “
Right? That nails it. Every group has its accepted interpretation of American life, but most don’t have a lock on the cultural power centers, such as academia. It’s troubling—or at least deeply irksome—to think participating in those circles requires accepting this hegemonic interpretation. Obviously, there are outliers and people who figure out how to thrive with idiosyncratic views, but they're pushing against an enforced consensus.
That was really good.
Yeah, I thought it was a blast. Tons to think about!
The P.K. Dick insights are something to be considered.
I thought so, too. It’s like we’re living in a circus sometimes. Dick was the Ringleader.
This blows me away. Gillespie is spot on. Thank you so much for this great article.
Thanks for reading! I agree: So many great observations here.
Great interview! I didn’t know Gillespie’s work or ideas at all before reading this and now I’m interested. I’ve always been suspicious of libertarians, but here’s a guy who’s obviously poked into corners and made connections I’d never have been able to make. I may not agree with all of it but he’s clearly not casual or lazy about his analysis. I think some libertarians may be, but that’s true of every political leaning. There are always people who come to a way of thinking as a way of avoiding thinking. Gillespie is a grand exception, it appears.
I think Gillespie’s analysis here really helpful here on a lot of levels: what’s wrong with the humanities, what’s happening in the free speech debates, and the rest. My favorite bit here: The Philip K. Dick observation. It really does feel like that sometimes.
It’s interesting to me that he sounds so reasonable and informed. I’ve known libertarians who were strident and self-righteous; he doesn’t strike me that way.
There are always ideologues in every camp. But libertarianism—I count myself as one—is more a temperament than an ideology. It’s a bent toward personal autonomy and against authoritarianism. Some people can get strident about it, but there’s nothing inherent to libertarianism that gets you there. I think that’s more a personality thing.
I’m happy to find that out, actually.
Excellent; will read again later. Everyone wants to be Nick Carraway today, forget that he's the villain to anyone who reads the book seriously.
My ignorance is on regular display and here no differently: I’ve never read it! Time to fill the gap.
The best and only response when someone says they haven't read or seen some important book or film is "wow what pleasure you have ahead of you. I wish I could read/see it again for the first time." Also this classic xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/1053/
I’ll take it! When I think of all the books I haven’t read, I have so many pleasures ahead of me!
Very detailed analysis of the author. Thanks, Joel :)
I was surprised by that photo of Balzac. He looks like a regular guy.
So would I! I find the populist turn on the right kind of baffling. I suppose you could look at Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as populists, but their positions tended toward something resembling classical liberalism, especially its commitment for limited government. The new breed of populist is, sadly, nationalistic and authoritarian. Nothing limited about that.