[HN Gopher] I now lack the juice to fuel the bluster to conceal ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       I now lack the juice to fuel the bluster to conceal that I am a
       simpleton
        
       Author : Jun8
       Score  : 135 points
       Date   : 2024-04-24 19:32 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (lithub.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (lithub.com)
        
       | Jun8 wrote:
       | This is a _fantastic_ interview with Padgett Powell
       | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padgett_Powell), a writer of the
       | Southern tradition. IMO, the two things that make it great ar how
       | candid and fluid Powell's answers are and the hilariously
       | Newspeak of the interviewer's questions.
       | 
       | Powell was Don Barthelme's student, his analysis of Barthelme's
       | main thrust here is worth the read alone. If you want to dig
       | deeper on this point, here's another interview with him:
       | https://www.vice.com/en/article/vdxyd8/padgett-powell-is-ame...
       | 
       | Flann O'Brian, mentioned briefly by Powell is an interesting
       | character, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flann_O'Brien.
        
         | ailun wrote:
         | It's not really "Newspeak" at all; if anything, it's the
         | opposite. Newspeak had limited vocabulary. The interviewer is
         | using a bunch of ten-dollar words. Still, interesting
         | interview! I might read some Padgett Powell at some point
         | because of this.
        
           | kleiba wrote:
           | The little info box about the interviewer at the end of the
           | article tells you all you need to know.
        
             | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
             | You got something against Canadians?
        
             | atuladhar wrote:
             | Hmm, what is it that I needed to know? And what does the
             | info box tell me? As another simpleton in this world, I did
             | not understand this comment.
             | 
             | > Jean Marc Ah-Sen is the author of Grand Menteur, In the
             | Beggarly Style of Imitation, and Kilworthy Tanner. He lives
             | in Toronto.
        
           | HillRat wrote:
           | It's an interesting contrast, because Ah-Sen is an
           | experimental formalist, and his questions progress from that
           | point of view, whereas Powell is (hilariously) ... not. (As
           | this feels like a Q&A-by-email with all the questions
           | submitted en bloc, Ah-Sen probably didn't get a chance to
           | adapt his questions, and their theoretical foundation, to
           | Powell's responses, lending to the surrealistic air.)
        
             | kd5bjo wrote:
             | It also might be worth noting that both pull quotes are
             | things that Ah-Sen said in the questions, instead of things
             | that Powell said in response.
             | 
             | Some interviewers aim to help to tell their subjects'
             | stories, but others are looking for a reason to hear
             | themselves speak. This feels like the latter case.
        
               | Jtsummers wrote:
               | > It also might be worth noting that both pull quotes are
               | things that Ah-Sen said in the questions, instead of
               | things that Powell said in response.
               | 
               | One is from Powell, the other from Ah-Sen.
               | 
               | >> The attractive characteristic of a young narrator is
               | the absurdity of it and the license of it. - Powell
               | 
               | >> The destiny of all books is to become unmoored from
               | the time which birthed them. - Ah-Sen
        
               | pictureofabear wrote:
               | Also, shouldn't it be "berthed" not birthed?
        
               | Ar-Curunir wrote:
               | Er why would that be the case. To be unmoored is to be
               | detached from something. So the quote is saying that the
               | destiny of every book is to be detached and read outside
               | the context in which it was written (birthed).
        
               | basil-rash wrote:
               | To be berthed is to be attached to your home, as a boat.
               | It makes way more sense to keep the nautical analogy
               | going than to switch it over to biology. This was likely
               | a transcription error and/or pun.
        
               | collingreen wrote:
               | Slow clap
        
               | mrkstu wrote:
               | Unless you're going for some meta-joke, no.
        
               | basil-rash wrote:
               | Why not? If we're starting with this nautical analogy
               | (unmoored), immediately flipping to a biological one is
               | odd. I strongly suspect this was a transcription error
               | and/or intentional pun - the two are pronounced
               | identically.
        
         | phren0logy wrote:
         | I absolutely love this! As you have noted, both the ability and
         | the courage to speak plainly have made it a lost art.
        
         | Simon_ORourke wrote:
         | Flann O'Brian's novel about a novel "At swim two birds" has
         | been one of my favorite yearly re-reads, I must take it down
         | off the shelf again this weekend!
        
           | gilleain wrote:
           | For me it's the third policeman, which is wonderfully
           | dreamlike.
        
         | glassconclusion wrote:
         | I really like the short story Typical. It is one of my favorite
         | short stories.
        
       | boogieknite wrote:
       | Not a lit major, never seen the term Mupdeemut before, but now
       | excited to use it. Plenty of opportunity in personal and work
       | conversation.
       | 
       |  _edit: back to recommend against using Mupdeemut. People thought
       | i was saying something derogatory and i had to spend significant
       | time explaining myself._
        
         | consumer451 wrote:
         | Interesting, neither Google, nor GPT-4 know anything about that
         | term, outside of TFA.
        
           | standardly wrote:
           | He clearly made it up during the interview.
           | 
           | I admit I spent more time right clicking -> 'search the web'
           | for some of the words he used. Incredible vocabulary.. I have
           | to use 'intellection' soon, I've needed to use a word like
           | that before but couldn't find it.
        
             | consumer451 wrote:
             | I obviously need to pay more attention. Thank you very
             | much.
             | 
             | Cheers!
        
         | robocat wrote:
         | Padgett coins the word in the interview:
         | [m]ade-[u]p [p]eople [d]oing [m]ade-[u]p [t]hings. Let's call
         | that MUPDMUT. With some liberty, Mupdeemut
        
       | ducttapecrown wrote:
       | A group of people just asked me what verisimilitude was, now I'm
       | excited to come back and tell them about verisimilitudinously.
        
         | jeremyjh wrote:
         | > A group of people just asked me what verisimilitude was
         | 
         | This happens all the time! Glad it's not just me.
        
         | verisimilitude wrote:
         | I picked my username so I'd remember that very word...
        
           | Rumudiez wrote:
           | missed opportunity to put the definition in your bio
        
         | airstrike wrote:
         | Next up is probably vicissitudes, then
        
           | thfuran wrote:
           | Nope, heteroscedasticity.
        
         | robertlagrant wrote:
         | It's not just similitude. It's _veri_. Similitude.
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | I know you're joking but it may confuse people: It's _veri_
           | (the truth, e.g. _verily_ , _verify_ ) + _similitude_ :
           | something that seems like truth, but is not truth - otherwise
           | we'd just call it _truth_.
        
         | tuatoru wrote:
         | True! Really?
        
         | wolverine876 wrote:
         | > verisimilitudinously
         | 
         | I might say to them that _verisimilitudinous_ is not the usual
         | word (despite the OP). It 's the more elegant _verisimilar_ ,
         | and thus _verisimilarly_.
        
       | riehwvfbk wrote:
       | This is amazing. I wonder, is one allowed to speak like this in
       | the Bay Area, or would this mark you as a deplorable to the kind
       | of people who erase racism by erasing race.
        
         | AlotOfReading wrote:
         | Yes, you can speak like this. People are just going to think
         | you're pretentious. This is the sort of language you use with
         | specific audiences. The interviewer and the interviewee are
         | simply using language for mutually exclusive audiences.
        
         | wizzwizz4 wrote:
         | I understand why he chose to say it this way, and I'll probably
         | be stealing "liberal racism" ( _what_ a phrase: that 's going
         | in my pocketbook alongside "white guilt" and "racialise"), but
         | this is the wrong way to say it to a Bay Area audience. You'd
         | want to say something like "erasing representation to avoid
         | confronting racism".
        
       | 1024core wrote:
       | I'd like that on my tombstone....
        
         | ozzmotik wrote:
         | i know a good engraver.
        
         | im3w1l wrote:
         | 200 years from now someone wonders who you were simping for.
        
       | nashashmi wrote:
       | (meta) the site is a dream. It can be browsed without css/js.
        
       | pictureofabear wrote:
       | That was a nice read. Thanks for posting!
        
       | hkt wrote:
       | I've never felt as seen as when I read that title
        
       | tony_cannistra wrote:
       | Very interesting interview, but aside from that - what a true joy
       | to read an article with so many words I'd never even _seen_
       | before!
        
       | wolverine876 wrote:
       | _In a long true account of a dust-up at a restaurant in old
       | Austin, not new Austin, a Black man on my roofing crew came to my
       | defense and knocked out a white restaurant manager, who was at
       | the moment presuming to assault me. Willie had noticed that the
       | manager had Black back-up and felt I should too. "Old Padge need
       | him some brothers too," he would explain later.
       | 
       | The piece was essentially a portrait of a hero, Willie Ebert
       | Brown, in a terrain of racial relations that had hope in it. The
       | sentence that announced the Black back-up for the manager was
       | this: "A sturdy-looking Black guy came out of the kitchen." This
       | is choice low fruit for a sensitivity editor. "Objectifying
       | description," she wrote, "that may invoke associations with
       | slavery."
       | 
       | I should have desisted publishing the book, but I am a chicken-
       | shit person and I really wanted a book with a beautiful photo of
       | an indigo snake on its cover. My celebration of Willie was thrown
       | out; my invocation of slavery (to which who objects, its
       | absurdity aside?) was one of a hundred other crimes in the piece.
       | Liberal racism had its way: remove racism by removing race.
       | 
       | There is not a person of color in my book except a very positive
       | small tribute to Barack Obama as a tool by which we might argue
       | the French can slow their roll about how racist we are and they
       | aren't. How that was not deemed racist is a wonder, because it
       | somewhat is. It's not a wonder: liberal racism is a photo-
       | negative argument. I apologize for this rant. Chicken-shit and
       | now tired too._
       | 
       | Snark is a signal of cheap argument: They have nothing more
       | serious to say; they are signaling that there is a bandwagon and
       | you can join in, rather than a serious argument that you can
       | engage and reason with - just grab a drink and hop aboard! Don't
       | spoil the party!
       | 
       | Chicken-shit indeed: It's very easy these days to preach to the
       | choir, white people jumping on the anti-antiracism bandwagon,
       | because they can deny and ignore racism's effects without
       | personal consequence (including that it's not socially acceptable
       | and even encouraged), and tiring of dealing with race (if white
       | people tire of it, just imagine black people who can't avoid or
       | ignore it).
       | 
       | Instead of cutting the story, how about a description of the
       | kitchen-worker as more than "Black" (though we don't get to see
       | the original; maybe that's already there). Instead of snark, how
       | about an examination of what the editor meant, what aspects were
       | racism to what degree? So sorry for tiring you.
        
         | adamisom wrote:
         | >Snark is a signal of cheap argument: They have nothing more
         | serious to say
         | 
         | They may well have something more serious to say, and it
         | doesn't imply a weak argument in itself. I think it's fair to
         | say the author does have something more serious to say; the
         | question, really, is do you. All you've done is reduced the OP
         | to the same tired discourse, and proclaimed which side you're
         | on, but you know, there really is more to the linked essay than
         | that.
        
         | hprotagonist wrote:
         | > Snark is a signal of cheap argument: They have nothing more
         | serious to say;
         | 
         | and the traditional riposte as shown here is smarm:
         | https://web.archive.org/web/20131207011820/https://gawker.co...
         | 
         |  _What is this defining feature of our times? What is snark
         | reacting to?
         | 
         | It is reacting to smarm.
         | 
         | What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance--an
         | assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of
         | constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned
         | with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.
         | 
         | Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why,
         | smarm asks, can't everyone just be nicer?_
         | 
         | The existence of a "sensitivity editor" more or less defines
         | smarm, so the reaction is fairly natural.
        
       | roughly wrote:
       | > I received an email from a colleague who wanted me to talk to
       | the Dean that opened, "Is it time for us to have a chat with the
       | dean? Are we remembering what was promised us, last spring, at
       | lunch? Are we going to let history repeat itself?" I suffered
       | pique at this and wrote back, "Are your emotions pure? Are your
       | nerves adjustable? How do you stand in relation to the potato?
       | Should it still be Constantinople?"
       | 
       | Lord, this paragraph gave me life. This is why we need Academia -
       | somewhere needs be a shelter for the people with both the wit to
       | write this response and the job security to actually send it, if
       | only to provide the rest of us with the solace of knowing it
       | exists.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-24 23:00 UTC)