Audiobooks

[version]

Yeah I think this is the major thing. Probably the main thing to mourn.

There seem to be a lot of readers demanding to see themselves in any given novel, who can't stomach an unpleasant protagonist or any deviation from their moral framework. I've seen God knows how many reviews on Goodreads and Reddit where a book's dismissed because the reviewer felt a character behaved immorally or didn't get their comeuppance or was "unrelatable".

 

[sus]

I think people who are concerned about the decline of the novel should say very specifically which sorts of people are going to be missing out on which sorts of insights or experiences.

Shaka said novels are good empathy machines and I agree, I think everyone should read at least six high empathy books in their lifetimes.

 

[version]

I think people who are concerned about the decline of the novel should say very specifically which sorts of people are going to be missing out on which sorts of insights or experiences.

Shaka said novels are good empathy machines and I agree, I think everyone should read at least six high empathy books in their lifetimes.

What would be an example of a high empathy book?

 

[sus]

The Giver. Grapes of Wrath

 

[sus]

Actually I havent read either of those since I was 13 so I have no idea if they're empathetic

 

[version]

I think it's difficult to define. There are books I've found very moving and where I've felt I've really gotten to know a character or another perspective, but which I'm not sure others would describe as high empathy, or perhaps empathetic at all.

 

[sus]

I've successfully caused a power outage in a small Italian town

 

[sus]

Knausgaards My Struggle is very good for getting in someone's mind. Austen's Emma.

 

[version]

I've successfully caused a power outage in a small Italian town

 

[version]

Actually I havent read either of those since I was 13 so I have no idea if they're empathetic

Perhaps any good book should be empathetic, otherwise what's the point?

 

[sus]

OK so yes there are always losses

But I feel like the default stance, on this board and in the leftist counterculture (humanities culture!!) generally, is always a lowercase-c conservative assumption that change is for the worse, and that the current status quo is simultaneously the worst it's ever been and also a sacred way of life that needs preserving

 

[sus]

No one ever goes, Here are the great things about dematerialization! Here are the great things about music in the 2020s! Here's what's exciting about podcasts! People begrudgingly move forward, into the future, yet under the belief that everything is for the worse. It's very strange, because if it really was worse, it's not very hard to opt out, but no, we say, Oh Facebook is terrible, I don't read anymore. As if we lack even the willpower to decide what we do with our evening leisure time.

This conservatism is background assumption behind nearly all discourse on this board and it's one of the reasons Ghost and I get frustrated, as people who believe that science and technology solve problems, and not just create them.

We don't all have to be transhumanists like Stan but maybe we could be slightly more openminded.

 

[sus]

For instance, Patty's posted like three times in the last twenty-four hours some disclaimer like, "Being shiny isn't what it used to be" (because Elon Musk and other technocrats are wealthy) or "Nobody takes artistic risks anymore" (like Dylan did).

Now, I've been having a nice time chatting with Patty today and I certainly don't want to upset that with dissensus but, why do we seem to instinctually believe this? Shouldn't we be a little suspicious? Or at least openminded about how the past was, given we weren't around to experience it? Given that it comes to us from... Movies? Nostalgic Boomers? Cherrypicked (self-)mythologizing from the artists and writers of the past?

 

[sus]

Technology invented before our time is good and proper. Technology invented while we're alive imperils the human spirit.

Culture from our teen years—or from our parents' teen years—was the best culture that's ever existed, and everything's downhill from there.

Either these are terrific coincidences, or—as is borne out in written testimony from time immemorial—this is always how people feel about change.

At the very least it seems like we should be very skeptical of our personal feelings, when it comes to judging the trendlines of contemporary history.

 

[version]

... it's not very hard to opt out, but no, we say, Oh Facebook is terrible, I don't read anymore. As if we lack even the willpower to decide what we do with our evening leisure time.

I don't think it's the individual opting out that's difficult for people as much as the isolation that comes with it. You hear of someone ditching social media and essentially disappearing from the minds of their friends as a result. It's like the nuclear disarmament argument of it being no good if you're the only one who disarms.

For instance, Patty's posted like three times in the last twenty-four hours some disclaimer like, "Being shiny isn't what it used to be" (because Elon Musk and other technocrats are wealthy) or "Nobody takes artistic risks anymore" (like Dylan did).

Now, I've been having a nice time chatting with Patty today and I certainly don't want to upset that with dissensus but, why do we seem to instinctually believe this? Shouldn't we be a little suspicious? Or at least openminded about how the past was, given we weren't around to experience it? Given that it comes to us from... Movies? Nostalgic Boomers? Cherrypicked (self-)mythologizing from the artists and writers of the past?

You'll have to provide some examples of risks taken by currently working artists here.

 

[sus]

Culture from our teen years—or from our parents' teen years—was the best culture that's ever existed, and everything's downhill from there.

I think cheeze was supreme. All downhill after that tho i did have a go of some stardog last week at a reggae thing and i did really like it

 

[sus]

You'll have to provide some examples of risks taken by currently working artists here.

That's easy. I'm the most risktaking formally innovative writer in the English language of alltime

 

[luka]

I just was positive about stardog. Bad example.

 

[jenks]

Is your job in jeopardy? I'm very sorry to hear that

Well, it will be if numbers of those choosing to study Literature beyond the age of 15 continue to decline as is very much the current situation.

 

[pattycakes_]

For instance, Patty's posted like three times in the last twenty-four hours some disclaimer like, "Being shiny isn't what it used to be" (because Elon Musk and other technocrats are wealthy) or "Nobody takes artistic risks anymore" (like Dylan did).

Now, I've been having a nice time chatting with Patty today and I certainly don't want to upset that with dissensus but, why do we seem to instinctually believe this? Shouldn't we be a little suspicious? Or at least openminded about how the past was, given we weren't around to experience it? Given that it comes to us from... Movies? Nostalgic Boomers? Cherrypicked (self-)mythologizing from the artists and writers of the past?

Take off the kid gloves sus. The stuff I said earlier wasn't a call to softness. It was a call to being more productive on here. Contradict. Prove me wrong. All gravy. Me and you have had similar disagreements before and I feel like it boils down to a question of you being born and raised within the internet age, and me being born and raised in the time before that. No amount of research or video essays are going to truly capture what those two distinct eras feel like in comparison. I'm not saying you're clueless or anything, but man, the amount of actual radical, revolutionary, mind bending, new shit that was coming out on the regular... And I was only there at the arse end of it all, just doesn't compare to now. No tech stuff grabs you in that same visceral way. I understand that you want there to be something on that level, I do too, but that desire tends to lead us into magical thinking which is a major epidemic throughout culture right now. Music journalists are faking the funk because they have to. Fake enthusiasm. Look at fucking Zane Lowe. Car salesmen at this point. The artists all play along and the audience plays it's role. Total Schauspiel. What it is now, in comparison to 30 years ago is just like, are you having a giraffe? It's magical thinking in that it's a desire to believe rather than just knowing because it simply is. There's no need to feign anything when it's real. I know what it feels like to literally have my mind blown by something that just came out. Like donkey kicked in the fucking skull. The same receptors are there, as they were back then, in me waiting to be activated. It simply doesn't happen anymore. And I'm not talking about nerd style Elon doing his feeble little leaps on stage about a fucking flame thrower or some new iPhone drop all tarted up as major cultural event. I'm talking about having your fucking head ripped off by another human who's done something so far out that all you can do is let your body take over and get the fuck into it. Whatever it may be. That requires a type of human who has more or less been eradicated. Even the ones who used to do it have been neutralized. Some weird shit has happened to us. It's gonna take some proper freaks to break us out.