I Have Forgotten how to Read

An outstanding article by Michael Harris in the Globe and Mail.

Out for dinner with another writer, I said, "I think I've forgotten how to read."

"Yes!" he replied, pointing his knife. "Everybody has."

"No, really," I said. "I mean I actually can't do it any more."

He nodded: "Nobody can read like they used to. But nobody wants to talk about it."

For good reason. It's embarrassing. Especially for someone like me. I'm supposed to be an author – words are kind of my job. Without reading, I'm not sure who I am. So, it's been unnerving to realize: I have forgotten how to read – really read – and I've been refusing to talk about it out of pride.

What we'll have to look out for is how cynical – how efficient and ruthlessly algorithmic – that next thing is going to be. "A book," one author told me, "is really just a reverse-engineered TED Talk, right? It's a platform that lets you do a speaking tour."

For many writers, this is the new wisdom. A cynical style of reading gives way to a cynical style of writing. I've watched my own books become "useful" as they made their way into public conversation. I never meant them to be useful – in a self-help sense – but that was how they were often read. I say this with less reproach than surprise: Almost every interviewer has asked me for tips and practical life advice, despite the fact my books offer neither.

Preventing Stunted Conversations

Two interesting rules presented around 1:52 into Dave Rubin's interview with Brett and Eric Weinstein.

1. A very smart person saying something obvious should be assumed to be saying something subtle until proven otherwise.


2. An intelligent person who is saying something wrong should be assumed to be saying something counterintuitive until proven otherwise.

Now, how to identify "really smart" people?

Whatever happened to pork bellies?

I started wondering why you never hear about pork bellies anymore and thought maybe it's become some underrated investment with tons of potential. I found this article in the NY Times that explained what happened. It contains one hell of a paragraph:

Still, the demise of the futures means something else is really gone now, too — a unique belly culture and its hard-charging, daring cast of characters who, decades ago, made their fortunes in the high pressure of the belly pit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31porkbelly.html

Passion II

I'm not excited for Mel Gibson's sequel to the Passion of the the Christ.  Passion is much closer to being a bad movie than it is to being a great movie. I simply do not understand the following for this film. The most glaring problems are the lighting and the awkward scene when Jesus invents the kitchen table, but the entire thing is "off".

Also, Jim Caveziel is now too old for the role.

On the other hand, Gibson's Apocalypto is almost perfect. If he wants to go biblical he should do an old school sword & sandal movie with the action sensibilities of Apocalypto. I suggest a remake of The Robe from 1953, one of the few movies that ought to be remade but has been ignored in the remake era.

Pa Ingalls is a real jerk

Someone on facebag took one of those intrusive "which character are you" tests and came up as the Charles Ingalls. This touched a raw nerve and set me off:

Pa Ingalls is a loser. Ma should have traded him for an extra horse or a rifle and went back to the woods.

He moves his family away from the woods that have abundant resources and friends and family close by just because he likes to see wilder animals or needs to find himself or some nonsense. The family are nearly drowned crossing the frozen water as the ice breaks up less than 12 hours after they cross. He doesn't allow Jack in the wagon to ford the river so the girls think the dog drowned. His wife is seriously injured when she is forced to build the cabin. They are surrounded by wolves and he does absolutely nothing to scare them away or discourage them from holding the family prisoner in the cabin. He builds a chimney that almost kills his family while he is off in Independence doing who knows what. And why is he going to town all the damn time if he wanted to move away from people in the first place? He allows hostile Indians into the house and just watches as they steal his belongings. At least Jack has some damn sense and is protective of the house and family but Pa leaves him chained to the cabin 24/7 so as to not trouble the Indians! Then the Indians decide to massacre the family and terrorize them for days with their war drums. This wasn't some random kill the white people attack. Pa was such a jerk they had to have tribal council and really plan this thing. The Ingalls only survive by dumb luck when one Indian who happened to have some authority changed his mind at the last minute. But it would have been something like 200-1 if they put it to a vote. Shortly after this they have to abandon their homestead anyway and start over since U.S soldiers are coming to roust all the white settlers. That's when Pa decides to leave? He is so stubborn he thinks he's just going to hunker down and power through a war with the Indians but leaves before the soldiers even come to kick them out. I doubt the soldiers would have outright murdered them and would have been somewhat sympathetic but he doesn't even think about trying. Great year, thanks Pa.

DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism

I somehow missed this excellent essay until today:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism

"The question isn't just one of authentication and accountability, though those are important, but something more subtle. A voice should be sensed as a whole. You have to have a chance to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning"