Pisha

I miss him. We could all do with some more hatred for mainstream popular culture. Otherwise, what's even the point of being a communist?

If I had some time, I'd try and find out where our "common sense" notions of art come from. Like art being subjective, which is taken to mean that it is something like a kaleidoscope where no two people can be sure to see the same thing in it and every statement about it is just based on fleeting, un-shareable impressions. Obviously that's nonsense, but if you try debating people on the internet over whether something is well-written or if it negotiates a certain theme, they bring out clichés like this. Or the idea that art is produced by an individual in a semi-mystic, almost unconscious act which broods no further analysis or introspection – though just as often you see this as a strawman attributed to an author's opponents. In any case, I assure you that no notable Romantic ever believed this and that the concept of "genius" has never meant this in any serious author. These are just common sense clichés that come from nowhere and are seemingly everywhere.

I was about to say that this account cannot be real, it's obviously fake for hitting so many stereotypes and controversies at once, and then I saw that she's posting videos and everything. Sometimes reality is crueler than our imagination.

The Matrix chat is already going so strong that Element is unable to display all new messages after a few hours lol

Here's a kind of sweet and sour tofu that's easy and I find tasty

Someone I followed on Twitter once joked about starting the "Transsexual Review of Books" and I keep thinking that should be a real thing so that the idea of trans literature could become institutionalized (and so we no longer have to search in the most desperate places for any intelligent discussion, obviously).

I hate you for showing this to me

The idea of "chat rooms" is strange and new to me, personally, but I'm trying it out now.

Yeah, Malcolm Harris is correct that both of these "sides" are terribly unconvincing and unhelpful, while Marxism provides resources for thinking about art as a commodity and as something that resists commodification (dialectics!). I just think that one could press Lorentzen harder on the disparity between the ideals he espouses and his lack of literary and theoretical sophistication.

This is maybe a bit inside baseball, but Christian Lorentzen's review essay about some recent sociological books about literature production is upsetting me. This is because he's aiming at the right issue, which is that these books follow a reductive, cynical and capitalist theory of literature under the guise of empiricism, but what he puts up against that is just nostalgia for mediocre post-war "intellectuals" and second-rate romanticism. Like, he states that publishers consume literature instead of producing it (because novels apparently just spring fully-formed from the secret source of writers) – how naive is that! And his whole pose of defending intellectualism from the cynical rationality of career academics rings hollow to me when he's putting CIA-funded antisemites on a pedestal while writing a Substack on the side. You can't act like you're defending literature from the vagaries of our times when your political analysis is that blind. Basically, he's a smug git and I never want to hear from him again.

There's a new essay of literary criticism making the rounds. I'm upset about it because I think it's very bad and I don't know what to do about that

Once again Substack provides space and publicity for the meanest kind of Internet bigotry. I don't know why anyone would want their writings to appear next to this trash.