"She also endorsed Trilling’s understanding of literature as a moral enterprise especially aimed at teaching us personal virtues — 'discrimination, receptiveness, patience, magnanimity,' as Scialabba puts it — rather than more obviously public-minded virtues like justice or equality."
This view of literature is preposterous, as great writers from Shakespeare and forward and back through history can attest. If Rothfeld did not disavow this virtually illiterate notion and sentiment, this lobotomized propaganda, she should. By this view, Uncle Tom's Cabin is not literature, Les Misérables is not literature, Jonathan Swift did not write literature, antiwar novels are not literature, countless political multicultural novels are not literature. Might as well say the canon is not literature - certainly not the most liberatory moments, parts, and books.
The Trilling effect is highly political. He was a Cold Warrior propagandist in literature. One of the most central. A retrograde figure of literary repression and the highly politicized literary establishment. This establishment liberal view of Trilling is now very Trumpist, with still significant support among some establishment liberals today.
Without having read the essay collection, it seems to me that it’s exclusion of Sanctimony Literature was a good choice, because in doing so the author can make a positive argument: that here is the personal, visceral and true, and it is not (or doesn’t have to be) political. Inclusion of a capstone against the invasion of politics into everything would turn it into just another negatively valence argument for what you cannot do.
Does what a review is supposed to. I only knew Rothfeld from the occasional (and occasionally misguided) essay in The Point, and recent Substack mudslinging, but I’m intrigued enough to order this book.
Sounds like some liberal-centrist horseshit to me - there’s literally never been any problem in reconciling these individual enjoyments with social and economic equity. Ask the Italian communists about that.
Given the hugely establishment vibes this Rothfeld character gives off (staff nonfiction critic for the Washington Post, National Book Critics circle and so on) I suspect it’s really all about saying I need my skim so I can live the good life and my boss Jeff Bezos needs it too, only more so. Her deep concern about social equality doesn’t extend to resigning or even protesting as WaPo goes full oligarch under the Bezos diktat.
Well here's a good one from TMR. I have greatly enjoyed Rothfeld's reviews but have not delved into other essays and am not sure whether I feel a need to, but good to know they're out there being weird and unruly even if seemingly totally addled on "mindfulness" as distinguished from corporate buzzword versus spiritual exercise (and totally missing the point on what being "present" really means for thinking).
What a wonderful piece. I am excited to read the book, and learned so much about myself through my reactions to your review.
"She also endorsed Trilling’s understanding of literature as a moral enterprise especially aimed at teaching us personal virtues — 'discrimination, receptiveness, patience, magnanimity,' as Scialabba puts it — rather than more obviously public-minded virtues like justice or equality."
This view of literature is preposterous, as great writers from Shakespeare and forward and back through history can attest. If Rothfeld did not disavow this virtually illiterate notion and sentiment, this lobotomized propaganda, she should. By this view, Uncle Tom's Cabin is not literature, Les Misérables is not literature, Jonathan Swift did not write literature, antiwar novels are not literature, countless political multicultural novels are not literature. Might as well say the canon is not literature - certainly not the most liberatory moments, parts, and books.
The Trilling effect is highly political. He was a Cold Warrior propagandist in literature. One of the most central. A retrograde figure of literary repression and the highly politicized literary establishment. This establishment liberal view of Trilling is now very Trumpist, with still significant support among some establishment liberals today.
Without having read the essay collection, it seems to me that it’s exclusion of Sanctimony Literature was a good choice, because in doing so the author can make a positive argument: that here is the personal, visceral and true, and it is not (or doesn’t have to be) political. Inclusion of a capstone against the invasion of politics into everything would turn it into just another negatively valence argument for what you cannot do.
I would love to learn more about Becca Rothfeld's marriage, especially since it is an important aspect of your favorite essay in the book.
A superb piece of writing Julius.
Does what a review is supposed to. I only knew Rothfeld from the occasional (and occasionally misguided) essay in The Point, and recent Substack mudslinging, but I’m intrigued enough to order this book.
One of the best pieces I’ve read about Rothfeld, who I think is a terrific young critic and thinker.
Sounds like some liberal-centrist horseshit to me - there’s literally never been any problem in reconciling these individual enjoyments with social and economic equity. Ask the Italian communists about that.
Given the hugely establishment vibes this Rothfeld character gives off (staff nonfiction critic for the Washington Post, National Book Critics circle and so on) I suspect it’s really all about saying I need my skim so I can live the good life and my boss Jeff Bezos needs it too, only more so. Her deep concern about social equality doesn’t extend to resigning or even protesting as WaPo goes full oligarch under the Bezos diktat.
Well here's a good one from TMR. I have greatly enjoyed Rothfeld's reviews but have not delved into other essays and am not sure whether I feel a need to, but good to know they're out there being weird and unruly even if seemingly totally addled on "mindfulness" as distinguished from corporate buzzword versus spiritual exercise (and totally missing the point on what being "present" really means for thinking).