Read Kit Wilson in Portico on Leszek Kołakowski. As Wilson observes, it is hard to grasp why Kołakowski’s name and influence have waned in the years following his death. A revival is in order.
Read Kit Wilson in Portico on Leszek Kołakowski. As Wilson observes, it is hard to grasp why Kołakowski’s name and influence have waned in the years following his death. A revival is in order.
I learned a lot reading Dale Coulter’s eulogy for postliberal theology. I had no idea about some of the sociopolitical antecedents in the 1970s.
Dan Hitchens bids farewell to Douthat, as does Bill McCormick, SJ, while Massimo Faggioli once more elevates lack of charity into a kind of performance art.
Douthat bids farewell to his side hustle as film critic for NR. He writes:
But over time, in spite of my resolution to stay positive, decline and decadence would become signal themes. The great superhero takeover of Hollywood began early in my run as a critic, and by the time we reached the days of Ant-Man and the Wasp, only a true philistine could deny that the comic-book era had changed Hollywood for the worse. So did the shuttered cinemas of the Covid-19 era, the reign of wokeness (whose clearest negative effects were manifest in children’s movies, which as a parent I took personally), the streaming-era migration of talent to the small screen, the fateful lure of smartphone scrolling, and the decline of the dating and socializing that once had made the movie theater a hub.
Living through cultural decline can take a writer to dark places. In last month’s issue, I reviewed David Thomson’s recent history of the movies, a kind of valedictory for his career as a critic — one far more distinguished than my own — in which he reads his own pessimism about the American present back into the motion-picture past and wonders whether the art had been corrupted and corrupting from the start.
I respect Thomson, but I reject this view. The waning of Hollywood’s creative spirit, the triumph of the blockbuster sequel over the epic and the romance and the comedy, is worth lamenting precisely because it represents a fall from the greatest heights of American popular art. The motion picture has been as essential to the American age as the novel was to the Victorians or the Homeric epic to the Greeks. And today, in what often feels like their autumn, movies still burst with colors that make other forms of pop culture look gray or wan by comparison.
Just in the past year, we’ve seen certain movies seize hold of the discourse in a way that no video game or YouTube short or podcast can ever hope to match.
Read Paul Griffiths on the bloody certitudes of Omri Boehm. (See the rest of the symposium in Commonweal, too.)
Read B. D. McClay on the Talking Page and “yesterday’s university of tomorrow." Put me in mind of Audrey Watters' wonderful book on teaching machines.
Over on the proper blog I shared big news about my next book: the title, the cover, the pub date, and more than a dozen endorsements ranging from John Mark Comer and Andy Crouch to Tish Harrison Warren and Russell Moore to Alan Jacobs and Sara Hendren to Audrey Watters and L. M. Sacasas. Go check it out! (And pre-order today!)
For Comment I wrote about my pilgrimage to France earlier this summer.
Tyler Cowen excerpts Peter Gray on children and smartphones. I’ll have to read the book, but the reason I am skeptical of these “anti–moral panic” responses to Haidt et al is that they work from a strange premise: If empirical studies cannot demonstrate that smartphones and/or social media are a mega-mono-cause for child and teen suffering (esp. mental health but other areas as well), then it necessarily follows that we need not be particularly worried about them, they must not be doing much harm, and we ought simply to find a proper use for them. As Gray writes:
Future research should focus on understanding better the ways teens use these tools and how to help them maximize the benefits and minimize the harm.
But why should we make this assumption? We don’t need smartphones or social media to be the mega-mono-cause of anything to see with our own eyes how they are affecting young people. Why treat them as “merely” a neutral tool? Why not still go ahead and restrict them to adults? The burden of proof is on those who presuppose their teen use, not on those who are cautious about a global generational experiment.
Despite the “debunking” subhead, this is a usefully dispassionate, empirical approach to the question of a literacy crisis.
L. M. Sacasas, “AI as Christian Heresy”:
Discussions around the human in relation to technology, specifically AI, parallel older debates about science and religion. In that discursive context, there was a form of argument known as “God of the gaps.” The idea was that God was simply a name for the gaps in our scientific understanding of the world. Of course, once those gaps were filled, God would be effectively squeezed out of the metaphysical picture. Similarly, we are operating with a “human of the gaps” model when we try to locate the essence of the human creature by pointing to what cannot yet be accomplished by a machine, whether these be matters of physical prowess, cognitive ability, or creativity. Such an approach to the human is misguided, just as it was when it was applied to God.
It had been a while, so I rewatched O Brother, Where Art Thou?
And Alastair Roberts is right: If you’re looking for a truly Christian, ingenious interpretation of Homer’s Odyssey, it’s not Nolan you’re seeking. It’s the Coen brothers.
You keep using that word. I do not think, etc.
Two Compact essays by Nathan Pinkoski: one with a sharp descriptive analysis of the return of ethnic politics in the U.K.; another with a deflating and unpersuasive recommendation for conservative popular culture-making in America.
“Somewheres, Everywheres, and Elsewheres” will stick with me. A patriotic Disney World will not.
Michael Tracey explains how podcasts ruined America. Exactly five years ago I wrote, “Quit podcasts." I did, for a year or two. It was a good thing to do. I came back, but I’m not sure I was wrong. Tracey’s point stands even if some pods are worth listening to.
I’m partial to Dwight Macdonald, and I enjoyed this tribute to him via a new collection of his political essays.
Read Jay Caspian Kang on the enrollment cliff.
I found MBD’s three posts on the common good, arguing against his colleagues at NR, an enthralling read.
Per usual, ditto this MLA screed against incorporating AI into teaching and education.
I enjoyed Samuel James’s double-post on Nolan and Gen Z’s “buffered” communication style.
Klein’s read of Nolan’s adaptation is, like French’s, just too didactic and on the nose. It’s worthwhile to attempt to make the familiar strange, by making neighbor-love exotic, but the message is rammed home so solemnly and explicitly that the result is conventional, not radical.
Read Scialabba on the kind of work Graeber was wrong about.
On the blog I wrote about the future tense of the AI-pilled.
Clever meta-take from Douthat. I’ll miss him when he’s at 60 Minutes.
I hope he doesn’t forget how to type the way Bill Simmons did. I like writers to stay writers!
How is it possible that no one knows how to make an IMAX camera anymore, including IMAX?