I have never been a fan of writers who consider themselves erudite thinkers, although I rather like reading writers who actually are and never refer to themselves as such.
David Brooks comes to mind, and his column in the New York Times yesterday is a case in point. He says that he makes a daily check of a blog which is "famous for its erudite authors." Oh boy. He then cites an example of their erudition, which he said was "fantastical but thought-provoking." Omigod. Do I really want to read the rest of the column? Do I really want to know what the "fantastical but thought-provoking" erudite thought was?
Well, the thought was, "What would happen if a freak solar event sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?" Not killed; sterilized.
His thoughts (thoughts?) on the subject answered the other question; no, I did not want to read the rest of the column. It sounded like the ramblings of a college sophomore at 4am after he'd been smoking pot all night. Maybe a high school sophomore. After about three paragraphs I started skimming, and I think he was skimming something when he wrote it, too.
And this was in the Gray Lady, Opinion section.
I'm Bill, the loyal MR reader who posed the question. It may pain you to find out I'm in the MBA program at KU. It has been interesting to see this rather silly thought experiment blow up and provoke intense response.ReplyDelete