I also think your diagnosis of Nelson of hedging to play politician is 100% correct, and feel mildly ashamed (but not too much—it's useful) to recognize myself doing the same in my writing, conversations, statements, etc; uncharitably far-reaching "America bad" statements and all.
I don't think this is just a left-wing thing, because I do it equally when talking to folks on my right—I'm thinking of Scott Alexander's advice for nonfiction writing, point #7: "Figure out who you’re trying to convince, then use the right tribal signals": https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/
I have literally never been more excited for a post & this did not disappoint!
One thing I’m curious about, as someone who’s never seriously studied literature (RIP): what does it mean for a work or approach or sensibility to be “novelistic”?
I think I'm probably over-indexed on Kundera's theory of the novel, which is something like: the novel is the "polyphonic" (meaning: genre mixing, formally recombinant) genre in which "the nature of (human existence)" is explored without judgment. Elements of this include phenomena like "irony," as opposed to satire or mockery; ambiguity, as opposed to either morality tales or nihilism; psychology / phenomenology as an orientation; etc.
The novel is "the realm where [moral] judgment is suspended," where we find ourselves sympathizing with and even "pulling for" literal murderers like Raskolnikov, simply because we know their interiority, know them as we know ourselves. It's the art form most devoted to irreducibility.
Obviously many novels are not like this, but he ignores bad novels / bad novelists and makes a decent case that what makes the novel unique is this immersion in the individual (even in novels which are very much about communities, traditions, the spiritus mundi, etc.). I'm doing him a disservice in this summary; "Testaments Betrayed" is the best thing to read for a better view, and it's also just a total banger!
I also think your diagnosis of Nelson of hedging to play politician is 100% correct, and feel mildly ashamed (but not too much—it's useful) to recognize myself doing the same in my writing, conversations, statements, etc; uncharitably far-reaching "America bad" statements and all.
I don't think this is just a left-wing thing, because I do it equally when talking to folks on my right—I'm thinking of Scott Alexander's advice for nonfiction writing, point #7: "Figure out who you’re trying to convince, then use the right tribal signals": https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/
I have literally never been more excited for a post & this did not disappoint!
One thing I’m curious about, as someone who’s never seriously studied literature (RIP): what does it mean for a work or approach or sensibility to be “novelistic”?
I think I'm probably over-indexed on Kundera's theory of the novel, which is something like: the novel is the "polyphonic" (meaning: genre mixing, formally recombinant) genre in which "the nature of (human existence)" is explored without judgment. Elements of this include phenomena like "irony," as opposed to satire or mockery; ambiguity, as opposed to either morality tales or nihilism; psychology / phenomenology as an orientation; etc.
The novel is "the realm where [moral] judgment is suspended," where we find ourselves sympathizing with and even "pulling for" literal murderers like Raskolnikov, simply because we know their interiority, know them as we know ourselves. It's the art form most devoted to irreducibility.
Obviously many novels are not like this, but he ignores bad novels / bad novelists and makes a decent case that what makes the novel unique is this immersion in the individual (even in novels which are very much about communities, traditions, the spiritus mundi, etc.). I'm doing him a disservice in this summary; "Testaments Betrayed" is the best thing to read for a better view, and it's also just a total banger!
I need to read Kundera!!