D. G. Myers, literary critic for the neoconservative magazine Commentary, has taken a swipe at the "useful idiots" of Occupy Writers. It's the usual sort of criticism by copy-and-paste, without a trace of context and with a fair amount of plain ol' rhetorical card-palming.
He starts by positing Nabokov as a model of a writer, as someone who has never "signed, nor ever shall sign, anything not written by myself.” Actually, this statement comes from one of Nabokov's characters. Myers uses the quote to suggest a "Nabokov-like refusal" to...what? Sign on with anything political at all is the suggestion, but that isn't the truth. Myers doesn't point out the well-known: Nabokov was actually quite political, a conservative who called himself a classical liberal, and was pleased to write letters to the President in support of the Vietnam War. (You know, like a classical liberal generally wouldn't do.)
Myers's actual complaint is that liberal writers are liberal, and worse, liberals in support of "fringe movement of radical leftist ideologues". To bolster this claim, Myers points to some dubious polling. Quick, how does one get a random sample from live on-the-street political polling of a population that literally holds up signs declaring their politics? It would be easy enough, either consciously or subconsciously, to avoid the people holding up "End the Fed" signs (often right-wing Paulites) or who were dressed in a suit, and to find the people waving signs festooned with hammers and sickles. The poll link is worth reading, as the pollster expresses surprise and confusion over the notion that most Occupiers would engage in civil disobedience (of course they would, they already are) and that most of them are also employed.
Myers also goes for the shell game of conflating anti-Semitic infiltrators with the core of Occupy Wall Street, though his own magazine hastened to note on the subject of the movement [t]hat’s not to say the Occupy Wall Street movement itself is anti-Semitic. Myers trots this out because the main target of his ire is Francine Prose, who is Jewish, and about whom he wrote positively in the past. "I may have to resign my office as president of the Francine Prose Fan Club," Myers complains now. There writers go again, having non-Myers approved opinions. Or was it simply having opinions at all? Ah, of course not. But any critic who changes his opinions of an author's work based on an author's political position isn't a critic at all. I suppose that's why Myers is marking time at a small neocon rag these days.
Myers also attacks the writers on the list in general as the "social register of the current literary elite", which would surprise that hell out of anyone who actually read the list. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm on the list, as are a couple of my LJ friends. I'm about as elite as any other former term-paper artist. Myers likes to imagine a small cadre of real writers who "refuse" to sign on to the list, but in fact the list is just a URL that was passed around via blogs and twitter, and that is open to anyone with a published book. But as Myers is stuck with the idea of liberalism as necessarily coercive, he can't imagine people just freely signing up, or not. He also needs to hammer home the idea of an evil elite, and for that requires an imaginary oppressed population of writers.
The bugaboo of a liberal elite comes up again with target number two—Laura Miller of Salon. Miller wrote that current crop of National Book Award nominees were part of an "ever-broadening cultural gap between the literary community and the reading public." Myers himself claims that the NBA nominees are "obscure and politicized", which simply shows that Myers doesn't actually follow literary news. The Tiger's Wife has sold over 75,000 copies in hardcover and has been widely discussed since its release in March. As far as the other books, two are from small presses—apparently print runs in the four digits are a symbol of "elite" status now—and those are about the First World War (The Sojourn, which is politicized because it is apparently against continent-rending wars) and a wide-ranging short story collection.
Myers makes like he agrees with Miller, then castigates her, saying that she then "went ahead and signed the oath in support of the 'Occupy Movement.'" Well, why wouldn't she? Her piece on the NBA wasn't about wasn't about the "politics" of the finalists in the slightest. He literally read something that wasn't there. He manufactured a theme for Miller, then complained when she didn't live by it. That's especially amusing as Myers has been whining for years that conservatives do not attribute unstated views to those they oppose in his frequent rants against the "left."
Finally, Myers quotes some idiot from the National Review, who writes "Being on the left means that you divide the world between rich and poor much more than you divide it between good and evil. For the leftist, the existence of rich and poor — inequality — is what constitutes evil." Wait wait, what was that about dividing the world in some fatuous manner? Oh yes. No wonder the criticism rang a bell. Myers concludes by conflating freedom of association—including the freedom to sign a petition—with the fictional tyranny of Ekwilism, which involved arrests and state oppression. It's not even a good card palm. Like many people without a real argument, Myers can only claim that political difference is the result of some sort of force or coercion. Luckily, when it comes to my political opponents, all I need do is point out how stupid they are.
ETA: Gosh, what do you know, I was right about the pollster—turns out only 4% of those surveyed—eight people—want a "radical redistribution" of wealth. Two more people, for a grand total of ten, actually suggested that a flat tax be pursued. Outside of Jerry Brown's 1992 flirtation with flat taxation (including on investment income) during his attempt at the presidency, that's a position generally found among the right wing.
He starts by positing Nabokov as a model of a writer, as someone who has never "signed, nor ever shall sign, anything not written by myself.” Actually, this statement comes from one of Nabokov's characters. Myers uses the quote to suggest a "Nabokov-like refusal" to...what? Sign on with anything political at all is the suggestion, but that isn't the truth. Myers doesn't point out the well-known: Nabokov was actually quite political, a conservative who called himself a classical liberal, and was pleased to write letters to the President in support of the Vietnam War. (You know, like a classical liberal generally wouldn't do.)
Myers's actual complaint is that liberal writers are liberal, and worse, liberals in support of "fringe movement of radical leftist ideologues". To bolster this claim, Myers points to some dubious polling. Quick, how does one get a random sample from live on-the-street political polling of a population that literally holds up signs declaring their politics? It would be easy enough, either consciously or subconsciously, to avoid the people holding up "End the Fed" signs (often right-wing Paulites) or who were dressed in a suit, and to find the people waving signs festooned with hammers and sickles. The poll link is worth reading, as the pollster expresses surprise and confusion over the notion that most Occupiers would engage in civil disobedience (of course they would, they already are) and that most of them are also employed.
Myers also goes for the shell game of conflating anti-Semitic infiltrators with the core of Occupy Wall Street, though his own magazine hastened to note on the subject of the movement [t]hat’s not to say the Occupy Wall Street movement itself is anti-Semitic. Myers trots this out because the main target of his ire is Francine Prose, who is Jewish, and about whom he wrote positively in the past. "I may have to resign my office as president of the Francine Prose Fan Club," Myers complains now. There writers go again, having non-Myers approved opinions. Or was it simply having opinions at all? Ah, of course not. But any critic who changes his opinions of an author's work based on an author's political position isn't a critic at all. I suppose that's why Myers is marking time at a small neocon rag these days.
Myers also attacks the writers on the list in general as the "social register of the current literary elite", which would surprise that hell out of anyone who actually read the list. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm on the list, as are a couple of my LJ friends. I'm about as elite as any other former term-paper artist. Myers likes to imagine a small cadre of real writers who "refuse" to sign on to the list, but in fact the list is just a URL that was passed around via blogs and twitter, and that is open to anyone with a published book. But as Myers is stuck with the idea of liberalism as necessarily coercive, he can't imagine people just freely signing up, or not. He also needs to hammer home the idea of an evil elite, and for that requires an imaginary oppressed population of writers.
The bugaboo of a liberal elite comes up again with target number two—Laura Miller of Salon. Miller wrote that current crop of National Book Award nominees were part of an "ever-broadening cultural gap between the literary community and the reading public." Myers himself claims that the NBA nominees are "obscure and politicized", which simply shows that Myers doesn't actually follow literary news. The Tiger's Wife has sold over 75,000 copies in hardcover and has been widely discussed since its release in March. As far as the other books, two are from small presses—apparently print runs in the four digits are a symbol of "elite" status now—and those are about the First World War (The Sojourn, which is politicized because it is apparently against continent-rending wars) and a wide-ranging short story collection.
Myers makes like he agrees with Miller, then castigates her, saying that she then "went ahead and signed the oath in support of the 'Occupy Movement.'" Well, why wouldn't she? Her piece on the NBA wasn't about wasn't about the "politics" of the finalists in the slightest. He literally read something that wasn't there. He manufactured a theme for Miller, then complained when she didn't live by it. That's especially amusing as Myers has been whining for years that conservatives do not attribute unstated views to those they oppose in his frequent rants against the "left."
Finally, Myers quotes some idiot from the National Review, who writes "Being on the left means that you divide the world between rich and poor much more than you divide it between good and evil. For the leftist, the existence of rich and poor — inequality — is what constitutes evil." Wait wait, what was that about dividing the world in some fatuous manner? Oh yes. No wonder the criticism rang a bell. Myers concludes by conflating freedom of association—including the freedom to sign a petition—with the fictional tyranny of Ekwilism, which involved arrests and state oppression. It's not even a good card palm. Like many people without a real argument, Myers can only claim that political difference is the result of some sort of force or coercion. Luckily, when it comes to my political opponents, all I need do is point out how stupid they are.
ETA: Gosh, what do you know, I was right about the pollster—turns out only 4% of those surveyed—eight people—want a "radical redistribution" of wealth. Two more people, for a grand total of ten, actually suggested that a flat tax be pursued. Outside of Jerry Brown's 1992 flirtation with flat taxation (including on investment income) during his attempt at the presidency, that's a position generally found among the right wing.