A,B,C,D, how could someone who actually is deep, smart and lonely write an acceptable essay on being such? (Because you'll find a disproportionate number of just such individuals here on HN, because here, "we're all in it together".)

I should note that I'm the last person who could actually judge the merits of the essay, (although I enjoyed reading it). Joyce bemuses me particularly. I've gathered through observation that he's either the pseudo-intellectual rambler that all others defer to, or a literary genius beyond the ken of mortal man, but am humbled by the knowledge that I lack the instrumentation to make that distinction.

If you want constructive criticism, I could go after style. There was very little organization; this made it very difficult for a reader to tell where the author was going with the post. From the first few paragraphs, it does look like the author is going to talk about gods, and that's probably why it got flagged so quickly. If the purpose of the essay had been clear from the beginning (it's called an "introduction") then it may have not have been flagged.

And re: your D in high school, I can tell you why there was no more elaboration. Grading bad essays makes you want to shoot yourself and/or the writer in the face. And if an essay is as bad as a D, there are so many comments that you want to make that it's impossible to do so without spending several hours writing it up. At 60 students (the number I have this semester), that's an immense amount of time writing something that the vast majority of students won't read anyway. If they really care, they'll come talk to you about the essay. By then you'll hopefully be calm enough to prevent yourself from calling them morons.

It's much, much safer to write "disappointing."

Look: You're a teacher! Your goal is to save the people who are so shitty that they don't know what they're doing wrong. What you're doing is condemning them to further ignorance. If you can't stand that it'll take hours and hours to make a student learn something, stop teaching. There certainly are eager people waiting to take your place.

But no, instead you criticize the writing of somebody online like an arse, then you defend yourself with a series of vague accusations. No organization? It's broken up clearly into four parts, each led by a quote that illustrates the content of the section. The first quote discusses the nature of worship, preceding my discussing what it means to worship. I quote Joyce's excellent statement about what he requires of his readers to talk about what kind of demand I want art to place on me. I end that section with "These were my altars", then transition to a second Joyce quote to discuss what kinds of strain such an intended worship places on a person. Finally I end with the Mangum quote, which summarizes my concept of God as elaborated throughout the essay, and I conclude by writing about what the things I write about matter to me and, potentially, to other people.

You want an opening statement? First fucking paragraph. "I don’t treat the question as a polite necessity. When I ask it what I’m trying to get at is: Why are you alive? What’s your reason?" That's the central core of the essay, as stated in the opening. Hell, you can use the opening sentences of the opening quote — "Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship" — and use that equally well, because it works. I know it works, because I deliberately chose the quote to frame my piece, because I've spent a very fucking long time learning how to write, and the majority of the people who read the piece rather than skimmed it seemed to get it without complaint.

I mean, I guess here's the part where I'm supposed to get down and get you off because you're a professional grader-of-papers and your word goes without mandate, but regarding my writing you are wrong. Either you skimmed it and misinterpreted it or you were in a bitchy mood and decided to troll, but you're saying things about my writing that simply do not hold up. I'm not particularly surprised considering your stated attitude towards your students. I've had fuckface professors before, professors who were so certain of their intelligence that they'd gloss over students' work and forgive themselves. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're one of the fuckfaces. Just being a professor doesn't instantly give you a mandate in debate, particularly not when you're online, talking on a forum where I'm able to quote my criticized essay back at you and go point-for-point about how it's better and more logical and less jerk-offy than you want to say it is. Motherfucker, I grew up debating on the Internet. I learned how to form concise logical statements in writing before I was a high school freshman. Look at this comment in its entirety and there's a logical construct to it. If you're going to criticize me, go for my weaknesses. Don't suggest I don't know how to write a goddamn argument.

But I don't think that's worth it for you. I think you should bow out, apologize for being a douche — because you were a douche: You called out my paper for no reason other than to be a dick about something somebody else said they liked — and call it a night. Let's not start measuring our e-dicks, because all respect, my e-dick is something monstrous. Your tumblelog linked in your profile is a series of random-ass quotes and ramblings. Me, three times a week I sit down and write long essays about how I feel. And I don't submit them online places, I don't promote myself, because — apologies for the arrogance — apparently what I write is good enough for people I don't know to like. So my story was submitted here, and people upvoted it, and then when it was killed somebody cared enough to post comments complaining about it. I'm not raising a stink about myself, but I'm not going to let you be an ass about the work I do, not if I'm not being a cock about it and irritating you, not if you're only being an ass go get over whatever irritations you have about your job. So apologize, say you didn't mean to be an ass, and we'll smile and shake hands and not waste our time arguing with people we'll never meet, and it'll be cool. Or you can decide it's somehow worth insisting that you were right to be a fuckface, and I can take an hour of my free time to grind you, point by point, into the fucking dust, until you're forced to act like the troll you are.

When I get uppity, you're allowed to smack me down; but when I write something on a personal blog that means something to somebody, you are not allowed to slap them without me challenging you to a fight. I'm aware of my weaknesses and flaws; some other time you can point them out to me and I'll try and grow. But when somebody else innocently says they like my stuff, you will not use my writing as a prop for your own insecure bashings, or I'll take sides, and motherfucker, I play to win.

Nonsense. I read Ulysses cover to cover. I happily admit that I needed help to do it and understand what I was reading: I listened to the Ulysses series of lectures from The Teaching Company, and read the chapters as the professor covered them. You know what? It's a pretty damned good book.

So let me amend your statement. James Joyce is an author few people can read without some help from someone who already understands the work. With a handful of small guideposts, Ulysses is completely readable.

It's very nice that you enjoyed Ulysses. I did not enjoy it for 100 pages. Reading it is pretty much only useful for bragging, which I see is alive and well.

The recent article on Ribbon Farm might explain unalone's character: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/21/morality-compassion-and... . Maybe that's assuming too much....

I don't normally say things like this, but your analysis is wrong. I'm 22 years old, and I still haven't figured out how to respond to things like this. Your thought process is simply... wrong.

It'd be like trying to explain something fundamental and simple. Something that people should just "get," and I'm just baffled when they don't. When they respond like this and completely miss out on something good.

There's a certain dignity and standard that people like us hold ourselves to, and we resent those who don't. That's the point of "we're all in this together." We don't often meet people like us. And when we do... I don't know how to explain it. It's just great.

Though he could have maybe picked better words... he didn't. It still communicates what he was trying to say. You have to look at things like this through a certain lens. It isn't published work. If he wanted to, he could edit it all day. It is on his personal website so he shouldn't have to.

When I said I'm a discerning reader, and am discerning on HN... well, I'm discerning with everything. And it literally breaks my heart that almost everyone I meet is not like this.

----

Addendum: So unalone, what did you think of Circulatory System?

I'll be the first to accuse me of a certain sloppiness. I usually try to write as quickly as possible and I don't look back over what I write before I publish. For pieces I want to submit places I do a much more thorough job — I'm writing one piece specifically for Hacker News that's like that right now, and I'm taking however many weeks it takes to make sure it gleams.

re:Circulatory System — I'm not totally sure. It didn't hook me instantly like some of the other Elephant Six bands have, but the harmonies were pretty impressive. I'm going to give it another listen a few days from now; I feel like it's something I ought to take some time and let seep in.

Take five seconds and look at anything else I've done. It's not like I'm coming out of nowhere and saying these things. I'm the Hacker News presence that writes essay responses to everything. It's not that I dislike people who small talk, it's that — honestly — when I talk these minute little essays shoot out. The people I hang out with tend to be people who talk about things comprehensively. It's not particularly deep. If anything, it's an inherently nerdy trait. But it's who I am.

My love for Joyce is similarly something that I talk about a lot. He was the first major artist I fell in love with. Beckett was probably the second. Understand that I came across Joyce and Beckett before I developed a diverse taste in movies/music/art, and so they stick out in my mind in a way other things don't.

But Joyce is utterly readable, if you know how to read him. I read Ulysses to thirteen-year-olds. They were stitching up. People that call Joyce unreadable are people who never learned to hear an author's voice in their head. Anybody with half an ear for tone can translate him into the hilarious Irish comic that he is. I mean, his hero masturbates and fantasizes about sex! It's a Seth Rogen comedy in the making.

I thought that I clarified the whole "lonely existence" thing in my writing. In fact, I'm sure I did, because you're the first person to complain about that. The issue's not that I'm lonely, because I'm not lonely. The issue's that there's an inherent disconnect between the secular God I worship and the various things other people worship. My idea of a good time is different from a lot of other people's.

I don't need to brag about the girls I date. The fact that I write about girls is because that happens to be a part of my life, as much as Joyce is. So I'm not allowed to write about smart people things or social people things? What am I allowed to write about? Lisp?

I wrote what I did for other people, not for me. Last year I was in a shitty place; this year I'm in an awesome place and life is great. It's just that I happen to have an audience of hundreds of people, and I do my best to follow them when I have free time, and a good part of my audience is alienated/isolated/heartbroken/generally human, and I thought I had some ideas that might help them. I wrote that article, a lot of people loved it, and when it got posted to Hacker News it got a more fiercely emotional response than anything else I've posted here. I didn't post it, and I wasn't expecting HN of all places to react the way they did. It was not an article I wrote for Hacker News. But I'm glad that people found it and got some sort of strength out of it.

If this sounds harsh, it's because you remind me of certain former professors of mine who were vain assholes and who killed my former ambition to become a teacher. Let's not mince words: I pity your students students if you're always such a nagging fucker.

I believe it's generally thought that people learn to read at first by sounding out the author's words in their head, and as they become more proficient at reading, learn not to do that.

The problem I had reading Ulysses when I tried at fifteen was the opposite. I was so bent on reading Ulysses as Serious Great Literature that I couldn't read it as something amusing. So I got to the weirder parts of the book and concluded, as a lot of people unfortunately do, that it was pretentious crap. It's funny how pretentious masturbation sounds in a book when you don't let yourself think it's funny.

There's another passage in particular that has the same effect on people. Leopold Bloom looks at the sky and calls it "the grey sunken cunt of the world". A lot of people jump on that passage and accuse Joyce of gratuitous swearing for shock value and assume he's being a bitter, wordy arse; once you convince yourself to read the passage as being thought by a cranky Irishman, it suddenly becomes hilarious.

The set of all people that think Joyce is pretentious is the same as the set of all people that can't imagine the author speak in an Irish accent.

elaborated to emphasize absurdity

The second way to call the sky a cunt is to be a grumpy Irishman in the morning who calls the sky a cunt whimsically, if annoyed. It's the difference between the clean-shaven trendy beret-wearing guy who pronounces "cunt" with much deliberation, and the long-nosed family man who says cunt like a curse.

They're both saying the same words, but the one guy's being an ass, and the second guy is hilarious. I'm saying that the people that think Joyce is pretentious are the people who haven't figured out he's hilarious.

You can do the same to any comedian, incidentally. Take George Carlin's rant on reducing the ten commandments to two, remove his inflection, focus on the words, and that could easily be some dick's attempting a hoity-toity statement about religion with no humor whatsoever. Steven Wright talking about the museum that has all the heads and arms from all the other statues can be less of a joke and more of a self-involved critique on the nature of art and decay. But it's not, because it's Steven Wright telling a joke, and in his case we know to laugh.

I am saying that I find it irritating when people take rational statements and attempt to make them absurd.

You're overshooting your target a bit when you rant about Joyce being utterly readable. He is and he isn't. There're passages in Ulysses that will make thirteen-year-olds stitch up, but it's a very rare thirteen-year-old who will endure the whole thing. I'm reading Ulysses right now (a third attempt, and will finish it this time around, soon; I was too impatient before) and it's both utter delight _and_ there are dozens of pages difficult to get through, when you insist on closely reading the text. Those dozens of pages aren't boring, they're mostly terrific, but the density can be overwhelming. I think you know this and you talk about this a bit in your post, but in this comment you kinda gloss over this and overshoot your target. Insisting that Ulysses can be read as a stand-up delivery of a hilarious Irish comic is misleading. It isn't just shits and giggles; it's shits and giggles _and_ hard work (and much besides).

The rest of this comment is my opinion about your long post; it's about things I disliked in it, which isn't to say I disliked all of it - I agree with most of the rest, and think it's well-written. Take it for what it is; and if the tone seems too didactic, ignore the tone, I couldn't afford the time to fine-tune it.

Generally, I think you're not trying hard enough; to put it coarsely, _you're not highbrow enough_. You've put Joyce on the pedestal of the impossibly perfect and feel content with throwing the rest of literature to its feet. That is a terrible trap to fall into; it can rob you of appreciating brilliant things in other writers that you won't find in Joyce. It slowly saps you of the ability to understand and connect to true genius elsewhere. Most Joyceans in the academia, for example, are in this position, and their work is usually no good as the result. They start out with exactly the kind of all-encompassing rush of delight and certainty that _nothing can compare to this_ that you're feeling, and slowly work themselves into little more than extreme fanboyism, clad in respectable academic jargon.

Your comparisons are evidence of this shortcoming. You mention, when speaking of contemporaries, Hemingway, Faulkner and Fitzgerald. What about Kafka, Proust or Platonov? There is in Proust the frightening (because it's so effective) clarity of description, the ability to pinpoint an echo within yourself that you've never heard clearly until now and magnify it for you hundredfold, that is unmatched by anything in Joyce. There is in Kafka the ability to give voice to despair and desire that is unmatched by anything in Joyce. And yes, Joyce can also do what they can't, and you speak eloquently of that. But reading these writers properly (and others) may give you the same feelings of almost transcendent wonder and all-encompassing joy that reading Joyce gives you and me. I just don't think it's likely to happen in the frame of mind that throws Joyce up there into the clouds, to oversee the rest of the humanity. There isn't anything wrong by itself with subjectively feeling that Joyce is the greatest writer who's ever lived; it simply turns out to be pragmatically a bad idea to make this one of the pillars of one's approach to literature or art. It causes one's vision to slowly tunnelize. And there are signs in your post of that happening. Talking of "a higher level" is a giveaway; when people start explaining things in terms of higher and lower levels, it almost always means they don't _really_ understand their preferences well enough and can't _really_ justify them to themselves. "Levels" are weaselly words; I've caught myself abusing them many times, and now try to actively force myself to avoid them. And talking about "any other before or after" is just unjustifiable hubris. It's so easy to fall into this hubris with Joyce precisely because he's so great; but it's a trap nevertheless.

The best thing to do to a work of genius that seems to overflow you, sustain you, and define a large part of you from now on is to absorb it, cherish it, delight in it, learn from it, and overcome it. To overcome it doesn't mean to stop loving it, or even to treat it "objectively" whatever that means; it means to let it flow in yourself rather than overflow yourself; to balance it in your understanding and appreciation with other wonderful things foreign to it and even alien to it; and to see flaws where there're flaws (yet not exaggerate them) - and nothing is completely flawless. You're not highbrow enough because you've set up a pedestal with Joyce on it (and Beckett as an understudy) and this state of affairs is too complacent. You should be hard at work on overcoming your inner Joyce.

P.S. If you haven't, you ought to pick up and read Helen DeWitt's _The Last Samurai_, as soon as possible.

Yeah: I tried to mention that in the post as best as I could; in the comment I was addressing that sneering idea that nobody's able to read Joyce. I didn't mean to suggest that Ulysses is a breeze.

> Take it for what it is; and if the tone seems too didactic, ignore the tone, I couldn't afford the time to fine-tune it.

Not at all: Thanks for taking the time to make an argument!

> Generally, I think you're not trying hard enough; to put it coarsely, _you're not highbrow enough_. You've put Joyce on the pedestal of the impossibly perfect and feel content with throwing the rest of literature to its feet. That is a terrible trap to fall into; it can rob you of appreciating brilliant things in other writers that you won't find in Joyce. It slowly saps you of the ability to understand and connect to true genius elsewhere. Most Joyceans in the academia, for example, are in this position, and their work is usually no good as the result. They start out with exactly the kind of all-encompassing rush of delight and certainty that _nothing can compare to this_ that you're feeling, and slowly work themselves into little more than extreme fanboyism, clad in respectable academic jargon.

I tried not to sound like this by bringing up Beckett as a contrast. I do think Joyce is incomparable, but it's not because he's somehow the Best Writer. It's that for what he wanted to do, he captured it on a grander scale than anybody could hope to compete with. Other writers on a similar scale — certainly what Kafka I've read seems like he's comparable; Proust I haven't started yet, though I have a copy of his works lying ten feet from me — are similar in that they're not writers you can compare others to except to note differences.

With literature it's tough because I honestly don't think there are very many great novelists. The novel is an extremely difficult form of writing, and not many are able to really pull together and make something dense and powerful. I think it's easier to clarify what you're trying to say by talking music. The Beatles are brilliant, for instance, but so are the Beach Boys, and Velvet Underground, and Frank Zappa, and so even in the short frame of the 60s you have a dozen absolute geniuses who are unique and incomparable, all in tandem, and there's no one "right" musician among them. When you expand into world music and the avante-garde the point is proven even more, because at some rarefied points every single musician in a scene is equally brilliant because every single one of them is constantly pushing at boundaries.

With novels I don't get that as much, because the novel form is so immense that I feel there ought to be an enormous amount to justify it. So I don't just think of Joyce, but there're only a dozen or two writers I'm really in love with in that way. Even among them, though, there's an enormous variation in ambitions and goals between them. So I include Steven King on that list because his novel It encompasses horror better than anything else I've ever read, on a level nobody, King included, can hope to match. Anybody who writes a comparable horror novel will have to do so by fundamentally changing the nature of horror.

So at once it's highbrow and lowbrow. It's highbrow in that you constantly have to strive to find bigger and better things, and it's lowbrow in that you can find those things almost anywhere, even in unconventional places.

tl;dr: I agree with you completely. :-)

(I've never heard of The Last Samurai; placed an order at your recommendation.)

1. What's your problem with Lil Wayne?

2. Why do you deliberately alienate yourself from someone based on their musical taste?

3. If we're in all of this together, then don't you understand that her preferences are just the result of her experiences?

4. Why do you cling to some sort of predefined me-ness?

I don't have a problem with Lil Wayne. I don't think he's particularly distinguished as a musician, though. He doesn't do anything that's really pushing at boundaries, and so when I go looking for music he kind of slips away. The moment I was trying to illustrate wasn't one where I hated somebody for liking Lil Wayne. Earlier in the evening I'd been belting out Katy Perry with some people, and Katy Perry's far "worse" than LW is.

The alienation, though that's too strong a word for what it was — this is a friend we're talking about — was more that some people were sitting around in the mood to talk about music, and she picked Lil Wayne. That's background dancing music, not sit-down music. So it wasn't like a sudden hostility based on Lil Wayne. It was just a disquieting moment that I thought would illustrate what I was writing about well.

It's not about some predefined special quality. I'm the biggest narcissist you'll ever meet, but that's because I love me, not because I love something in particular about me. But it is a trait that you find in some people and not in others, and I'd never seen an article written specifically about it so I figured I'd write one.

In the article I defined it as worshipping human creation. More specifically: It's an attitude some people have towards what they consume in which they try first to understand the goals of the producer, then appreciate that for what it is. So, some people approach music looking for hooks and that's it. Classicists will look for certain traits in music — melody, harmony, counterpoint, chord progression — and disregard every other musical element. My approach towards music is what you'd call deconstructed: First I try to figure out what the music is trying to do, then I appreciate it on those merits. So I don't look for melody in a minimalist composition, I ignore lyrics and focus on production if I'm listening to pop, and within those constraints I decide what I like and don't like. So I prefer Lady Gaga to Britney Spears, and I understand that neither of them is comparable to Mozart and that you couldn't compare Mozart to them, either. The stuff that I love is the stuff that meets its ambitions on a spectacular level; stuff without ambition is what fails to grasp me.

The reason that's important is that it's a very open, embracing, and somewhat odd way to approach art, but the people who approach it tend also to have other traits in common, which I also tried to define. The Joyce instance is one of them. Writers who like Joyce over Hemingway are also invariably writers with a more open stance on writing, and focus more on the craft than about the story. It's not like I get in a tiff when people say they like Hemingway more. It's that Hemingway developed one limited style and used that to tell the stories he cared about, whereas Joyce's style was constantly expanding. This happens in every field of creation you can name.

So the loneliness and alienation doesn't come from people having opinions. There are people with such narrow worldviews, but I'm not one of them. I like almost everybody I meet to some degree. But there aren't many people who understand that distinction between the Joyce types of artists and the Hemingways, and when your personal outlook on life is so reliant on the difference between them, it means you can't really talk about what you're thinking on a deep level. That's occasionally frustrating.

Does that clarify somewhat? Or am I still babbling?

I'm not a fan of downvotes on web sites because they let one or two people make it look like there's been some kind of mandate. Downvotes are people, and they matter exactly as much as upvotes do, which is to say not at all.

One distinction between me and "the other people" (I don't know what the hell to call them) is that I will allow myself to get convinced that Lil Wayne is worthwhile. I have been convinced to listen to great rap. But, I can ramble all day about how awesome Bach is, and I'm either preaching to the choir or preaching to people who have no interest in understanding your "god." No, I don't mean god is Bach.

People shut off their brain to visiting mormons the same way they shut off their brain when you start talking about great art. They simply refuse to think that way.

There is a very specific quotient of structure in things that are higher art. It is just hard to find people who can, or even want to, acclimate themselves to understanding said structure. It takes a lot of energy.

Easy music. Easy books. Easy food! These things are just like candy. I can see how such things appeal to people (compassion), since they are saturated with the easy-good-stuff. And I am not entirely immune to sweets or easy hooks; however, I have grown up.