Mike 03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 08:12 PM
Original message |
What John Irving said about post-modernist authors applies to economists as well |
|
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 08:14 PM by Mike 03
It's easy to be obscure, arcane, and impossible to understand. The hard part of writing is being clear, communicative and meaningful.
Quibbles with Irving aside, he preferred a Cheever, Updike, Dickens, Fitzgerald or Hemingway to a Pynchon, Coover, Barth or Barthelme.
So I'm getting tired of listening to interviews with esteemed economists who leak criticism but are loath to produce a single, valuable, relevant or pertinent kernel of advice that is actually usable by President Obama, the Treasury or the Federal Reserve.
This is just like Hollywood. If you are a suit, you never lose your job so long as you say "no" to a screenplay. You only risk losing your job if you say "yes" to something that fails.
And to quote Wayne Gretzky who said it best:
"You lose 100% of the shots you don't take."
That seems to be the mentality of our economists now. They are blowing up like dirigibles with their criticism, but have not one iota of usable advice.
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Ahhh but the glory in Postmodernism is when you can be CLEAR and POSTMODERN |
|
Case in point: Chuck Palahniuk.
He never minces words.
And he is Postmodernism to a tee.
|
Mike 03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Good point. I would love this thread to grow, because I need to be exposed to new authors. NT |
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. There have been a bunch of Postmodernists who have not been obscure and arcane |
|
Palahniuk in lit
Ween in music
Hell, I would even go as far as saying Ralph Ellison was the FIRST Postmodernist, and his stuff was VERY clear
|
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. but did they understand postmodernism? |
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Although I think they did
But in the true sense of Post Modernism, or Dadaism - why should it matter :P
|
Stevepol
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Listen to Geithner, then to one of these: Krugman or Chomsky or Stiglitz. |
|
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 09:14 PM by Stevepol
Then tell me which of them is "obscure, arcane, and impossible to understand."
I find Krugman perfectly sensible and lucid. He says basically the same thing every time, gives perfectly reasonable suggestions, and he agrees with every other competent economist I've heard, all of whom I find quite lucid and specific in their suggestions. Chomsky isn't an economist but he's quite lucid and reasonable and his suggestions are similar to Krugman's.
Maybe it's just me.
|
terisan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-28-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message |
6. The economists have become quite clear to me. The government hasn't. nt |
fishwax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-29-09 12:15 AM
Response to Original message |
8. it's the "meaningful" part that's difficult |
|
It's no more difficult to be clear than it is to be obscure, arcane, or impossible to understand. Being meaningful (and communicative) on the other hand ...
As for modernism vs postmodernism, "obscure, arcane, and impossible to understand" is hardly the exclusive domain of the postmodernists.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:33 PM
Response to Original message |