I applaud the professor's patience. His last well mannered response to the troll (AKA, self proclaimed literary writer) with the full blown narcissistic personality disorder (Could park his car right next to Kanye West) was a whopping 2,500 words. It would take me a whole day to write something that long but the real question is WHY did he bother?
It is not uncommon for me to write long and complicated messages - as emails, texts, or even letters - just to delete them as they are wasteful of others time and fail to come to an identifiable point.
To finally have someone who would both read and reply to such an exploration would be amazing, to have that person reply in such a way that turns my masturbatory ranting into a real discussion would be bliss.
tl;dr, I am sorry I can't read your unsolicited manuscript because I am a humble writer with a humble background with a duties to my humble college students in creative writing class.
Let me mention all of my friends who are really humble, from middle-upper class who have earned an inheritance to travel and write from their experiences; but not all of them are white lest you get the wrong idea about me, in fact one of them is colored with such a interesting background you should hear about because he gets confused for either being "Black" or "Arab"; so in closing, I am a really humble person who have lots of humble friends who value friendship; wait, by the way did I mention that I am really humble?
My commentary is just how reading the author's explanation; he came off as so many people I've known previously at liberal arts colleges and then later at parties/cafes college towns. The "conscientious" type who likes the idea of pursuing something "pure" and "artistic," but ultimately their lives lead them to nothing beyond the wording on the marketing on a college brochure, "think deeply, be worldly, travel!"
I'd love to go into a in-depth analysis of the original author's text, and how every single of his example of his friends he upheld is a stereotype that is in the wheelhouse of a New York City MFA class or Lena Dunham's "Girls".(Unfortunately, I am trying to debug Docker to run a compute cluster job. )
I am deeply disappointed that the author didn't try to use the opportunity to try to appeal to the craft of writing as a daily discipline, a joy, a pain, a biological compulsion for people who persist regardless of prestige nor fame; or why writing in particular means so much to him, and revealing his own egotism and follies; instead, he wrote a rant that is a thinly-veined guise about he and his circle of friends are the "truer artists" with "much more interesting life experiences" than Alan.
However, perhaps you have a more nuanced reading than I did, I'd love to hear what was your takeaway from the author's article?
I didn't read it like that at all. I read it as a very very very patient reply to an arrogant jerk.
I didn't read the author as being about "pure" and "artistic" writing. Given limited time, he's investing it in people he has some reason to care about, not in some random "you must pay attention to me because I'm a major literary figure even though you stupid mundanes haven't realized it yet" type who demanded the author's attention.
If someone mailed you 55 pages* of unparseable nonsense steeped in pretension, and threatened that there would be consequences should you choose to ignore it, what would you do?
The author decided to explain that he'd rather read articles by people he knows and by his students who allow him to make a living. He doesn't read things as part of an imagined "profession." He reads things relevant to his own life.
It's about the ability to freely associate, and the ability to decide what is relevant to you, with regards to the "profession" of writer.
Your interpretation seemed somewhat uncharitable. I don't think you're being particularly nice, either.
* The amount was not revealed to us. But take it as a hypothetical anyway.
Lots of people are like stereotypes. Especially when you describe them concisely. That's why the stereotypes are even remotely amusing.
If this guy values travel, biographical writing, and friendship, and you value eccentricity, uniqueness, and nonconformity, that's just a difference between you.
He's describing his friends to show that he has actual relationships with actual people who write actual things that are on his actual desk... which is the reason he can't be reading everything strangers send to him.
Beyond that, he's making a larger point about how it is rude, selfish, and immoral of Alan to make claims on his time and energy, because it's a failure to let him have his own life and choose his own activity.
And then also he's saying he values friendship over genius. Even if Alan's Shakespeare research were truly groundbreaking and fascinating, he'd still choose to read his friends' books, because for him that's the value of literature: empathy, connection, civility, etc.
You might find his values banal or uninteresting, and that's fine.
I think the set up here is great too! He did a nice job of combining the catharsis of troll slaying with a very personal review of his friends' work. This sort of thing isn't typically my bag, but I read it start to finish. If it were just a complaint about a troll, or just a review of his friends' work, I'm not sure I'd have followed it to the end, or read it aloud to my wife.
It sounds like a concept that the author has been toying with for a while, how reading is not only a deliberate choice with an onslaught of competing options, but that the choice, even for those in a literary profession, isn't particularly "well-informed".
A lot of the writers I know say they write to understand and refine their ideas. So maybe it just started as a personal thought and then he decided to publish it, maybe because he hears similar questions often?
Confederacy of Dunces was written by such a guy, except he had the good sense to kill himself and have his mother submit the manuscript for publication :)
> “Your entire profession,” he wrote back, “has preferred to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to credit my literary/creative genius and/or the outrageous pedagogical stupidity that you have all implicitly supported. And either way I just want you to know that you need to think about the price of this behavior. That one day people will know that your profession is either incredibly inept and or outrageously dishonest. And either way that likely will translate into a crisis for the humanities that you likely are not nearly prepared for. So just be warned. And understand that I will be continuing to work to bring about this very unpleasant and undesirable scenario.”
I'm basing a character on this kind of fellow! Excellent reference material.
This isn't outing someone that's trying to be discreet. He's pushing his agenda, with his full name, and is proud of it.
The additional context that this isn't a single incident is important. He spends a great deal of time emailing anyone that has anything to do with writing and goading them into reading his theory.
At first reading them was funny, but it quickly became sad. So many tweets, and almost all insulting someone he feels isn't giving him the attention he feels entitled to.
What is unfortunate about this is that Alan is clearly in need of friends, but his abrasive manner would certainly be off-putting to the people around him. So he has to ask random strangers for feedback on his writing instead of his friends.
America used to be more tolerant of this kind of social stupidity. In an earlier time, Alan could have found many friends among his community. For lack of better things to do, these friends would have filed off his rough edges and given him probably-bad, but well-meaning advice on his writing, which would have helped him out much more than this journal article will.
But no, all of our dance cards are full, it's so difficult to find meaningful relationships in our daily lives. The socially adept can easily insulate themselves from the unwashed masses and never have to learn how to respond appropriately to someone like that. So recluses become even more reclusive, hiding away in their rooms and developing this kind of ego complex. So very sad.
You don't challenge every idiot that insults you to a duel.
Since duels are extremely risky, you would only demand one when something more important than your life is at stake. Like your honor, or that of your beloved. To put honor at stake, the insults must be issued in public, with a specific goal of that besmirching. Even then most reasonable people will take steps to allay the situation before it gets too bad.
And that was only something the nobility did. Everybody else just started a fight. Taking a few swings provides everyone around with entertainment while letting you work out your anger in a relatively safe way.
thats an interesting point, but i wonder, how do you know its true? i initially agree because the internet enables social reclusion, but i dont know if i have anything more concrete to go on than that. as someone who went to small middle and high school, i've seen how often people who would just be ignored because they are rough around the edges end up being great members of the community when proximity and exposure help overcome the initial friction. i guess what im saying is i agree with you if there is some reason to believe that there is something that has actually lowered proximity and exposure, and im not so sure the internet really has, but i really dont know.
i would say the writers response is very helpful though, it contextualizes alan for himself. could it be more helpful and less insulting? sure, but its pretty good overall, especially when you compare it to how little effort alan put forth in the communication.
I personally gravitate towards odd ducks like Alan, so I might have struck up a weekly email correspondence, if only to gain a sense for what makes him tick. I would have challenged him on a few points of his Shakespearean criticism and humored him so he didn't have to feel so lonely.
After some back and forth on that I would have started asking him more about his life. I'd gently guide him towards courses of action that would naturally guide towards better health and success, like exercising, talking to real people, anything but whatever it is he does for 100+ hours every week.
I'd keep it to 30 minutes a week to put a cap on it so he doesn't start running my life. But you'd be amazed at what you can do for someone just with that small amount of time.
I gravitate towards them if they're around, I don't seek them out. Also, there's a reason Alan reached out to the professor, it's unlikely he would be as receptive to me reaching out to him.
Thanks for that. I'm fairly certain I've received benefit from folks who took the time to do what you describe when it would have been so much easier to turn away.
I don't agree that society has failed him. It takes two to tango; he has played a part in it himself.
He's a Shakespearean conspiracy theorist, who spends inordinate amounts of time on this one thing.
It's just a bizarre thing that most people could not make heads or tails of. I don't believe that no one wants to be his friend. I just don't think anyone knows how to be his friend.
Yours is a totally reasonable comment, but it seems to be getting a lot of downvotes. I'm seeing the same thing on other articles today; I wonder if there's some sort of brigading going on.
I'm not particularly worried about it. Sometimes there are some stray downvotes that just end up hitting one of my comments. I have plenty of karma to spare anyway.
At least Alan's subject of obsession (Shakespeare) was long dead. If he had been alive, perhaps the dynamic here would have been more like Eminem's 'Stan'
> In an earlier time, Alan could have found many friends among his community.
There have always been loners and misfits and "stay away from that house, kids", and always will be. You say that on the one hand, we don't have the relationships we used to, but on the other hand, with technology and travel, tons of people are forging new relationships that they otherwise wouldn't. Gay people are able to find friendly communities and move to them where in the past they couldn't risk showing themselves.
I don't think it's as easy as saying it's hard to make relationships in these modern times - the picture is shifting and complex. Higher populations paradoxically offer more opportunity for anonymity, but conversely being an outcast in a small community is worse than being anonymous.
> What is unfortunate about this is that Alan is clearly in need of friends, but his abrasive manner would certainly be off-putting to the people around him. So he has to ask random strangers for feedback on his writing instead of his friends.
He's also a clinical narcissist. I don't pay much attention to what psychologists think, but narcissists are easy to spot -- as far as they're concerned, everyone else is a refractory, inert obstacle standing in the way of their richly deserved public recognition as the greatest genius who ever lived.
speaking for my sample size of 1, definitely not. Their are too many levels of indirection in our dealings with each other online to actually find with any accuracy people interested in the same groups/patterns of things as you.
The internet has made it easier to me to find specific interests or cohorts because of how we tend to organise by 'watering hole' but beyond that, to me it's worse for gauging your counterpart interests beyond your immediate reason for interaction.
I would think it would be the opposite -- in the old days, if those around you didn't like your personality, you were locked out. Today, the whole world is your audience, and you can be content to deal with the small fraction that isn't put off by your attitude.
He's more than abrasive - he's mentally ill. Why someone would waste even one electron replying to him is beyond me. That's what the delete key is for.
The answer is to read it, point out his mistakes, and tell him to stop yammering about being a genius, because chances are he'll get further if he doesn't waste too much time on bragging about nonexistent progress.
If he actually doesn't make a single mistake that you can find, it's time to hop a step up the chain of command at your local university and do it again.
No. That's the answer if your goal is to spend a bunch of time helping some random dude who just insulted you. And that's only your goal if you 1) are extremely charitable and 2) have the time to burn.
The article's point is that, while the author does technically have the time, he has places he'd rather spend it than on some random internet dude who just insulted him.
Every field has cranks. People, often mentally ill, send pages and pages of crazy theories and writing to professors.
One professor had an idea. Every time a crank wrote to him, he would send them the contact information of the last crank. He said he was too busy to read it right now, but this other person might help him. Instead of getting angry letters back, they wouldn't write back again, or even sent nice letters thanking him for the referral.
That might have helped in this case. This guy might not have time to read these people's works, but surely they can help each other.
Seriously? Some guy brags about how he wasted a whole day arguing with some rude dude, who randomly emailed him, because he didn't want to read his essays as he was too busy? I guess I'm much more disgusted by Jeff, than by that Alan. I mean, even if I would do something like that, there's no way I would be so proud of myself to make a blogpost about it.
I'm honestly surprised 40 people in 2 hours found it worthy of HN frontpage.
He's a writer. He used this situation to write an essay examining the literary industry. Like all good writing, there are many valuable things which could be taken from his (well executed) writing. Personally, I found some interesting parallels in how the venture capital industry works, and it helped me to conceptialize how those concepts extent into other fields.
It was written as a blog post because we were the true audience, not Alan.
Personally, I upvoted it because I think it very succinctly highlights the importance of community in a lot of disciplines.
Alan wants to bypass all the long-term give-and-take investment in the writing community and somehow still become well-respected and famous within that same community. I think we've all come across those types.
So this is a general treatise on how to deal with people we don't understand? Through a mocking, pandering tone, while reminding those who were not fortunate enough to to simply fall into friendship with me that other people have interesting lies?
Classic Dunning-Kruger effect coupled with some personality disorders. Jeff Sharlet was really kind to respond in this way but I fear the reply will not be well received. Reading the comments you see a plethora of others that Alan pestered as well. Many of them are well worth the read.
Books have become such an engrained part of our culture, it's easy to lose sight of how divorced they are from "normal" (on an evolutionary time-scale) uses of language. Usually, language is reciprocal, bi-directional - you speak I listen, then I speak and you listen.
But books (usually) only go one way - the author speaks, the reader listens. This allows strong power-laws to take hold, so that a small handful of speakers take up a very disproportionate amount of people's attention.
This is another argument for Alan to make some friends, with whom he can practice the more balanced language-art of conversation.
As an aside, this reminds me of my fantasy of parsers becoming sophisticated enough that instead of books, authors can write chat-bots that allow readers to feel "heard" by the author.
That is an interesting idea. Has anyone tried anything, even a poor attempt, at something like that? Even as just an art piece, it would be an interesting medium.
... Why is he not posting the piece so other people can read it. Maybe he is a genius.
I get stuff like this all the time. Anyone with an academic email does. Sometimes I print out some of the more entertaining maths and physics proofs and hang them on the wall. I have a pretty good time machine schematic on my desk atm.
I suspect that Alan is schizophrenic and his statements are just a reflection of his grandiose delusions. Anecdotally, his tall claims are similar to other schizophrenic people I have come across.
I've made the same allowance for a visitor to a forum I run. He is incredibly abrasive and snarky in general (especially when people disagree with him, however politely) and vain about his own writing, which is mediocre but he refers to as "truly insightful" and "a cogent analysis of this subject". It consists mainly of densely-worded diatribes and conspiracy theories, with scattered "photoshops" of politicians he dislikes (which is all of them - nobody is good enough for this guy). It's truly disturbing, in the way that observing another's emotional turmoil can be. Mainly I try to leave him alone.
Instead of taking the opportunity to lecture poor Alan (and brag his own obvious skills), shouldn't Jeff be calling the cops instead? "Feel free to continue to ignore my work, just be prepared to pay a price for it that you might never have imagined.” That sounds scary to me. Unless of course Alan is just a character and we've all been had ;)
I wouldn't be surprised if "Alan" is a hyperbolized amalgamation of several requests he's gotten from random people over the years, and this is his hypothetical response to such a person.
I found most of the writer's own writing to be a bit pompous and unrelatable (using verbs we don't use in real life), or a bit self-important, with a distinct lack of empathy. We're all subject to our own experiences, which means we should try harder to break out of them.
This is a really touching open response to an inner demon that I, and many people, wrestle with. Like Alan, I too have childishly and bitterly demanded recognition from what seems like a cold and uncaring world. But seeing the system from within, it's just a bunch of people like me, working to make and find awesome things as best they can. It fills me with hope to know that our communities, online and otherwise, are created by and for ourselves. We don't have to be separate and lonely Alans, instead with some nurturing and care we can enjoy our time in the company of peers.
He spent more time responding to the guy than it would have taken to just read a few pages. If he was actually going to engage with this person, it would have been more productive (for everyone involved) to just read a bit.
To offer a counter-example: Nietzsche was a mostly friendless philosopher whose writing is also full of megalomania -- this is not to make the case that Alan or your typical graphomaniac has anything in common with Nietzsche - but the whole argument of this piece seems to hinge on the importance of social adequacy being enjoined with literary merit - not to mention the mildly unpleasant tinge of smug self-satisfaction as the author enumerates and quotes his many 'adequate' literary friends. Will anyone be reading Jeff Sharlet 50 years from now? I highly doubt it.
Nietzche was by no means friendless. The gentry of the mid-1800s, particularly the intelligentsia of which he was a part, could not have survived, much less thrived, without a rich network of friends and professional acquaintances, whose houses they would crash when traveling, exchanging ideas and emotional support.
He even fell in love, in a famed torrential affair with the celebrated seductress Lou Salome.
Nietzche's philosophies grew not from the pain of loneliness, but from the bitterness of being denied the things he wanted, mostly by events out of his control. He had a promising career in the army, until an accident forced him to return to academia. Salome did not believe in marriage and turned Nietzche's proposals down three times. His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia.
He did break off with many of his friends at this point, mostly for philosophical reasons, he kept a few around and even made new ones. He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period.
> His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia.
Did you mean atheism? Contrary to popular belief Nietzsche was not an antisemite nor would that have made someone unemployable in the 19th century.
> He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period.
Given the inaccuracy of your previous statement I'd be interested in a source to support this. Below is from beginning of Ecce Homo (I selected a work at random -- it's really been a while since I've read any of his works, but I'm sure all the prefaces begin in a similar fashion -- save probably A Birth of Tragedy, since he was at that point still an academic and not actively hostile to the entire world for ignoring his writing).
>> Seeing that shortly I must confront mankind with the heaviest
demand ever put on it, it seems to me indispensable to say who I am...But
the disparity between the greatness of my task and the smallness of my
contemporaries has found expression in the fact that one has neither
heard nor even seen me.
i think he has won and it will encourage others to do the same. provoking people can work. bad publicity beats no publicity. now even some dude with no interest in shakespeare has clicked his link. it's https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/ . worse it possibly deserves a second look. is this why the famous english professor posted this? because he secretly liked it and wanted it to be read but be able to give the arrogant author a slap on the wrist at the same time?
This is offensive. I know of authors who made it a point to answer all fan mail until it became impractical. That was pre-internet era but the ethic and the empathy were there.
It's hard to become successful and encouragement or even negative direct feedback help people. Instead of raising that up as a value the author tells a story about his own snark. It's not pretty and it isn't anything anyone should congratulation him on.
Are you upset at the author of this article or the troll? I can't tell. If it's the author, you're reading a different article than I am. It's not "fan mail." It's a bizarre threat from a self-important friendless twat.
118 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 185 ms ] threadTo finally have someone who would both read and reply to such an exploration would be amazing, to have that person reply in such a way that turns my masturbatory ranting into a real discussion would be bliss.
tl;dr, I am sorry I can't read your unsolicited manuscript because I am a humble writer with a humble background with a duties to my humble college students in creative writing class.
Let me mention all of my friends who are really humble, from middle-upper class who have earned an inheritance to travel and write from their experiences; but not all of them are white lest you get the wrong idea about me, in fact one of them is colored with such a interesting background you should hear about because he gets confused for either being "Black" or "Arab"; so in closing, I am a really humble person who have lots of humble friends who value friendship; wait, by the way did I mention that I am really humble?
My commentary is just how reading the author's explanation; he came off as so many people I've known previously at liberal arts colleges and then later at parties/cafes college towns. The "conscientious" type who likes the idea of pursuing something "pure" and "artistic," but ultimately their lives lead them to nothing beyond the wording on the marketing on a college brochure, "think deeply, be worldly, travel!"
I'd love to go into a in-depth analysis of the original author's text, and how every single of his example of his friends he upheld is a stereotype that is in the wheelhouse of a New York City MFA class or Lena Dunham's "Girls".(Unfortunately, I am trying to debug Docker to run a compute cluster job. )
I am deeply disappointed that the author didn't try to use the opportunity to try to appeal to the craft of writing as a daily discipline, a joy, a pain, a biological compulsion for people who persist regardless of prestige nor fame; or why writing in particular means so much to him, and revealing his own egotism and follies; instead, he wrote a rant that is a thinly-veined guise about he and his circle of friends are the "truer artists" with "much more interesting life experiences" than Alan.
However, perhaps you have a more nuanced reading than I did, I'd love to hear what was your takeaway from the author's article?
I didn't read the author as being about "pure" and "artistic" writing. Given limited time, he's investing it in people he has some reason to care about, not in some random "you must pay attention to me because I'm a major literary figure even though you stupid mundanes haven't realized it yet" type who demanded the author's attention.
The author decided to explain that he'd rather read articles by people he knows and by his students who allow him to make a living. He doesn't read things as part of an imagined "profession." He reads things relevant to his own life.
It's about the ability to freely associate, and the ability to decide what is relevant to you, with regards to the "profession" of writer.
Your interpretation seemed somewhat uncharitable. I don't think you're being particularly nice, either.
* The amount was not revealed to us. But take it as a hypothetical anyway.
If this guy values travel, biographical writing, and friendship, and you value eccentricity, uniqueness, and nonconformity, that's just a difference between you.
He's describing his friends to show that he has actual relationships with actual people who write actual things that are on his actual desk... which is the reason he can't be reading everything strangers send to him.
Beyond that, he's making a larger point about how it is rude, selfish, and immoral of Alan to make claims on his time and energy, because it's a failure to let him have his own life and choose his own activity.
And then also he's saying he values friendship over genius. Even if Alan's Shakespeare research were truly groundbreaking and fascinating, he'd still choose to read his friends' books, because for him that's the value of literature: empathy, connection, civility, etc.
You might find his values banal or uninteresting, and that's fine.
A lot of the writers I know say they write to understand and refine their ideas. So maybe it just started as a personal thought and then he decided to publish it, maybe because he hears similar questions often?
He must be fun to debate with.
I'm basing a character on this kind of fellow! Excellent reference material.
https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
The additional context that this isn't a single incident is important. He spends a great deal of time emailing anyone that has anything to do with writing and goading them into reading his theory.
"Feel free to continue to ignore my work, just be prepared to pay a price for it that you might never have imagined.”
And, he pushes his agenda in newsletters, his website, the twitter feed I referenced, etc.
The context, to me, is meaningful. This isn't a case of outing someone. He outed himself from the start, on purpose.
Reading the article by itself, you might draw conclusions that you wouldn't if you had the full story.
I like that expression :-)
America used to be more tolerant of this kind of social stupidity. In an earlier time, Alan could have found many friends among his community. For lack of better things to do, these friends would have filed off his rough edges and given him probably-bad, but well-meaning advice on his writing, which would have helped him out much more than this journal article will.
But no, all of our dance cards are full, it's so difficult to find meaningful relationships in our daily lives. The socially adept can easily insulate themselves from the unwashed masses and never have to learn how to respond appropriately to someone like that. So recluses become even more reclusive, hiding away in their rooms and developing this kind of ego complex. So very sad.
Since duels are extremely risky, you would only demand one when something more important than your life is at stake. Like your honor, or that of your beloved. To put honor at stake, the insults must be issued in public, with a specific goal of that besmirching. Even then most reasonable people will take steps to allay the situation before it gets too bad.
And that was only something the nobility did. Everybody else just started a fight. Taking a few swings provides everyone around with entertainment while letting you work out your anger in a relatively safe way.
i would say the writers response is very helpful though, it contextualizes alan for himself. could it be more helpful and less insulting? sure, but its pretty good overall, especially when you compare it to how little effort alan put forth in the communication.
After some back and forth on that I would have started asking him more about his life. I'd gently guide him towards courses of action that would naturally guide towards better health and success, like exercising, talking to real people, anything but whatever it is he does for 100+ hours every week.
I'd keep it to 30 minutes a week to put a cap on it so he doesn't start running my life. But you'd be amazed at what you can do for someone just with that small amount of time.
On the contrary, it is very likely. His site encourages readers to contact him.
He's a Shakespearean conspiracy theorist, who spends inordinate amounts of time on this one thing.
It's just a bizarre thing that most people could not make heads or tails of. I don't believe that no one wants to be his friend. I just don't think anyone knows how to be his friend.
Thanks for the kind words, though!
There have always been loners and misfits and "stay away from that house, kids", and always will be. You say that on the one hand, we don't have the relationships we used to, but on the other hand, with technology and travel, tons of people are forging new relationships that they otherwise wouldn't. Gay people are able to find friendly communities and move to them where in the past they couldn't risk showing themselves.
I don't think it's as easy as saying it's hard to make relationships in these modern times - the picture is shifting and complex. Higher populations paradoxically offer more opportunity for anonymity, but conversely being an outcast in a small community is worse than being anonymous.
He's also a clinical narcissist. I don't pay much attention to what psychologists think, but narcissists are easy to spot -- as far as they're concerned, everyone else is a refractory, inert obstacle standing in the way of their richly deserved public recognition as the greatest genius who ever lived.
More on this topic: http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus
If he actually doesn't make a single mistake that you can find, it's time to hop a step up the chain of command at your local university and do it again.
The article's point is that, while the author does technically have the time, he has places he'd rather spend it than on some random internet dude who just insulted him.
One professor had an idea. Every time a crank wrote to him, he would send them the contact information of the last crank. He said he was too busy to read it right now, but this other person might help him. Instead of getting angry letters back, they wouldn't write back again, or even sent nice letters thanking him for the referral.
That might have helped in this case. This guy might not have time to read these people's works, but surely they can help each other.
I'm honestly surprised 40 people in 2 hours found it worthy of HN frontpage.
It was written as a blog post because we were the true audience, not Alan.
Alan wants to bypass all the long-term give-and-take investment in the writing community and somehow still become well-respected and famous within that same community. I think we've all come across those types.
Alan has problems, but Jeff is a dick.
But books (usually) only go one way - the author speaks, the reader listens. This allows strong power-laws to take hold, so that a small handful of speakers take up a very disproportionate amount of people's attention.
This is another argument for Alan to make some friends, with whom he can practice the more balanced language-art of conversation.
As an aside, this reminds me of my fantasy of parsers becoming sophisticated enough that instead of books, authors can write chat-bots that allow readers to feel "heard" by the author.
Why do power laws necessarily follow?
IBM's Watson is not representative of the progression of consumer-grade web chatbot technology, unfortunately.
I get stuff like this all the time. Anyone with an academic email does. Sometimes I print out some of the more entertaining maths and physics proofs and hang them on the wall. I have a pretty good time machine schematic on my desk atm.
It might as well have been titled "Top 5 Books to Read Before Responding to a Self-Important Jerk Who Threatens You".
Now that I have some experience with this, I'm not so quick to judge others.
That's why they need our help. I don't know a good answer to that problem.
(In this case, what if the professor had contacted Alan and tried to talk him into seeing a therapist? Alan might find that offensive.)
And very much related - does anybody know why quoted strings are often written by writers as:
... foo "bar."
and not:
... foo "bar".
? It doesn't parse, does it?
http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/british-versus-american-s...
Long answer: Depending on the region, if the quoted string itself is a complete sentence, the fullstop belongs as part of the quote. Example:
"My mother," he said, "is not going to accept your invitation to the party." This left me upset.
If the quoted string is a sub-section of a sentence, then the punctuation belongs to the parent sentence. Example:
My father often said that my mother "didn't have time for the bother" of cooking, which explains why I don't have a very sophisticated palate.
It's pretty easy to find him if you search Google with the following:
https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
He even fell in love, in a famed torrential affair with the celebrated seductress Lou Salome.
Nietzche's philosophies grew not from the pain of loneliness, but from the bitterness of being denied the things he wanted, mostly by events out of his control. He had a promising career in the army, until an accident forced him to return to academia. Salome did not believe in marriage and turned Nietzche's proposals down three times. His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia.
He did break off with many of his friends at this point, mostly for philosophical reasons, he kept a few around and even made new ones. He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period.
Did you mean atheism? Contrary to popular belief Nietzsche was not an antisemite nor would that have made someone unemployable in the 19th century.
> He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period.
Given the inaccuracy of your previous statement I'd be interested in a source to support this. Below is from beginning of Ecce Homo (I selected a work at random -- it's really been a while since I've read any of his works, but I'm sure all the prefaces begin in a similar fashion -- save probably A Birth of Tragedy, since he was at that point still an academic and not actively hostile to the entire world for ignoring his writing).
>> Seeing that shortly I must confront mankind with the heaviest demand ever put on it, it seems to me indispensable to say who I am...But the disparity between the greatness of my task and the smallness of my contemporaries has found expression in the fact that one has neither heard nor even seen me.
It's hard to become successful and encouragement or even negative direct feedback help people. Instead of raising that up as a value the author tells a story about his own snark. It's not pretty and it isn't anything anyone should congratulation him on.