He, he, wait, this isn't funny. At all. I waste too much time reading middlebrow commentary. What the hell am I doing with my life? Existential crisis ahead, Captain . . .
Haha! I had the same feeling actually. It's very different btw to look at NYTimes columns laid out in a row as opposed to reading them as they come in. If you read them in the moment, they seem authoritative and like a useful shaping of public opinion. If you read them in a stack, they just (with very few exceptions) seem like middlebrow conformist dreck. I think very few of them (really only Brooks and Douthat) stand up over time. - Sam
He's not so parody-ready! There are a few of them (French, McWhorter, Stephens, etc) who I find to be just very reasonable people not saying all that much that's satirisable.
ha! Interesting you mention McWhorter in the same breath as French. I consider myself a John McWhorter liberal, and if I was an evangelical (religiously+politically), I suspect I'd be a David French whatever-you-call-a-Reaganite-conservative-now.
Oh, I didn’t notice the unctuous Stephens wasn’t even on the list. Blow loses my attention after the first three words. The rest are dead-on, gunslinger. Or wordslinger. And Krugman is on Team Substack now, and he sounds liberated. Plus he has a music choice with each column, so extra credit for each assignment completed. And he writes a lot. Coming here soon: the entire editorial staff of the Washington Post.
This is quite 😊 good and quite saucy and perceptive. Happy Holiday.
Thank so much Mary Lou! I don't think I've actually had my writing called "saucy" before but I like it!
Loved this, Sam. made me laugh quite a few times.
Thanks so much David! This was fun for me too.
He, he, wait, this isn't funny. At all. I waste too much time reading middlebrow commentary. What the hell am I doing with my life? Existential crisis ahead, Captain . . .
Well done!
Haha! I had the same feeling actually. It's very different btw to look at NYTimes columns laid out in a row as opposed to reading them as they come in. If you read them in the moment, they seem authoritative and like a useful shaping of public opinion. If you read them in a stack, they just (with very few exceptions) seem like middlebrow conformist dreck. I think very few of them (really only Brooks and Douthat) stand up over time. - Sam
how long before Mr. French earns a spot on this list?
He's not so parody-ready! There are a few of them (French, McWhorter, Stephens, etc) who I find to be just very reasonable people not saying all that much that's satirisable.
ha! Interesting you mention McWhorter in the same breath as French. I consider myself a John McWhorter liberal, and if I was an evangelical (religiously+politically), I suspect I'd be a David French whatever-you-call-a-Reaganite-conservative-now.
K I nailed b) Maureen Dowd c) Nick Kristof d) David Brooks e) Paul Krugman h) Tom Friedman i) Ross Douthat
But I’m wondering who a) Gail Collins f) Charles Blow and g) Pamela Paul are
Oh, I didn’t notice the unctuous Stephens wasn’t even on the list. Blow loses my attention after the first three words. The rest are dead-on, gunslinger. Or wordslinger. And Krugman is on Team Substack now, and he sounds liberated. Plus he has a music choice with each column, so extra credit for each assignment completed. And he writes a lot. Coming here soon: the entire editorial staff of the Washington Post.