It definitely isn't, but if you feel like going for the most uncharitable reading possible be my guest. I respect Walter a lot more than you probably realize.
His Wikipedia article [0] is not as skeptical of his abilities and qualifications as I would have expected. Neither is that of the Vidocq Society [1]. Articles on controversial living people are hard to manage, but the Wikipedia articles and the NY Magazine article present opposite views of Walter, and I suspect they're both a bit distorted.
Its a pretty interesting read. I've got to say i can see the similarities between his portrayal in the movie and his portrayal in the article and while both of those might be untrue, its still interesting. Personally though, i dont really think hes an asshole.
People are not morally monolithic -- having been awful in one moment doesn't mean they can't be helpful or insightful in the next. I wouldn't listen in to someone harassing grieving parents, but I might listen to someone who haddone that, if they were talking about something else.
This sort of hyperventilating moralistic fear of certain people makes me laugh, in its similarity to Victorian or conservative Christian communities. You cannot possibly want anything to do with that vagabond! I don't know, he has some vices, but he also has some perspective I am enriched by hearing. You don't have to fear sinners. Don't imitate them, but your life will be richer if you're less of a prude.
Milo is a gadfly. He offends me sometimes, too. And sometimes he has stinging observations I don't hear anywhere else. I don't want to listen to him every day, but I would be poorer for having never made the acquaintance. Alex Jones is energetic and occasionally unhinged, and when he says something completely insane that also happens to be true, I find it a comedy experience like no other. But he can also be a wakeup call to some of the naive views I hold. I don't want to listen to him every day, either, but I would again be poorer if I never had.
But at the end of the day, I really resent gatekeepers who want to make these sorts of decisions for me. I read history -- which means I read lots of things lots of very evil people have written. I would actually rather have the opportunity to read and study Hitler's words than have them banned on the assumption that they are too dangerous for me. I would like to think I am wise enough to judge evil for what it is, and I would like to be able to prove that to myself against real villians of history. The versions I was given in elementary school hardly illustrate the dangers. Goodness knows I can't avoid encountering dangerous ideas in the real world anyway, so what is the point of trying to protect me? I would rather be strong than safe.
People are not children. They can handle reading history's dangerous ideas, and they can handle hearing society's dangerous ideas. It is better to encounter those ideas on Joe Rogan with thoughtful and open questioning and discussion, than to encounter them quiet and unopposed in private. Strong people are better than safe ones. Victorian moralizing and shunning didn't really work out for them either.
No, no! He's always a pleasure to read. But then I come from a long line of cynical curmudgeons and this stuff always reminds me of my (now deceased) uncles.
Here's the article I think you meant. I remember reading it, he comes across as a giant scumbag.
He doesn't do a very good at justifying his behaviour, though, which I think is weird. Most people at least try to justify the things they do, so as to not have an internal struggle. He doesn't seem to have any problems with it.
Just read this page of comments, it’s pretty typical. Dozens of people saying he was a nutty asshole and dozens of people saying he was a complex visionary. That’s par for the course.
I haven't actually read this review, it's not something that interested me, but I do find that (for better or for worse) I judge content on its author. Yes, if he was a Neo-Nazi who had killed 12 people, it would make me lose respect for his opinions.
Ok, It's been a while since I read 4HWW, but how is there so much praise for this guy? That book was like a how-to on being an amoral, freeloading douchebag.
The article isn't making an argument that he is evil. The argument is that he shouldn't necessarily be put on a pedestal as a person to model your behavour on.
Half way through the biography and there are plenty of more sinister examples of behaviour (e.g. denying paternity).
However, I believe the term is "flawed genius". The world is a better place when a few of them succeed! Of course, an unsuccessful flawed genius is better known as an "unbearable asshole".
Milo ‘Nero’ Yiannopoulous aka Milo Andreas Wagner but originally Milo Hanrahan is certainly a character: see The Blog That Peter Wrote for some interesting background.
However, his record at The Catholic Herald and The Kernel suggests you could probably find better sources on journalism.
The Blog That Peter Wrote
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
The Art of Self-Loathing
http://archive.is/cTgqq
He was also quite an anti-semite, so I don't think he's a great moral guide for anyone, despite the quality, and the importance of his work.
His books are worth reading for everyone - not to take a piss on the USSR, but to think about the ways we are different, and more importantly, the ways we are similar to it.
Read the article linked in that link, even he comes straight out and says "This is in no way a Hitler biography." It's a bad sign when your linked citations contradict your point. The rest of it is an anecdotal and largely unrelated mess, you can scroll farther down for some of the responses to it.
I think OSC's political positions are nigh idiotic, and frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books. E.G. Homosexual characters in his books are not society destroying monsters. Yet even given that you're still overstepping sane literary analysis when you start the Hitler biography bullshit. Attack the man on his politics all you want, his positions are easy to verify and highly public, just leave the stupid smears to die.
I find the motivation behind his contempt and scorn to be not that of someone who despises a murderer, but that of someone who is envious of someone's superior intellect.
Notice how he attempts to belittle Reiser, how he throws in the "genius" word . . .
I have been the focus of that sort of envy before, and it is written ALL over that nitwit's piece.
"Walter Isaacson is the perfect writer for the biographies of our times because he appears to be a born sycophant, and fate decreed that he would be in the right position, at the right moment, to spread as much propagandistic bullshit as possible."
I agree with this completely. If you enjoy his novels, then read them. No where does it say that you have to agree, or even read, his personal and political views (yes, I realize they seep into his novels, but this goes back to my "if you like the novels, read them" statement).
On the subject of his political views, I looked at the referenced Wikipedia site and don't see anything "vulgar" listed there. Perhaps I use a different definition of "vulgar" than others... [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulgar]
reply