I'm somewhat skeptical of the "conservative-coded" take. A lot of conservatives think reading Great Books, or any books of high literary or intellectual quality, is a waste of time. If you must read books, they should be about business, entrepreneurship, or current political topics; or they should be practical, providing life lessons and stuff like that. (Religious conservatives are something of an exception to this.)
I see where you're coming from, particularly with the idea that books aren't worth reading unless they allow you to upload the ability to write apps to your brain or whatever (which is by no means a solely conservative idea!). But those conservatives who acknowledge the value of reading imaginative literature are pretty uniformly Great Books people, even if I'm not sure that this is the primary reason why people don't read 'em. In her book, Naomi lists a bunch of prominent journals and conservative figures that have been associated with the GB--William Bennett, Jeremy Wayne Tate, Chris Rufo, Ron DeSantis, Christian charter schools (which are vast and well-funded), and magazines like First Things, which definitely have a conservative GB slant. So I don't think it's unreasonable to associate the GB with social conservatism.
Great take on the "bad politics" framing. The point about signaling vs actual concern is super sharp - most poeple probably do worry more about looking like a right-winger to their circle than about Aristotle corrupting them. I've also found the "too busy" excuse usually masks either disintrest or the assumption that these books wont offer anything practical. The welcoming tone here really does undercut that pretentious-nerd stereotype tho.
A lovely, balanced take. I'm a Woman of Letters megafan, but it is a little scope-narrowing to make the "bad politics" argument quite so central. Most people I've talked to about the Great Books object first via 1) "I'm too busy" and, when pressed, 2) some variation of dismissing them as, in your excellent phrase, gauzy bloviations. Nonetheless, I'm excited to read it. Thanks for the review!
Thanks for reading! I certainly think the book's worth reading--and it's also worth buying as a gift for those in your life who may not share your interest in the GB.
I think you are spot on about the signalling, and though you put it gently, it does feel key -- the whole frame seems so curious to me without it, even allowing for the cultural difference (reading old books isn't so "coded" in the UK). As you tease out, there are two separate things here -- one is the ongoing argument, if you can call it that, between bookish people about "the canon". The other is the question of how you encourage people to even become bookish in the first place. Have you read E. M. Forster's "Does culture matter?" It's of it's time but still the only convincing answer I know to the second.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the "conservative-coded" take. A lot of conservatives think reading Great Books, or any books of high literary or intellectual quality, is a waste of time. If you must read books, they should be about business, entrepreneurship, or current political topics; or they should be practical, providing life lessons and stuff like that. (Religious conservatives are something of an exception to this.)
I see where you're coming from, particularly with the idea that books aren't worth reading unless they allow you to upload the ability to write apps to your brain or whatever (which is by no means a solely conservative idea!). But those conservatives who acknowledge the value of reading imaginative literature are pretty uniformly Great Books people, even if I'm not sure that this is the primary reason why people don't read 'em. In her book, Naomi lists a bunch of prominent journals and conservative figures that have been associated with the GB--William Bennett, Jeremy Wayne Tate, Chris Rufo, Ron DeSantis, Christian charter schools (which are vast and well-funded), and magazines like First Things, which definitely have a conservative GB slant. So I don't think it's unreasonable to associate the GB with social conservatism.
Great take on the "bad politics" framing. The point about signaling vs actual concern is super sharp - most poeple probably do worry more about looking like a right-winger to their circle than about Aristotle corrupting them. I've also found the "too busy" excuse usually masks either disintrest or the assumption that these books wont offer anything practical. The welcoming tone here really does undercut that pretentious-nerd stereotype tho.
A lovely, balanced take. I'm a Woman of Letters megafan, but it is a little scope-narrowing to make the "bad politics" argument quite so central. Most people I've talked to about the Great Books object first via 1) "I'm too busy" and, when pressed, 2) some variation of dismissing them as, in your excellent phrase, gauzy bloviations. Nonetheless, I'm excited to read it. Thanks for the review!
Thanks for reading! I certainly think the book's worth reading--and it's also worth buying as a gift for those in your life who may not share your interest in the GB.
I think you are spot on about the signalling, and though you put it gently, it does feel key -- the whole frame seems so curious to me without it, even allowing for the cultural difference (reading old books isn't so "coded" in the UK). As you tease out, there are two separate things here -- one is the ongoing argument, if you can call it that, between bookish people about "the canon". The other is the question of how you encourage people to even become bookish in the first place. Have you read E. M. Forster's "Does culture matter?" It's of it's time but still the only convincing answer I know to the second.