Comments on: On Adam Gopnik’s Ridiculous Philip K. Dick Essay

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:14:47 +0000

Jonathan Lethem at the Cooper Union in NYC!
Vivien – 9/6/2007 8:55:09 PM
Jonathan Lethem: Philip K. Dick: Four Novels of the 1960s
Lecture and book signing
Thursday, September 27, 6:30 pm
The Great Hall
7 East 7th Street at Third Avenue
Free

Jonathan Lethem: Philip K. Dick: Four Novels of the 1960s

Acclaimed writer Jonathan Lethem is the editor of a selection of novels written by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick from the 1960s. Dick left behind more than 160 short stories and novels when he died in 1982. Many of his tales have become successful films, such as Blade Runner and Minority Report. Lethem bundled four of Dick’s novels into one book to give a new generation the opportunity to discover Dick’s futuristic visions.

Jonathan Lethem is the author of seven novels, including Gun, with Occasional Music; The Fortress of Solitude and You Don’t Love Me Yet. Motherless Brooklyn, his fifth, won the National Book Critics Circle Award.

By: Anarch Peak

Anarch Peak — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:34:43 +0000

I had never heard of Gopnik before, but his article is has a superficial, irritating to tone, although some points are fair enough. In fact, I only skimmed it. I can’t help thinking that it’s good for PKD anyway that wide circulation media run articles on him anyway. Helps to keep his profile up!

By: DW.

DW. — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:28:51 +0000

So I guess writers are only allowed to critique other writers that have bigger readerships than they do?

And once a writer is dead, all critiques are off?

Jesus, at least judge an argument on its own merits, not by who’s making it and who it’s about.

By: CBO

CBO — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:00:05 +0000

I just got done reading the Gopnick piece again. I wanted to make sure that I hadn’t misread his tone, which I didn’t. What is bothers me so much about Gopnick’s piece is what bothered me so much about Franzen’s piece on Gaddis, and it is this: In both pieces, fairly young, very sucessful writers go out of their way to dump on dead writers who were, at best, seen as marginal figures while they were alive. Dick could barely afford to live until the last few years of his life, and Gaddis had to work as a corporate speech writer for the better part of his working life. PKD and Gaddis both wrote about (amongst many things, mind you)dehumanization, how this particular period in late-stage capitalism turns even the best of men into wind-up toys. More people have access to Gopnick’s writing on a weekly basis (vis a vis The New Yorker) than anyone ever had to either PKD or Gaddis. To me, what this boils down to, is that Gopnick is a bully (as is Franzen), but the worst kind of bully, the type of bully who picks on those he knows cannot fight back. At least Dale Peck has the courage to attack those who occupy the station above, i.e., Whitehead, DFW, Pynchon. Gopnick is a coward. Not to mention that his name – Gopnick – sounds like a name PKD would have given one of his less desirable characters. Oh, that’s so immature of me. Making fun of someone’s name. Now I’m the bully. I’m done. I have nothing else to say on this topic. Thanks, Ed, for letting me rant.

By: CBO

CBO — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:21:24 +0000

James: I can think of no easier way of accruing attention for yourself than by using the word whore in your description of someone else. Ed’s argument seems to me to be pretty upfront, so if there is something he’s not saying, and this you’re sure of, then why don’t you tell us what he’s not willing to say. And if you don’t know what it is that he’s trying not to say, then how can you be sure that he’s not saying it?

By: James

James — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:02:41 +0000

CBO, I think it’s certainly legitimate to talk about class when discussing PKD, especially vis-a-vis The New Yorker.

Josh, I think Ed has a reasoned argument to make but he’s choosing not to make it, or rather to obscure it. You can find some interesting stuff in Dale Peck’s writing too, but mostly Peck is just an attention whore and he let that get the better of him. I think that’s what’s happening here, is that Ed wants attention and he knows he’ll get it if he says something really mean that is actually not necessary for the argument he is making.

By: CBO

CBO — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:21:10 +0000

Josh: of course I’m resentful. I think that’s pretty obvious in my comment. I also think it’s pretty obvious in Gopnick’s piece that he is resentful of PKD. And I think it’s pretty obvious in your comment that you’re resentful of what I said. So my question to you is not whether it’s acceptable to be so resentful, but whether or not I should be resentful of how obvious you are.

So that’s my impersonation of Joyce Carol Oates.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:20:18 +0000

Now, that’s and ad hom, CBO. Ressentiment much?

Ed, you did a great job of articulating just what’s wrong with the Gop’s piece. I was so hopeful, though, when you said “Gopnik does at least offer an interesting comparison between Dick and another Philip.” I was like “Ochs? How could I have missed it?”

Thank you for this. The article has elicited a lot of nonsense in the blogosphere, and it’s nice to see a reasoned argument about it.

By: CBO

CBO — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:54:42 +0000

I agree with you, Ed. It wasn’t so much what Gopnick was saying, as how he was saying it. And to belittle PKD’s prose shows me what a remedial intellect Gopnick has. Had PKD got to shuttle back and forth between two of the most expensive cities in the world (Paris & NYC), publishing his diary entries, a la Monsieur Gopnick, instead of writing for his life, perhaps he could’ve done some more lesiurely revisions, as per Gopnick request. Sometimes I forget that The New Yorker is written by the rich, for the rich. And to those who would say that there’s no need to bring class into the argument, well, you didn’t read Gopnick’s article closely enough, because the whole piece was dripping with class condescension from first word to last.

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:24:32 +0000

Absolutely, James the First. I also eat my entree with my salad fork. Your point being?

By: James

James — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:22:18 +0000

It doesn’t matter. The point is there is no place for personal attacks in serious discourse. The personal attacks will always over-shadow and take from whatever else you are trying to say.

By: James

James — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:54:20 +0000

For some reason, I feel compelled to note that I am not the James who posted above.

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:41:29 +0000

James: If you had bothered to read this post, you’ll see that I used many examples from Gopnik’s text to reveal his deficient argument. As for why I went ad hominem, well, let’s just say that Gopnik wanted to kick PKD in the balls on flimsy pretext and that one must sometimes fight dirtier. Chilidish? Perhaps. I am, after all, six years old.

By: James

James — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:34:56 +0000

You talk about referencing the text but your post is primarily concerned with personal attacks. When you call someone a “reductionist blowhard who I suspect is not much fun at a cocktail party” you come off like a child and undermine your own argument. It’s an argument that, if you tried harder, I think would have some merit. But instead of raising the level of discourse (to discuss the text) you lower the level of discourse (by hurling personal insults). I think that’s unfortunate.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:33:53 +0000

Ah Ed, you see, an essay of the caliber you describe here would have taken a considerable amount of research and insight. It would have meant thinking before writing. The New York Times is not the publication to which one goes for such improbable heights. How silly of you to have thought so.