"Am I even smaller and meaner than Lileks not to enjoy him?"
Not necessarily. But statements like "I figured it was just some middle-brow vice shared by masses who like to read but are insensible to and ignorant of real wit" do give you the edge in smallness.
Do they? I had a little disclaimer on that sentence in my draft but took it out. Given what I think I know about myself (I'm reasonably well-educated and a pretty sensitive reader) and what I think of Lileks (he overwrites and he's mean), is it unreasonable to presume (presumption being the offending act, I imagine) that readers who enjoy Lileks are either missing the meanness or don't have what I'd call a proper standard of comparison?
Yes, it is, but that's not what I meant. The smallness lies in the petty snobbery.
As for Mr Lileks, he is indeed overrated. But then so is Kierkegaard.
I wouldn't want to comment on smallness and pettiness, Ogged (you seem very grand and noble to me). But with respect to the quality of James Lilek , I am afraid you are mad as a hatter.
You don't have to like it all, you don't have to agree with the politics, but I would hope you would agree that this (http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/kristoff.html ) and this (http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/olivegarden.html) are really funny.
Also funny is that he's dug up old pictures from look magazine of people lounging on the beach in JFK and Jackie death masks. You don't get this everywhere. No, it's not Wodehouse, but the guy is writing on the web for heaven's sake.
I suspect you're reacting less to his prose style than to some moral tone that sets you off -- the "unremitting small meanness" that I don't find at all.
Aha! BAA, you've done it for me.
"I suspect you're reacting less to his prose style than to some moral tone that sets you off"
I kind of said this in the original post, but the way you put it brought it into relief and it's quite simple really: I don't like him because he makes fun of people. And he does it in a particularly uncompromising way; his targets are caricatured and dehumanized (I should say too, the writer I find closest to Lileks in sensibility--and also abhor for the same reason--is Dickens). So, I have to admit, in all reasonableness, that he may be funny, but I can't get past what strikes me as his meanness. I did try to read the links you gave. I read about half of each one and didn't crack a smile. Oh well.
And Del, was it really petty snobbery? Wasn't it just good old fashioned snobbery? Although, in light of BAA's comment, the most reasonable thing for me to say is that I find Lileks unacceptably mean and I imputed that meanness to his readers; but perhaps they don't find him mean and enjoy him for merits to which my perception of him blinds me. That's about as friggin' noble as I get.
I'd like to get back to the question of snobbery sometime; or here, if you like. Del, you say it is unreasonable to presume, can you tell me why?
Intriguing. Is there no mocker or caricaturist you do enjoy? How about Waugh?
I should note, also, that I sent you to two of Lileks' more vitriolic efforts, nothing on B-movies, raising children, or tooling around Target. Thus, let me be presumptous: it's not just that Lileks' is a mocker and derider, there's something else about him that grates on you.
Uh oh. Haven't read any Waugh.
But the distinction between mocker and caricaturist seems pretty important to me. I don't mind seeing people mocked in an intelligent way, but mocking a caricature really bothers me. (Even responding to arguments as people make them bothers me; I'd rather see the best possible intended argument reconstructed and then refuted.)
I'd point to George Saunders' Civilwarland in Bad Decline as an example of intelligent (but uncompromising) mocking. And if you haven't read it, it's short and definitely worth the time.
As for Lileks in particular, it can't help that he's right-wing. But I'm not willing to completely back off the contention that he's mean.
If Waugh wrote any short stories you can recommend as a test, I'd be happy to read them. Ok, being pulled out the door...sorry for choppy...
Decline and Fall or Scoop. Neither are short stories, but you'll read either quickly. I should note: both are hideously, hideously mean. But funny!
And it can't be Lileks' fault that Kristoff made a caricature of himself, can it? Perhaps the appropriate response to a "Sue Saddam" article is merely to note it, sigh, and turn aside.
Oh, and Waugh is five kinds of bigot. But funny!
I'm with you on Lileks. It has always seemed to me his writing is close to meaningless if you don't already completely agree with his point of view-- he assumes that whatever/whoever he dislikes is stupid and makes no attempt to reach anyone who disagrees. That combines with the meanness you've already noted in a way I can't bear. I can't imagine thinking he's a great writer by any stretch.
I don't get the comparison to Dickens (who I like)... Have you read GREAT EXPECTATIONS?
Tom,
So glad to hear some agreement! I knew I couldn't be the only one. And (predicatably enough) I think you're right in your analysis.
I have to admit the dislike for Dickens is pretty idiosyncratic. I have read Great Expectations, but I find Dickens embittered. I sense lots of anger behind his humor and I don't like spending time with him.
I found this bit about the gay priest exceedingly strange:
This story has irritated me from the start, and it has nothing to do with Rev. Robinson's sexual orientation. The guy left his wife and kids to go do the hokey-pokey with someone else: that's what it's all about, at least for me. Marriages founder for a variety of reasons, and ofttimes they're valid reasons, sad and inescapable. But "I want to have sex with other people" is not a valid reason for depriving two little girls of a daddy who lives with them, gets up at night when they're sick, kisses them in the morning when they wake. There's a word for people who leave their children because they don't want to have sex with Mommy anymore: selfish.I often find the logic of conservative thinking on gay issues strange, but for some reason this really jumped out at me. It doesn't matter that he didn't really want to have sex with Mommy in the first place? That he's not attracted to her whole sex?