He writes *so* well. But I think he'd be a bad friend, and god *help* the person who falls in love with him. He sounds profoundly narcissistic, and so engrossed in the task of conveying his own complex dysphoria in a striking, accurate, entertaining way that he has no time or attention for anyone else's sensibility and the rocky hills it's rolling down.
Yes, all of that. But whatever his flaws are, he utilizes them to literary perfection. I would be excited to read a menu written by him. If we're lucky, maybe sycophants like me will inflate his ego so far that he eventually goes insane and becomes a living embodiment of his reality bending essays...a girl can only dream.
But for real, he is the only one who rises to the challenge of satire these days, and he reaches so deep into the guts of a metaphor, and seamlessly weaves archetypes through time and dimension. It might be a matter of taste, but "Sam Kriss is the best writer of a generation" is one of my strongest taste opinions.
If the NYT reads this exchange they're gonna be snarky about how people here use the expression "update your epistemic status." They want to be, like, the archetypal smart perceptive people, the ones who are just smart and perceptive, with no admixture of dirt and contaminants. They see clearly and they see far, but they don't use odd expressions. They just say things like "so are you going to be able to do that Q&A you mentioned, Scott?" They've got clear complexions! We're smart but from their POV our appearance is marred bycthese culty ingroup phrases and mannerisms, like warts, you know?
Someone please get awkwardly starstruck around Sam Kriss and tell him it's from me
Man, what is the appeal of that guy?
I can't stand him. And I'm not just saying that because he got MeToo'd; I actually think that attack was real weak. His writing just repels me.
Are you interested in explaining?
He writes extremely well. I admire that. But his sole subject, really, is himself.
He writes *so* well. But I think he'd be a bad friend, and god *help* the person who falls in love with him. He sounds profoundly narcissistic, and so engrossed in the task of conveying his own complex dysphoria in a striking, accurate, entertaining way that he has no time or attention for anyone else's sensibility and the rocky hills it's rolling down.
Yes, all of that. But whatever his flaws are, he utilizes them to literary perfection. I would be excited to read a menu written by him. If we're lucky, maybe sycophants like me will inflate his ego so far that he eventually goes insane and becomes a living embodiment of his reality bending essays...a girl can only dream.
But for real, he is the only one who rises to the challenge of satire these days, and he reaches so deep into the guts of a metaphor, and seamlessly weaves archetypes through time and dimension. It might be a matter of taste, but "Sam Kriss is the best writer of a generation" is one of my strongest taste opinions.
A previous announcement said "possibly Q&A with Scott." Scott, could you update your epistemic status on that?
Let's update it to "probably Q&A with Scott"
If the NYT reads this exchange they're gonna be snarky about how people here use the expression "update your epistemic status." They want to be, like, the archetypal smart perceptive people, the ones who are just smart and perceptive, with no admixture of dirt and contaminants. They see clearly and they see far, but they don't use odd expressions. They just say things like "so are you going to be able to do that Q&A you mentioned, Scott?" They've got clear complexions! We're smart but from their POV our appearance is marred bycthese culty ingroup phrases and mannerisms, like warts, you know?