Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Taylor Swift is a "Pentagon asset" [View all]Celerity
(54,921 posts)24. The Multiplying 'Philip Roths'
Has the celebrated author become better known for his persona than for what he wrote?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-multiplying-philip-roths/ar-AA1mtcAk

In Borges and I, a classic page-long story by Jorge Luis Borges, the Argentine writer presents the reader with a conundrum: How are we to distinguish between Borges, the living, breathing human being, and the affected and somewhat dandyish persona his writings have helped create? Although the two do share certain tastes and characteristics, its the other one who has a perverse custom of falsifying and magnifying things, Borges writes.
Ultimately, the author concludes that, though he is mortal, this writerly projection of himself is the one that will endure.I do not know, the essay concludes, which of us has written this page.
Something of this strange dilemmauntangling who an artist actually is from the inflated version of himself he creates on the pagecomes to mind while reading Julius Tarantos How I Won a Nobel Prize. His novel is a gleefully irreverent satire of so-called cancel culture, virtue signaling, and early-21st-century hypocrisy set largely on the campus of the Rubin Institute, a fictional center of higher learning staffed by an intellectually gifted but morally bereft faculty that has been shunned by former employers and at Rubin can pursue both research and perversions with impunity.
Here, Helen, a brilliant young physicist, arrives with her skeptical and performatively woke husband, Hew, to work on a superconductor project alongside her graduate adviser, Perry Smoot, who was exiled from Cornell after violating the universitys code of conduct, i.e. sleeping with a student. Though indisputably a genius, Smoot, Taranto writes, was as dumb as anyone, apparently, when it came to sex. For her part, Helen is guilty only of the crime of remaining in the academy, doomed to follow her adviser to the one suspect institution still willing to employ him.
snip
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-multiplying-philip-roths/ar-AA1mtcAk

In Borges and I, a classic page-long story by Jorge Luis Borges, the Argentine writer presents the reader with a conundrum: How are we to distinguish between Borges, the living, breathing human being, and the affected and somewhat dandyish persona his writings have helped create? Although the two do share certain tastes and characteristics, its the other one who has a perverse custom of falsifying and magnifying things, Borges writes.
Ultimately, the author concludes that, though he is mortal, this writerly projection of himself is the one that will endure.I do not know, the essay concludes, which of us has written this page.
Something of this strange dilemmauntangling who an artist actually is from the inflated version of himself he creates on the pagecomes to mind while reading Julius Tarantos How I Won a Nobel Prize. His novel is a gleefully irreverent satire of so-called cancel culture, virtue signaling, and early-21st-century hypocrisy set largely on the campus of the Rubin Institute, a fictional center of higher learning staffed by an intellectually gifted but morally bereft faculty that has been shunned by former employers and at Rubin can pursue both research and perversions with impunity.
Here, Helen, a brilliant young physicist, arrives with her skeptical and performatively woke husband, Hew, to work on a superconductor project alongside her graduate adviser, Perry Smoot, who was exiled from Cornell after violating the universitys code of conduct, i.e. sleeping with a student. Though indisputably a genius, Smoot, Taranto writes, was as dumb as anyone, apparently, when it came to sex. For her part, Helen is guilty only of the crime of remaining in the academy, doomed to follow her adviser to the one suspect institution still willing to employ him.
snip
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is this their "low rent Tucker Carlson? Who himself was a "low rent Bill O'Reilly". Who himself was a "low rent....". nt
Carlitos Brigante
Jan 2024
#5
Thanks for that - so it turns out it was a Trump DoD official who made it up, and co-indictee Jeffery Clark spread it
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2024
#34
Jesse Watters is both Peter Principle and Dunning-Kruger with a mix of stone age stupid and Baghdad Bob.
AZLD4Candidate
Jan 2024
#19
Never read it. Please elaborate for the ignorant of this topic please. I'd like to agree if I understood or knew
AZLD4Candidate
Jan 2024
#22
Well, he is a seedy and coarse jerkoff. So, you're right on all accounts, including the masturbation, being he is a
AZLD4Candidate
Jan 2024
#25