Came here to write this comment. If not meant to diminish his abuse, like, is it meant to diminish the value of the texts he’s read? I want to believe this article is written in good faith because I think The Drift is one of the best of the current little magazines, but at my most sympathetic, all I can see is a point about how reading particular sorts of books doesn’t really make one a particular kind of person. But this begs the question—does anyone out of college still believe that reading particular kinds of books over others makes one a particular kind of person? Were college students the target audience of this piece?
Mostly I think that this piece was neither on his reading nor on what he used reading to signal about himself—it just seems like a list of the books mentioned in the files, which doesn’t even have to indicate he actually read them.
I don't really understand these complaints. It's near-universally acknowledged that Jeffrey Epstein is a bad man who did bad things and caused immense harm; I feel like that doesn't need to be reiterated here. The piece is just about the books that he read or pretended to read and the purposes this may have served him, whether it was a purely cynical use of cultural signifiers or some kind of earnest dilettantish enjoyment which helped to flatter his ego. It doesn't comment on his crimes because that's not the subject; that is something that has been treated abundantly elsewhere. I don't know what you want from the author here.
But it's not just a list! There's commentary in there, if you read it. More would be good, I agree. In any case that's not the part I was objecting to: it's the suggestion that the author is somehow minimizing Epstein's crimes (which is in your comment and the one above it) that I find baseless.
I don't know that it's entirely baseless, but I see your point. I think for me this piece appeared to comment in some capacity on the person he was, through the books, in a way that may be unfair to the books mentioned depending on the analysis offered of the books. I did not think that there was no commentary in the piece--it's that I found it thin.
To be clear: I don't think the piece was intended to diminish the abuse. I think the way it presented his relation to the books diminished the value of the books mentioned, and I found that kind of disappointing. I said that if it's not some commentary on the abuse, it seems like it is a commentary on the books themselves.
The article only makes sense in light of the obscenity. Who would care what he read if they didn't come to this piece believing (correctly) that he was a monster?
There's a bit in here about that adage, that there is a moral uplift that one is supposed to enjoy as a reader of literary material. It's supposed to be edifying and ameliorating. I've always found it a despicable sort of liberal observation, and it characterizes this essay. If we've learned anything since the start of the genocide in October 2023 (not really the start but anyway) perpetrated by the entity for whom Epstein claimed to work, it's that liberalism is the fastest route to fascism, and this sort of essay is akin to the coverage of George W. Bush's painting hobby and Hitler's tastes in art and years at art school. Stop aestheticizing everything. You aren't as clever as you think you are.
Yes, are we supposed think this essay is entertaining? What is the point of this essay? Titillation? It's not only a waste of time, it's stupid. I thought The Drift was supposed to be a smart magazine.
Actually he was quite a bit busier than that, TK, and we're all getting sidetracked from the fact that a functional illiterate sociopath (he can rage-post on social media but has to struggle with the instructions on a bag of cheetos) who was best buds with Epstein is now sitting in the Oval office. The phenomenon of highly placed men (and women, but they're better at hiding their freak shows) who have cultured hobbies and tastes is an old one- do a little research on some of the Borgia Popes who commissioned that magnificent Vatican artwork. (And for the record, I've never thought James Joyce was anything but a lot of drunken gibberish) Epstein was a compulsive networked who cultivated pretty much everyone on the radar-as far as the special friends who got invited to the chicken hawk parties, Individual One's got some pretty fast tap dancing to do to dodge all the flying
tar-we'll see how all this plays out in thevmidterms....
I don’t give a fuck about the files. Start prosecuting and throwing people in jail for crimes that have actual evidence, releasing emails is useless. The hysteria going on about the supposed satanic rituals and cannibalism and trafficking hundreds children doesn’t help ANYONE. I don’t care if Trump is a pervert (he obviously is), I care if he committed actual crimes.
Satanic rituals, etc.and trafficking hundreds of children is stuff Russian-based influenncers accused Hillary of in Trump's first go-round- I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've dusted it off again, but the actual news isn't featuring it. As for Trumps' actual ( provable ) crimes? Take a number and stand in line...
I think this is a very strange article to publish and somehow feels like it is diminishing all of the obscenity and abuse he has inflicted.
Came here to write this comment. If not meant to diminish his abuse, like, is it meant to diminish the value of the texts he’s read? I want to believe this article is written in good faith because I think The Drift is one of the best of the current little magazines, but at my most sympathetic, all I can see is a point about how reading particular sorts of books doesn’t really make one a particular kind of person. But this begs the question—does anyone out of college still believe that reading particular kinds of books over others makes one a particular kind of person? Were college students the target audience of this piece?
Mostly I think that this piece was neither on his reading nor on what he used reading to signal about himself—it just seems like a list of the books mentioned in the files, which doesn’t even have to indicate he actually read them.
I don't really understand these complaints. It's near-universally acknowledged that Jeffrey Epstein is a bad man who did bad things and caused immense harm; I feel like that doesn't need to be reiterated here. The piece is just about the books that he read or pretended to read and the purposes this may have served him, whether it was a purely cynical use of cultural signifiers or some kind of earnest dilettantish enjoyment which helped to flatter his ego. It doesn't comment on his crimes because that's not the subject; that is something that has been treated abundantly elsewhere. I don't know what you want from the author here.
I think I made what I wanted reasonably clear: more analysis than "a list of the books mentioned in the files." Sorry about the miscommunication!
But it's not just a list! There's commentary in there, if you read it. More would be good, I agree. In any case that's not the part I was objecting to: it's the suggestion that the author is somehow minimizing Epstein's crimes (which is in your comment and the one above it) that I find baseless.
I don't know that it's entirely baseless, but I see your point. I think for me this piece appeared to comment in some capacity on the person he was, through the books, in a way that may be unfair to the books mentioned depending on the analysis offered of the books. I did not think that there was no commentary in the piece--it's that I found it thin.
To be clear: I don't think the piece was intended to diminish the abuse. I think the way it presented his relation to the books diminished the value of the books mentioned, and I found that kind of disappointing. I said that if it's not some commentary on the abuse, it seems like it is a commentary on the books themselves.
The article only makes sense in light of the obscenity. Who would care what he read if they didn't come to this piece believing (correctly) that he was a monster?
There's a bit in here about that adage, that there is a moral uplift that one is supposed to enjoy as a reader of literary material. It's supposed to be edifying and ameliorating. I've always found it a despicable sort of liberal observation, and it characterizes this essay. If we've learned anything since the start of the genocide in October 2023 (not really the start but anyway) perpetrated by the entity for whom Epstein claimed to work, it's that liberalism is the fastest route to fascism, and this sort of essay is akin to the coverage of George W. Bush's painting hobby and Hitler's tastes in art and years at art school. Stop aestheticizing everything. You aren't as clever as you think you are.
THIS!! And not one mention of the victims. The last sentence really set off a nerve, this is not some literary figure. This is a real life monster.
Yes, are we supposed think this essay is entertaining? What is the point of this essay? Titillation? It's not only a waste of time, it's stupid. I thought The Drift was supposed to be a smart magazine.
Thought-provoking
Epstine had sex with one 17 year old. The moral panic going on is insane.
Actually he was quite a bit busier than that, TK, and we're all getting sidetracked from the fact that a functional illiterate sociopath (he can rage-post on social media but has to struggle with the instructions on a bag of cheetos) who was best buds with Epstein is now sitting in the Oval office. The phenomenon of highly placed men (and women, but they're better at hiding their freak shows) who have cultured hobbies and tastes is an old one- do a little research on some of the Borgia Popes who commissioned that magnificent Vatican artwork. (And for the record, I've never thought James Joyce was anything but a lot of drunken gibberish) Epstein was a compulsive networked who cultivated pretty much everyone on the radar-as far as the special friends who got invited to the chicken hawk parties, Individual One's got some pretty fast tap dancing to do to dodge all the flying
tar-we'll see how all this plays out in thevmidterms....
I don’t give a fuck about the files. Start prosecuting and throwing people in jail for crimes that have actual evidence, releasing emails is useless. The hysteria going on about the supposed satanic rituals and cannibalism and trafficking hundreds children doesn’t help ANYONE. I don’t care if Trump is a pervert (he obviously is), I care if he committed actual crimes.
Satanic rituals, etc.and trafficking hundreds of children is stuff Russian-based influenncers accused Hillary of in Trump's first go-round- I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've dusted it off again, but the actual news isn't featuring it. As for Trumps' actual ( provable ) crimes? Take a number and stand in line...
Supposed to be "cannibalism"-edit button doesn't apparently work-