Pages

Thursday 2 November 2023

The tyranny of non-fiction and current affairs



Fred Skulthorp has an interesting and entertaining Critic piece on the battle of ideas.


Against ideas

We have too many of them and they are not doing any good


Last Saturday afternoon, mid-way through the “Battle of Ideas” event in Westminster, I realised I was incredibly bored. Perhaps this was my own failing. This was after all an array of interesting people speaking about interesting things, from The Critic’s own Lola Salem on classical music to Andrew Orlowski on AI, and Tomiwa Owolade on the importation of American racial politics. Yet sitting through the various panels, on everything from Mizzy’s Tik-Tok antics to the fraying of the social contract, I couldn’t help but think I had heard it all before.

I know I’m not the only one who felt that way. One of the speakers Thomas Prosser has already written a polite and thoughtful questioning of the extent to which ideas did actually clash. I would go further. Substitute for “battle” the word “skirmish”, or even “circle jerk” — given that there was an orgiastic tendency for agreement — and you have a better event descriptor.



The whole piece is well worth reading as a reminder that there are too many useless ideas floating around the public arena. It is also a reminder that the idea that we have ideas may itself be a useless idea.


Reel in the ideas. Stop talking about them. They are everywhere now. Fiction, having died, has been replaced by the tyranny of non-fiction and current affairs. We have festivals, podcasts, endless books with titles starting with How, Why, When.

Underpinning this obsession, especially in an atomised society and a dying culture, is the entertainment value, the thrill, the purpose, of agreeing and disagreeing, of debating and debunking, and discussing and predicting from a thousand different angles. No one ever really changes their mind about anything. If they do, it’s usually because something terrible happens to them in the real world beyond that stagnant realm of ideas.

But sometimes not even this is enough. This week the Covid Inquiry saw Dominic Cummings once again cast as the pantomime villain. For all the sound and fury about swearing and Cummings being rude to people on Whatsapp, he had a point well worth addressing. Faced with a crisis, the government didn’t seem to work very well. In fact many of our institutions are the same. They don’t seem able to do the basics — usually because they have come to have ideas above their station. But who wants to discuss that? What a boring idea.

5 comments:

DiscoveredJoys said...

One of the benefits of institutions is that they have a hierarchy of authority which guides the organisations through pleasant times.

One of the disadvantages of institutions is that they are resistant to challenging the status quo through unpleasant times. The natural inertia of the bureaucrat.

A good boss will brainstorm ideas to address a problem and then use their authority to endorse the best solution, review progress, and if necessary, repeat the process.

But there are lots of ho hum bosses that don't know how to rise to the occasion. Tales from the COVID enquiry suggest that (surprisingly) Boris had the right ideas about managing the pandemic - but he didn't have enough authority to overrule the various factions and advisors.

And that's how not to implement good ideas.

Sam Vega said...

I completely agree, but I'm as guilty as any. My degree consisted almost entirely of juggling ideas, and my job consisted of transmitting them and understanding them. I often enjoy them (or more exactly, their clever expression) as a spectator sport. But it has all got a bit tedious. The reference to Cummings is interesting in this context. His blog is utterly ridiculous - the maunderings of a bloke who thinks he is a genius, obsessed with staying ahead of "ordinary people".

I won't give up, but I have resolved to read more fiction. It's better for the mind than the quick fizzle of clever notions.

A K Haart said...

DJ - I agree, Boris did have the right ideas about managing the pandemic. It's odd and almost suspicious that lockdown wasn't his idea but seemingly was used as an opportunity to get rid of him. As if the prospect of Boris rising to two occasions, Brexit and the pandemic, was too much for his colleagues and the permanent administration.

Sam - yes, Cummings' blog is ridiculous. Because of his reputation it took me by surprise to find he is just another charlatan, but he clearly is and the foul-mouthed aggression has nothing much behind it.

I read much more fiction than non-fiction these days and have a blog post ready to go describing the reasons why. Apart from history which I still read, I find the internet is often a better source of non-fiction than books.

dearieme said...

"Boris had the right ideas about managing the pandemic - but he didn't have enough authority".

It wasn't authority he lacked, it was balls. The figurative kind.

A K Haart said...

dearieme - or the Margaret Thatcher kind.