@MarkHubbard33 Did you just quote yourself in a tweet?
— Philip Matthews (@secondzeit) November 5, 2014
In The Bone Clocks, David Mitchell was able to do away with the world-building necessary of fantasy, and simply tap into the Green Party's Mad Max meme... [Snip] ... Isn't this literature as a social club?
“... literature has been surrendered to our interiors, oblivious to the world and how it works ... [Snip] ... [consequently] there’s not much in the way of what I would call the world in our literature: philosophy, economics, politics.”
Not I, some child born in a marvellous year,Will learn the trick of standing upright here.’(Poem: Allen Curnow.)
Addendum: this piece, one day from posting, has had two links, most notably a post devoted to it from Tony Camplin's US site Austrian Economics and Literature. Details under Appearances following footnotes at end.
To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything. – Friedrich Hayek pic.twitter.com/keMQmaLnlW
— Learn Liberty (@LearnLiberty) November 24, 2014
No. Let me be much clearer than that.
My position is I am not taking a position on the climate debate. So while I could cite numerous, rigourous sceptic sites (7) and (well) qualified scientists and climate professionals dismissing major aspects of the science (7a), including those seeming to demonstrate the ice shelf and snow caps aren't diminishing, (8)(8a) or I could point to a scientist who predicted our current 22 year cooling period 20 years ago - the facts meeting with his hypothesis - but instead of being celebrated he had his IPCC funding cut, (9) let’s not mention the 9,000 PhD’s and 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax (10) - because I can't find verification of that other than in a video clip - or how that stalwart of global warming, NASA, while unwavering in its climate change mantra, can't figure out why the lower ocean is not warming (11) – mind, NASA isn’t beyond the climate changers data manipulation itself (12) – I could promote minarchical environmentalism against our smothering statist one (13) – because I love the environment, I am an environmentalist in my individual habitats (as I am, given the Marxists are soon to feature again, an individualist feminist) – I could point out the moral case for fossil fuels which are keeping so much of the world population alive, (14) or, finally, I could quote (15) one of the world’s leading meteorologists:
Long before the Buffalo global warming blizzard of 2014, was the 1977 Buffalo global cooling blizzard pic.twitter.com/iH6aaMRwWo
— Steve Goddard (@SteveSGoddard) November 22, 2014
We're tired of telling you these things, but last month was the hottest October on record http://t.co/oUe0TOMVTK pic.twitter.com/Jnbj8CVLk2
— Slate (@Slate) November 14, 2014
@Slate Porky. It was only the 24th warmest. You do your cause a disservice by lying like this. http://t.co/9JwGNSUNWy @timjonesbooks
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) November 16, 2014
How come we're not hearing from the scientists who say the probe DIDN'T land on the comet? #mediabias
— Danyl Mclauchlan (@danylmc) November 12, 2014
Key plays into the tired stereotype of the hopeless husband. if your wife has to "put up" with u, change ur behaviour pic.twitter.com/Vs9B3fp20m
— Di W (@di_f_w) December 1, 2014
@di_f_w If I didn't want a whole lot of RadFem 101 a/cs on my back all day I'd ask the question so we're weaponising loving endearments now?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 1, 2014
Even - per her bio, 'progressive politics' - Di had to admit to brilliance from which there could be no come-back with that one:
I bet you're real proud of the phrase "weaponising love endearments", huh @MarkHubbard33 👏👏
— Di W (@di_f_w) December 2, 2014
Nah, pretty run-of-the-mill stuff for this blog Di :)
Sorry ... back to my topic proper.
#guardianlive @FollowWestwood @picadorbooks anti capitalism pro knitting go dame vivienne! pic.twitter.com/j636YtU8NY
— dusty miller (@dustyish) October 15, 2014
As I say, we take this notion for granted, and yet as soon as one puts it into words one realizes how literature is menaced. For this is the age of the totalitarian state, which does not and probably cannot allow the individual any freedom whatever. When one mentions totalitarianism one thinks immediately of Germany, Russia, Italy, but I think one must face the risk that this phenomenon is going to be world-wide. It is obvious that the period of free capitalism is coming to an end and that one country after another is adopting a centralized economy that one can call Socialism or state capitalism according as one prefers. With that the economic liberty of the individual, and to a great extent his liberty to do what he likes, to choose his own work, to move to and fro across the surface of the earth, comes to an end. Now, till recently the implications of this were not foreseen. It was never fully realized that the disappearance of economic liberty would have any effect on intellectual liberty. Socialism was usually thought of as a sort of moralized liberalism. The state would take charge of your economic life and set you free from the fear of poverty, unemployment and so forth, but it would have no need to interfere with your private intellectual life. Art could flourish just as it had done in the liberal-capitalist age, only a little more so, because the artist would not any longer be under economic compulsions. Now, on the existing evidence, one must admit that these ideas have been falsified.
Here, if you've found anything in this piece interesting, then you might like to read a chapter from my novel, soon to be queried with agents and publishers.
With that, given the length of this post, and the day job I’ve got to get back up to date, I doubt I’ll be able to post again before the New Year, so let me wish anyone who has made it this far all the best for the festive season. Drink and be merry; don’t let the wowsers bite, as hard as that will be in wowser nation.
Let me note that Hubbard makes essentially the same points Jaswinder Bolina does in regards to literary production being a spontaneous order, and the effect of particular institutions on that artistic production, particularly on the content. Both identify literary production as spontaneous orders, and both are arguing that our particular dominant institutional structures within that order are having an effect on content. I am not sure that Hubbard and Bolina would agree with each other on politics (I don't know Bolina's, but I do know the education he received), but they have still managed to come to similar conclusions about the state of literature and the reasons for that state.
I guess I knew the answer, albeit part of my thesis is politics may well be determining 'literary merit', and influencing the aesthetics of our contemporary literature; that's why I thought this of some importance.
Indeed, the matter of aesthetics is becoming the front and centre issue for me.
But don't panic regarding future essay submissions :) As I said in my piece I can't be bothered writing with academic rigour or in straight lines, so shall stick to hypertext and my blog.
Have a great festive season.
Kind regards Mark