The comments on this article is that it is:
"without...a thesis or a point", "hadn't...anything substantive", "stylish", "smooth-talking"
This is exactly what the author is saying about the Silicon Valley hype machine, with notable commissars like Tim O'Reilly. For myself, I'm glad the Baffler is sticking its first pin into this balloon full of hot air.
I understand why this article goes over the heads of most of the readers here. In the seventh paragraph it says "O'Reilly is the Bernard-Henri Levy of Route 101". Do you understand what he means by saying that? Do you know who Bernard-Henri Levy is? Do you know why the Baffler crowd holds him in contempt? Can you give a detailed explanation of the disagreements between the New Philosophers and the post-structuralists? Most Baffler readers can answer these questions, and it is assumed that someone reading the article could fully answer what "O'Reilly is the Bernard-Henri Levy of Route 101" means. If you don't understand that, you won't understand the article, and can not dismiss it other than to say you don't understand it.
As far as verbosity - Noam Chomsky often says if you repeat popular propaganda bromides, you can just stop there. If you say something counter to the cultural hegemony, it will need a long explanation, footnotes, multiple references and so forth. This is one reason articles like this seem long, if he is making a point about O'Reilly, he will have to point to multiple instances of things O'Reilly said, to nail down the case he is making.
Thanks for this counterpoint to the glib dismissals around here. The message of the article is hard to hear if you already have ideological commitments to the transformative potential of entrepreneurial activity and to the power of Web 2.0.
It's a long, difficult article. So, pick something you didn't like, and dismiss it all wholesale? Too easy.
I read the article, and disagreed with half the message. The first (Specificity is important) was very good, well defended, and made me think about how I use language in my life. The second (O'Reilly is a shill for Rand) was soapboxing about a topic the writer didn't appear to understand.
I'm not sure that the throwaway metaphor in the seventh paragraph is in any way related to a reader's dismissal of each argument in the article. Each piece of evidence presented in the article is poorly analyzed, even when it could provide a solid foundation for an argument.
As far as verbosity goes, a longer collection of ad-hominem attacks does not equal a stronger or more persuasive argument.
This is exactly what the author is saying about the Silicon Valley hype machine, with notable commissars like Tim O'Reilly. For myself, I'm glad the Baffler is sticking its first pin into this balloon full of hot air.
I understand why this article goes over the heads of most of the readers here. In the seventh paragraph it says "O'Reilly is the Bernard-Henri Levy of Route 101". Do you understand what he means by saying that? Do you know who Bernard-Henri Levy is? Do you know why the Baffler crowd holds him in contempt? Can you give a detailed explanation of the disagreements between the New Philosophers and the post-structuralists? Most Baffler readers can answer these questions, and it is assumed that someone reading the article could fully answer what "O'Reilly is the Bernard-Henri Levy of Route 101" means. If you don't understand that, you won't understand the article, and can not dismiss it other than to say you don't understand it.
As far as verbosity - Noam Chomsky often says if you repeat popular propaganda bromides, you can just stop there. If you say something counter to the cultural hegemony, it will need a long explanation, footnotes, multiple references and so forth. This is one reason articles like this seem long, if he is making a point about O'Reilly, he will have to point to multiple instances of things O'Reilly said, to nail down the case he is making.