This was actually how I found the Franzen article.
But ... I don't think the response is nearly as formidable as the challenge. The writer of the NY Times article has that superficial knowledge of a programmer newbie (for example, comparing Facebook / Google with an operating system is not as wrong as it might seem), but not the depth of thought that Franzen has.
i don't think there's much depth of thought at all. He doesn't understand that future reviews will have better algorithms filtering them. He doesn't mention that quality during the print era was terrible also. That since the beginning of printing, trash was being written, and things were being written purely for profit. And that in the internet age, an awesome writer can find an audience of 50. The main thing is that he doesn't really understand technology, probably because he doesn't use it.
It is, however, more poetic and more emotionally resonant than the response.
He actually understands all of those things. He mentions in particular that "since the beginning of printing, trash was being written, and things were being written purely for profit".
I really doubt that he understands that algorithms will be formed that filter those reviews out on amazon. I really do believe he thinks that quality control being supposedly better in print was actually good for the best writers.
What evidence have you given that you understand these "better algorithms?" You haven't even described them, let alone named them. Merely alluded to them like a religious believer invoking handwavey ideas of first cause. I don't think you are in a position to criticize "depth of thought."
Moore's law is a statement about transistor density. It does not apply to algorithmic/mathematical innovation, otherwise we'd have sentient robot buddies already. Do you find the algorithms and languages of today exponentially superior to those of 50 years ago? May I remind you LISP came about in 1958...
>I really do believe he thinks that quality control being supposedly better in print was actually good for the best writers.
And this is exactly why I, apparently like Mr. Franzen, appreciate the "quality control" of newspapers like, for example, the Guardian in this case.
Otherwise, people tend to believe that dismissing a thoughtful 5,000+ word essay with, "I really doubt he understands the Amazon algorithms" passes for reasonable criticism.
This article is not a thoughtful one. It is a poetic one, and it is emotional, and it is even elegant and melancholic. There's nothing new here that Franzen hasn't really already said.
Here's a quote of his:
I think the Internet should be really strictly regulated, the way the airwaves used to be. If an entire region of the country had its main industry suddenly lose 90 percent of its paying jobs because of the predatory practices of a different region’s industry, you might, if you were the government, step in and say, “We can’t actually let this entire region starve. We’re going to subsidize prices, we’re going to redistribute some income.” Why should Apple shareholders be getting rich while working journalists are getting fired? This is an unjust situation, and the libertarians in Silicon Valley are either moral idiots or liars. They know they’re getting away with shit they shouldn’t get away with, and all they’ve got is this idea of libertarianism. That, and the mantra of making the world a better place.
If you think he's a thoughtful person and he's given a lot of time thinking about this, you're wrong. He's not thoughtful, he's defensive about novelists and journalists, and brick and mortar bookstores.
If you read his articles and if you've read his books, you would understand his position on technology is a simple, not thoughtful, not deeply reasoned position. It is VERY black and white and often just wrong.
I'm only talking about his position on tech/internet. He's a great writer and I've read everything he's ever written. And will continue to do so. I'm a huge fan of his.
Similarly, I LOVE Walt Whitman. However, I wouldn't take advice on the beauty of equations from Walt Whitman. It's perfectly fine for someone to be a great poet, but has no ability to see the same elegance in mathematical equations. But to dismiss those equations, it reveals a certain ignorance. But still, I can get into his perspective and find that his poems are very beautiful.
as a percentage of course. There are web publications with greater quality control than certain print publications of course. but probably not overall as a percentage.
If what you got out of Mr. Franzen's essay was that he's a technophobe who divides the world into Mac and PCs and doesn't know what an operating system is, then yeah, appropriate response.
Personally, I think his essay was a little deeper than that.
