An interesting thought from Rushfield of the Ankler.
= = = = = START RUSHFIELD:
Among the many downsides of a presiding meritocratic elite is the takeover of the arts by a very narrow strata of individuals with a common pool of interests and obsessions. In literature, what that has meant is that portrayals of young people heavily focus on the Ivy League-bound overachievers who invent an app to end world hunger at age 14, after staging a local theater festival of updated retellings of Ibsen’s back catalog.
No doubt, by definition, the overachievers bring something to the table. But they do it in the least interesting way possible. And the big secret kept from those packing into weekend SAT-prep workshops, is that the people who really change the world aren’t those who had it all figured out in sixth grade, but the ones who fell down, and failed and wasted time and chalked up lots of regrets before they reached legal drinking age.
= = = = = END RUSHFIELD.
I’m not sure that changing the world is a proper goal. Changing the world usually means slaughtering millions of unchangeable peasants. I’m CERTAIN that the early failures are much more interesting people.
Rushfield then appends a list of mostly recent books about the ones who fell down and failed. He misses Cannery Row and On The Road.
Two questions:
1. Who will be Steinbeck or Kerouac for the current generation of fentanyl-overdosing homeless?
2. Will any of them live long enough to become interesting adults? They’re dying MUCH faster than previous Lost Generations. The chronicler needs to hurry.
State and local governments are doing everything possible to speed up the deaths, which would be called a genocide if those governments didn’t belong to The Correct Party.
Polistra's Mill 