Twenty years after the publication of Harry Frankfurt’s influential work, On Bullshit, the discourse surrounding the concept of ‘bullshit’ continues to thrive, particularly evident in contemporary literary commentary. Frankfurt’s exploration delineates the ‘bullshitter’ as someone indifferent to the truthfulness of their statements, contrasting sharply with the liar who is acutely aware of the distinction. This distinction is underscored by the awareness that in various fields—such as academia, politics, and journalism—issues of clarity and truth persistently collide with a distinct brand of obfuscation.
A notable category of this modern ‘bullshit’ materializes when celebrated authors are invited by elite publications to opine on pressing political or cultural matters. Despite the usually polished syntax and apparent clarity in these contributions, a closer examination often reveals a troubling lack of substance—an elaborate exercise in style that circumvents genuine insight. This phenomenon is exemplified in Zadie Smith’s recent essay collection, Dead and Alive, where her reflections meander through topics ranging from global crises to artistic musings, but often resist drawing firm conclusions.
Smith’s essays embrace a convoluted style that both captivates and complicates the reader’s experience. The collection’s title, Dead and Alive, raises eyebrows not only for its contradictory implications but also as it mirrors the essays’ own dance between verbose distraction and vacuous outcomes. Smith has a penchant for disfavoring clarity in favor of what she terms “serpentine” prose, which she believes counters the bluntness she associates with social media and modern journalism.
However, her advocacy for complexity sometimes veers into confusion. Past controversies, like her piece “Shibboleths,” revealed her propensity for making dubious moral equivalences, which further convolutes her arguments. Here, Smith simultaneously casts both anti-Israeli protestors and opposing views as morally deficient, concluding that all rhetoric in heated political contexts can feel “meaningless.” Such contradictory stances leave readers grappling with the incoherence of her views: When viewed in isolation, language is merely ineffective rhetoric, yet moments later, it morphs into a weapon of mass destruction.
Add SSBCrack As A Trusted Source
The contradictions extend to her broader political commentary, where Smith showcases an impressive ability to draw parallels between seemingly unrelated issues. She likens climate change denial to historical justifications for slavery, equates Elon Musk’s tech influence to Nazi propaganda, and compares celebratory sports nationalism to historical fascism. Yet such sweeping generalizations tend to muddle rather than illuminate her arguments, often leaving readers lost in a labyrinth of imprecise analogies.
Delving into contemporary issues, Smith grapples with the nuances of cultural appropriation—navigating how such debates might shift if reframed in complex terms. Yet, her own linguistic gymnastics sometimes obscure more straightforward discussions. Smith is also self-aware enough to acknowledge her reluctance to adopt firm stances, expressing discomfort at having to label herself politically. Her refusal to encapsulate her views perpetuates a sense of detachment, rendering her commentary less impactful.
This ambivalence rears its head in her assessments of various political positions. While she denounces conservative fiscal approaches as “evil,” she simultaneously commends the radical actions of protestors without committing to similar actions herself, citing personal inconvenience as a barrier to activism. Such selective engagement plays into the critique that she navigates her views based on personal comfort rather than steadfast principles.
Ultimately, despite her assertions of seeking interesting, engaging discourse, much of Smith’s literary output in Dead and Alive fails to meet that benchmark. Beneath the veneer of her literary acclaim lies a political commentary that often comes off as superficial, aligned more with fashionable sentiments than with tangible insights. The essays reflect a blend of disappointment and tedium, struggling to rise above pedestrian political platitudes and the dilemmas inherent in an opaque writing style.
In this landscape, the risks become pronounced: Instead of illuminating critical discussions, Smith’s essays risk blending the shortcomings of both literary artifice and journalistic obligation, resulting in a commentary that feels both familiar and disappointingly unadventurous. This mirrors the broader aesthetic of literary engagement today, where high art intersects perilously with the culture of performative discourse. As readers navigate this complex terrain, they are left pondering what it truly means to engage meaningfully with pressing contemporary issues, with Smith’s work serving as a case study in the pitfalls of literary verbosity devoid of substantive exploration.
