Ta-Nehisi Coates Rules, The Thread

My argument about the HHV covers takes in a two-decade* ongoing history of Marvel corporate literally trying to eradicate the DM

I'm pretty confused on this point - how are those variants helping to "eradicate the DM"? That's pretty much the only way you can get them - B&N and Walmart aren't going to have the hip hop covers. Marvel may have pulled their comics from B&N, there was an issue with them being put out too early or the consigning company (B&N uses a middle-man for comics at least) not paying for the books or something.

It's off topic here but retailers are to blame for stupid variants - if you're bumping your numbers beyond a sellable amount to get a hip hop variant (the thresholds were crazy - 150+% of a previous title IIRC), that's on you. Likewise over-ordering to speculate on variants you can actually sell for a premium (the HHV covers are free to order if you meet the threshold so they won't command a premium). If retailers were smart they'd order the numbers they can move and any variants they qualify for are a bonus, insurance against the titles that flop. After you blame retailers, then it's consumers - they're the ones who want Skottie Young covers of every goddamned title and pay $65 for a J. Scott Campbell variant to see a female character with enormous boobs.

I think the debate about the corporate comics market was what we were trying to avoid, but does deserve its own thread, especially with multiple ilxors with good data on it.

T-NC writing for Marvel definitely a point in the discussion about something or another though

Considering that Marvel's previous Voice of Black America is a very white English ex-ILXor, it can't be bad news.

huh what? who

the writer of Mighty Avengers!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/thomas-chatterton-williams/loaded-dice

thats a brilliant review. ive not read the book, as i dont particularly care for his brand of martyr-ish afro-pessimism, no matter how 'well' its written (every excerpt i have read seems steeped in a kind of masturbatory grandiloquence), so perhaps my opinion is moot, but ive read enough excerpts, and so far, they just make me think that hes a skilled writer, but not a particularly novel thinker. im not sure he has anything all that fresh to say, that might challenge anyone, black or white, on debates around race. all he seems to do is reinforce the liberal status quo.

ive read enough excerpts

all he seems to do

ta-nehisis coates is far from unimpeachable, but c'mon

i was not talking about everything he has written, just this particular book.

btw I don't agree or disagree with the review (haven't read the bk or much Coates), just wanted to know what some of the fans here might think of it.

afro-pessimism

!

not my term.

i thought that referred to the continent of africa

im not sure he has anything all that fresh to say

did you already forget the part where you said 'pessimism'

can you point it out to me please?

coates is open about the fact that he's not saying anything new; that's not his project.

you calling his writing "masturbatory" is making me deranged-level angry, also, so i think i should step away

like a book about his fears that his son will be shot is him just stroking himself? fuck you

TNC and tressie were insinuating the guy who wrote that LRB review wrote a neg review because his booked got snubbed for same book award TNC won. apparently he wrote a shorter more positive review around the time the book came out. i generally love how TNC goes after his critics and think he does it in a playful and gracious way, but this particular instance was NAGL imo

its not really a 'negative' review. its more of a questioning review.

@horseshoe, im sorry if my wording was a bit curt perhaps, but i dont think something being a passionate, heated, letter to someone's child (albeit in the very public form of a high profile book meant for eyes other than just the child's) precludes it from being masturbatory or grandiloquent *stylistically*

The reaction from Ta-nehisi Coates himself has been to point out this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-black-mans-stark-visceral-experience-of-racism/2015/07/09/68a3fca6-23d7-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

Thomas Chatterton Williams reviewed the book before, he came to a very different conclusion, but he's still kinda plagiarising parts of his own review. Also, if we're saying that Coates doesn't bring anything new to the table, what on earth does Chatterton Williams contribute with?

perhaps i could say 'likes the sound of his own writerliness' rather than masurbatory, though im not sure how much difference that would make.

What on earth are you talking about? Every writer likes the sound of his own writerliness, I would really hope, otherwise what's the point? It's a quite low-paying job, the reason you sit around day after day working on the sentences is because few things are as good as getting writing just right.

And Ta-nehis Coates is such an inspiration. The way he uses metaphors is just awe-inspiring.

The reaction from Ta-nehisi Coates himself has been to point out this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-black-mans-stark-visceral-experience-of-racism/2015/07/09/68a3fca6-23d7-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

Thomas Chatterton Williams reviewed the book before, he came to a very different conclusion

that's what i said in my post. they were implying that he changed his conclusion because of some award they were both up for going to coates

coates is open about the fact that he's not saying anything new; that's not his project.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 26 November 2015 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Demanding the new is StillAdvance's 'project'.

x-post: Yeah I know. Wrote it before I saw your post, decided not to edit. Sorry.

"Demanding the new is StillAdvance's 'project'."

do you have anything to say of your own other than simply pointing out perceived flaws in other people's opinions?

P/amazing to read these two reviews. The work that quote from Baldwin is doing. Although this:

It is hard, perhaps impossible, not to be enraptured by his righteous and — unlike with Baldwin — loveless indignation.

Points to how he can flip from one really positive to another really negative review. Obviously people change their views all the time but this is a strange (to say the least) thing to do and not explain. I wonder if the LRB editors knew of this earlier review?

StillAdvance - Just pointing out perceived flaws these days.

that lrb pieces strikes me as thoughtful and serious-minded enough that it deserves a better response than "he's just jealous." it doesnt really matter if he changed his mind or even why (and the earlier review seems to be hedging, in any case).

i wouldn't say 'masturbatory' and haven't read the book, but he can be stuffy. TNC's writerliest writing reminds me of Aimless posts

I see the key charge as being that TNC is overly determinist & thus fully committed to a particular idea of victimhood which has its own problems. whether or not a kernel or more of that is in the WP review is not so interesting imo

xxpost, sounding affectedly 'writerly' (perhaps the result of trying to write like baldwin, which IIRC is what he was advised to do) is not the same as simply sounding like you are enjoying writing

xp
you could swap "particular idea of victimhood" for "pessimism" there; I think the crucial part is the question of the role & possibility of individual freedom and agency in a racist society. I've not read the book so I'm curious what those who have think

it doesnt really matter if he changed his mind or even why

ok but not to even acknowledge this?

The LRB review is good.

He is pretty nuanced on this question. Which is why this second review is such horseshit. Of course there is agency, but it's constrained. It's why Coates' father beats him up for every little infraction, because Coates has to act perfectly in order to succeed, every little misstep can be his last. And even then, there's no promise of reward. Death might strike from The People Who Belive They Are White at anytime, as shown in the story of Prince Jones, who was killed by a (black) plain-clothes cop who followed him to his house, and shot when confronted.

This whole debate is so stupid. It's always either/or. Say that black people might be constrained by white supremacy, all of a sudden you're taking away every part of their agency. Nope.

there was a review in a conservative journal (was it 'commentary'?) that made the same critique in re. 'agency'

Frederik, I usually don't pull the identity card, but do you think it's reasonable for you to call an African American writer's views on the nuances of black agency in racist American society "horseshit"? This LRB writer is not making a right wing claim that everything is somehow the "fault" of black people versus white society. He is taking issue with how TNC frames this question, and the political possibilities that might be closed off by this framing (which is becoming de rigeur in leftist circles, in part owing to Coates' influence.) I think the writer has a right to raise these questions - he certainly has a bigger stake in the game than white liberals.

The way you describe the piece it sounds like it's Bill Cosby or some shit. It's not. At all.

yeah, i agree. he's coming at it from a broadly 'left' perspective. i just noted that there was a review from a right-wing perspective that made a broadly similar critique, but in that case it was part of chastising 'the black community' for a lack of moral agency, which is a mistake that willingham would not make.

i know you weren't addressing me but i figured i'd clarify my last post or rather its purpose

I found the LRB review really interesting. TNC isn't the voice of black America. He's one voice - a very powerful and articulate one but his take is pessimistic, informed by his experiences and, as he has said, his lack of religious faith. There should be thoughtful critiques of that position. As a white reader it's not for me to pick sides but I'm glad there's a debate. It's precisely because TNC is such an influential revered voice at the moment that there should be countervailing views.

"He is pretty nuanced on this question. Which is why this second review is such horseshit. Of course there is agency, but it's constrained. It's why Coates' father beats him up for every little infraction, because Coates has to act perfectly in order to succeed, every little misstep can be his last. And even then, there's no promise of reward. Death might strike from The People Who Belive They Are White at anytime, as shown in the story of Prince Jones, who was killed by a (black) plain-clothes cop who followed him to his house, and shot when confronted."

this reminds of the chris rock anecdote, when he tries to justify black parents hitting their kids.

but i think there is a kind of damaged, cynical romanticism in giving white supremacy all the power. note that i am not denying that white supremacy exists. but i am saying that white supremacy does not control everything, seductive as that notion might seem.

"It's precisely because TNC is such an influential revered voice at the moment that there should be countervailing views."

and the reasons why he might be revered also should be interrogated, by all sides.

See this is the thing. StillAdvance writes:

'but i think there is a kind of damaged, cynical romanticism in giving white supremacy all the power. note that i am not denying that white supremacy exists. but i am saying that white supremacy does not control everything, seductive as that notion might seem.'

Right after I write that Ta-nehisi Coates doesn't give white supremacy all the power. I say that there is agency but it's constrained, according to Coates, and therefore of course white supremacy doesn't control everything.

And Treeship: This is why the review is horseshit. Not because it's some reactionary Cosby-shit (though I might call it that, if 'Cosby' wasn't the new Goodwin's law in this kind of discussion) but because it misrepresents Coates' book. It's simply factually wrong. It doesn't 'nuance' anything, it misleads. Coates does not say what Chatterton Williams says he says.

Btw, how many of you saying the review seems 'thoughtful' and 'nuanced' has read the book it purportedly criticizes?

The review isn't a "takedown" of the book. It doesn't disagree with the idea of structural racism. It's mostly critical of the implications TNC traces from his macro social analysis for day to day life as an African American. All of this is relevant to Chatterton Williams because he is a young African American man. You're egregiously misrepresenting his point of view out of fealty to TNC and it's weird.

Have you read TNC's book?

there's room for a thoughtful critique of coates. the lrb piece isn't it.

Coates doesn’t realise that his disproportionate reaction – ‘my words were hot with all of the moment and all of my history’ – is bound to be seen as objectionable to those ‘standing nearby’.

This is an egregious misreading. The whole section is rich with a reflexive immediate reaction, self-consciousness, retrospective understanding, and view from inside and outside of the self at once. That's sort of the point of the section and much else in the book -- to act in part as a coming-of-age story of his own consciousness and understanding of the world. Those sorts of gaps between immediate gut response and the bigger picture, as well as how the world is seen through the eyes of others -- and how he is seen -- are a central theme of the book.

Ditto when he denounces coates' description of paris as fantasy -- that's precisely the point of the passage he quotes, and coates says as much explicitly. it isn't a nuanced understanding of paris, but the rush of emotion of being somewhere different with different cultures and different problems. and it doesn't deepen any sense of injury -- it captures a feeling of freedom.

The article just doesn't understand the text at a basic level.

And then you have the total non-sequiters like this:

"The capacity to find gratification in making a choice – even if it’s the wrong one – is glossed over. Yet even Coates admits these pleasures:"

So which is it is this glossed over, or does coates discuss it in the passage the article goes on to quote? You can't have it both ways, but the article tries to, within two adjacent sentences no less.

good profile in NYT Mag last week of Coates' editor (who i didn't know was the Jackson of NY's McNally-Jackson bookstore)