> I'm not sure what version to trust on that particular story[1]
WTF? How do the Mad Men citations relate to this?
> It's a good, balanced, exquisitely written essay.
The distortions in the first anecdote of the essay show that it's anything but balanced, and not good by any set of values which holds the truth in high regard. I can't really see the exquisiteness of the writing, but I don't really see how that relates, either.
"WTF? How do the Mad Men citations relate to this?"
"Mr. Campbell, who cares."
<shocked pause>
"What?"
"Who *cares*? Even if this were true, who cares?"
Perhaps you had to see it in context. Anyway, I was trying to say I don't know what version to trust, and it doesn't seem that important to me. It's super easy to distort incidents from people's lives where just a couple of people were involved. All you have is hearsay.[1]
"The distortions in the first anecdote of the essay show that it's anything but balanced."
I said balanced, not truthful. The essay interleaves harsh criticism with things like, "more complex.. more interesting than the character shown on the screen," "supported the empire ardently in no fewer than three wars.. with the most extreme zeal" (which didn't strike me as criticism), "a leader looking for a cause". I think the essay has a tone of admiration for the man just beneath the surface. And given the harsh tone, the things he's not able to claim are equally remarkable. Really, you couldn't find anything better than that he changed his mind? That's pretty awesome over a whole lifetime. So he was blind to the plight of non-indians? Lincoln would be racist by today's standards.
To me the essay didn't claim a neutral point of view, so I didn't expect facts. I expected interpretation. I was not disappointed.
[1] The second link was just for fault tolerance. Who knows how long a link from hark.com will continue working.
Your response is very strange.