Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wasn't going to respond to this, but what the hell, it's Friday.
Sullivan rhapsodizes about the good old days, when he and Coates were close. Coates says, we weren't close, and because of the power imbalances inherent in that situation, I had to pretend to take Sullivan seriously when he said racist stuff.
Why would Coates want to "bury the hatchet"? If you read what he said, he was burying the hatchet before, but now he doesn't have to pretend not to notice when someone like Sullivan questions his humanity.
If Sullivan really thought he was Coates's friend, he would apologize. It's not like Coates did anything to him.
Your suggestion that they're similar misses the whole point here, which is about the way that the power dynamics have changed. Back then, Sullivan was a big name, and Coates was a nobody. Coates had to put up with Sullivan. Now things have changed. Sullivan is a has-been, Sullivan's views on race seem not only dates but are starting to smell rancid, and Coates is a star.
|
Coates is not a star. He’s a darling of a niche of readers who think his stuff is quality. He’s a decent enough writer, but generally a one trick pony. All roads lead to grievance. He also engages in a bit of clickbait writing by arguing for reparations. It’s not that he doesn’t have some decent points, but he’s on permanent repeat. You criticize Taibbi for endlessly milking the same media criticisms. That’s fair. Taibbi does mine the vein a bit too frequently. In the same manner, Coates see everything through a lens of race theory and grievance.
Taibbi, unlike Coates (and Sullivan) remains interesting because he has a bit more range, and most importantly - this is huge - he has a sense of humor. Coates takes himself brutally seriously. So does Sullivan. That makes their stuff tedious.
I’m not interested in the point you were making because I think it’s an example of Coates being a bore and a windbag. He and Sullivan deserve each other.
