Should I write Midgley's biography?

[malkie]

Will it include dry drunk?

or his use of phrases such as "spit or swallow"?

Louis Midgley • 3 years ago • edited

I have recently received three Google Alerts that send me to a despicable message board, whose owner represents himself as Dr. Shades. Virtually every item that mentions me is false in most every possible way. And also filled with a strange and unhealthy and unnecessary hatred. What these alerts also indicate is that quite a few people spend a great deal of time going over and over what gets posted on this blog.

There are people who can't seem to spit or swallow when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ...
•

Brad Anderson, UT Louis Midgley • 3 years ago • edited

Lois:” There are people who can't seem to spit or swallow when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Lois, could you please clean up your language? There are many other descriptors that aren’t nearly as pornographic. Just a thought.

•
DanielPeterson Mod Brad Anderson, UT • 3 years ago

There's nothing pornographic about either spitting or swallowing, BAUT.

•

Brad Anderson, UT DanielPeterson • 3 years ago
DP: “There is nothing pornographic about spitting or swallowing.”

If you truly believe that then be my guest to google “spitting or swallowing.”

I’m sure nothing inappropriate will pop up. Good luck!

•

DanielPeterson Mod Brad Anderson, UT • 3 years ago • edited

I'm quite well aware of what you have in mind, but there is nothing intrinsically pornographic about spitting and swallowing.

•

Louis Midgley DanielPeterson • 3 years ago • edited

There have been several interesting things happen on Dan's blog today.

http://disq.us/p/22ravvf

If I recall correctly, wasn't DCP upset when a commenter on his blog called him "DP", and someone here hinted at one possible meaning of the abbreviation?

I mean, there is nothing intrinsically pornographic about "DP", right?

[Physics Guy]

I've heard that biographers spend so much time with their subject person that it almost becomes a personal relationship. If the biographer comes to dislike their subject, it makes them miserable, because they're stuck spending a lot of time with someone they dislike. Even if one finds some pleasure in exposing just how horrible the disliked subject is or was, it's not worth it, because that pleasure tends to fade well before the book is finished and then you're just stuck with the misery. You can write a satisfyingly searing indictment of a horrible person in a dozen pages, but it's hard to make an indictment run much longer, and that's too short to count as a biography.

People do get through the misery if it has a good purpose, for example if there is something important to learn, about psychology or history or something, from the horrible life of a horrible person. People have written biographies of murderous dictators. And sometimes biographers turn up enough positive things in their subjects' lives that, even if there is still a lot to dislike in the person, the biographer-subject relationship ends up being bearable.

If you have enough sympathy for Midgley then writing his biography might not be too unpleasant. Even people you really like and admire are going to turn out to have had at least a few ugly features or episodes, so some unpleasantness is unavoidable in biography, and tolerating it can be worthwhile. If you really dislike Midgley, though, and don't expect to find out anything important from his life, then the misery of the biography project probably won't be worthwhile.

[Bond]

Who would read it? Rush Limbaugh fans forgot his name a month after he'd been planted. Midgley will be forgotten before the sandwiches at his wake are gone. For the same reason no one should waste the time on a biography of Bond.

[Dr Moore]

I've heard that biographers spend so much time with their subject person that it almost becomes a personal relationship. If the biographer comes to dislike their subject, it makes them miserable, because they're stuck spending a lot of time with someone they dislike. Even if one finds some pleasure in exposing just how horrible the disliked subject is or was, it's not worth it, because that pleasure tends to fade well before the book is finished and then you're just stuck with the misery. You can write a satisfyingly searing indictment of a horrible person in a dozen pages, but it's hard to make an indictment run much longer, and that's too short to count as a biography.

People do get through the misery if it has a good purpose, for example if there is something important to learn, about psychology or history or something, from the horrible life of a horrible person. People have written biographies of murderous dictators. And sometimes biographers turn up enough positive things in their subjects' lives that, even if there is still a lot to dislike in the person, the biographer-subject relationship ends up being bearable.

If you have enough sympathy for Midgley then writing his biography might not be too unpleasant. Even people you really like and admire are going to turn out to have had at least a few ugly features or episodes, so some unpleasantness is unavoidable in biography, and tolerating it can be worthwhile. If you really dislike Midgley, though, and don't expect to find out anything important from his life, then the misery of the biography project probably won't be worthwhile.

Interesting. I'm trying to reconcile these perspectives with searing negative biographical books like Mary Trump's Too Much and Never Enough.

[Dr Exiled]

I'd read it. Sounds like a worth while project.

[Dr. Shades]

Thanks, everyone, for the input and insight. Thanks also for the encouragement.

If you have enough sympathy for Midgley then writing his biography might not be too unpleasant. Even people you really like and admire are going to turn out to have had at least a few ugly features or episodes, so some unpleasantness is unavoidable in biography, and tolerating it can be worthwhile. If you really dislike Midgley, though, and don't expect to find out anything important from his life, then the misery of the biography project probably won't be worthwhile.

That's some serious food for thought, Physics Guy. My motive is because Louis Midgley fascinates me. A man who is so stridently devoted to a cause whose most fundamental teachings he so blatantly violates on a near-daily basis. . . what's not to love? A sub-motive is that I want to learn what makes Louis tick, if that's even possible. How he can justify acting the way he does, with the clearest of consciences, is a mystery I'd love to solve.

I could pull his type of antics if I were a dedicated misanthrope, perhaps, but as a believing Latter-day Saint? There's no way. I simply couldn't do it. Which makes it all the more mysterious how he's able to so seamlessly do so without the slightest trace of dissonance.

[Philo Sofee]

Thanks, everyone, for the input and insight. Thanks also for the encouragement.

If you have enough sympathy for Midgley then writing his biography might not be too unpleasant. Even people you really like and admire are going to turn out to have had at least a few ugly features or episodes, so some unpleasantness is unavoidable in biography, and tolerating it can be worthwhile. If you really dislike Midgley, though, and don't expect to find out anything important from his life, then the misery of the biography project probably won't be worthwhile.

That's some serious food for thought, Physics Guy. My motive is because Louis Midgley fascinates me. A man who is so stridently devoted to a cause whose most fundamental teachings he so blatantly violates on a near-daily basis. . . what's not to love? A sub-motive is that I want to learn what makes Louis tick, if that's even possible. How he can justify acting the way he does, with the clearest of consciences, is a mystery I'd love to solve.

I could pull his type of antics if I were a dedicated misanthrope, perhaps, but as a believing Latter-day Saint? There's no way. I simply couldn't do it. Which makes it all the more mysterious how he's able to so seamlessly do so without the slightest trace of dissonance.

Agreed! I would certainly read the book you write on Midgley. I would do some video reviews of it Shades. Heck, I would have you as a guest interviewee describing your adventure on my show.

[Moksha]

I could pull his type of antics if I were a dedicated misanthrope, perhaps, but as a believing Latter-day Saint?

His ability to teeter between a misanthrope and an LDS Saint is what probably attracted him to apologetics.

[Binger]

Please let me know if writing Midgley's biography will be worthwhile or if I should drop the idea like a hot potato, much as it would pain me to do so.

Drop it like a hot potato, then run from the idea as fast and as far as you can. When you think you have distanced yourself enough from the idea, send out some scouts to make sure the potato is cooled and FUBAR.

Nothing gives me the impression that you are interested in Midgley's life, development, or perspective. I do not see that you are curious about his point of view or his passions. You leave no impression that you could be compassionate or kind toward Midgley at a level that would allow you to write about him in a way that lets the reader see his life or his work through this eyes. Neither, is there anything that I see in your style of writing or research that would give you the skills or interest in doing original research or bringing previously unpublished information to a non-fiction book.

I also do not think you could separate fiction from non-fiction in a book about Midgley, given your investment in the swamp forum that has stalked him and his peers. Just sharing the tweets, forum comments and blog posts is not interesting and it is rarely factual. If you were to dive into actual facts, including taking the hearsay from Dr Moore and investigating those rumors/anecdotes, you would require significant commitment, collaboration and risk from witnesses. Anything less, would be devastating to you.

Do not do this. Stick to what you know and what you do well which is hosting a forum that shitposts about Peterson, Midgley, Trump and AtlanticMike.

[hauslern]

Perhaps deal with his obsession about Fawn Brodie and especially how he shook with glee when some Jefferson scholars attacked her biography of Jefferson.