Image Source: PexelsAs the end of the year approaches, I again find myself in a reflective mode, thinking about my life and work. I remember a comment from Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), who wrote an 1891 essay,
The Critic as Artist, in the form of a conversation between Gilbert and Ernest. At one point, Wilde writes:
GILBERT. Ernest, you are quite delightful, but your views are terribly unsound. I am afraid that you have been listening to the conversation of some one older than yourself. That is always a dangerous thing to do, and if you allow it to degenerate into a habit you will find it absolutely fatal to any intellectual development. As for modern journalism, it is not my business to defend it. It justifies its own existence by the great Darwinian principle of the survival of the vulgarest. I have merely to do with literature.
ERNEST. But what is the difference between literature and journalism?
GILBERT. Oh! journalism is unreadable, and literature is not read. That is all.
I do love the line about “the great Darwinian principle of the survival of the vulgarest.” Of course, as a sardonic comment, it has potentially a broader application than journalism, but also to culture and politics.From the standpoint of my work life as Managing Editor of the
Journal of Economic Perspectives, along with my Conversable Economist hobby, word like “unreadable” and “not read” make my shoulders tighten. “Unreadable” means it cannot be read, likely because of infelicitous style. “Not read” leaves open the possibility that it could be read, but few people see it. Part of what drives me in my work life is that I feel an inner drive or momentum to expand the possibilities of the economics that is actually readable or read.More By This Author:Expanding The Child Tax Credit: Lessons From A Short-Lived Pandemic Policy Why Don’t EU Firms Innovate? The Hidden Costs Of FailureThe Changing US Labor Market
