Key Highlights
- Zadie Smith’s latest essay collection, Dead and Alive, exemplifies the genre of longform political think pieces written by literary luminaries.
- The author is accused of creating complex moral equivalences that often obscure clear arguments.
- Smith’s writing style is described as self-regarding equivocation, presenting banal conclusions as profound insights through obfuscation.
- Critics argue that Smith’s essays lack a coherent argumentative structure and are filled with wild inter-connections that hinder meaningful thought.
Introduction to the Critique of Zadie Smith’s Work
In his review, John Maier delves into the work of celebrated author Zadie Smith, focusing on her recent essay collection “Dead and Alive.” Maier argues that these essays, commissioned by high-minded longform publications, fall under a specific genre characterized by their meandering and often unproductive nature.
The Genre of Meandering Think Pieces
According to Maier, the genre in question is defined by its characteristic sleight-of-hand. Under the pretense of reaching sophisticated conclusions, these essays assert virtually nothing at all. They are described as a form of literary bullshit, where clear and legible sentences are deliberately avoided, replaced instead with serpentine prose that is difficult to parse.
Zadie Smith’s Style: Self-Regarding Equivocation
Smith’s work is criticized for its self-regarding equivocation. She admits in her essays that she tends to employ a lengthy and sometimes oblique way of thinking, often presenting banal conclusions as hard-won insights. This approach is seen as an attempt to valorize unclarity and circumlocution at the expense of clarity.
Examples of Smith’s Work
The review provides several examples from “Dead and Alive,” highlighting instances where Smith’s essays exhibit complex moral equivalences that are difficult to follow. For instance, she draws parallels between climate denialism and plantation slavery, or compares Elon Musk’s Twitter algorithm to Nazi propaganda. These connections serve to obstruct rather than clarify the development of a coherent argument.
Critique of Specific Essays
In one essay titled “Shibboleths,” Smith’s handling of political issues is criticized for drawing shaky moral equivalences between campus politics and warfare norms. Her approach is described as both confused and representative of her overall style. For example, she finds the arguments on both sides of a debate over anti-Israeli protests to be vapid and politically impotent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Maier suggests that Smith’s work exemplifies a genre where literary talent is used to obscure rather than illuminate. The essays are criticized for their lack of clear argumentative structure and for presenting banal conclusions as profound insights through obfuscation. Critics argue that this approach undermines meaningful discourse and offers little value beyond the diversionary material it contains.
