9 Comments

Ah yes, the world of stories. They are many and they are varied. Most are simply an encapsulation of our thoughts. - real only to the reader. That’s why I enjoy Money Circus. These are stories which resonate and they contain details which originate from elsewhere. I cannot verify these stories yet, for me, they step through possibility and into plausibility.

My subscription is approaching the annual mark and I’m happy to continue. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you for such words! Especially the comment about stories that cannot be verified yet are plausible. I'm sometimes criticised for too many footnotes yet there are aspects of narration where a source won't suffice.

At first I struggled to remember that quote: that fiction must always be more real, because it requires the logic that reality does not. Journalism sits in the middle - it must make rational that which sometimes is not.

Then I thought about the instructive purpose of myths and legends, and that our first instinct is to listen in disbelief and then to distil the essence.

Thank you again for continuing to subscribe.

Expand full comment

Reading what you write stirs up the silt below moving my own hand towards whatever will make a mark. Reviewing the comments too is positively provocative. Same-same sentiment and little truths concisely typed with skill and grace my own crayon-like sophistication admires. Moneycircus thrums connective tissue out of sight out of mind like a surgeon brushing nerves unknown that interlace parts way distant. I for one respect the outward reach by Mr. Moneycircus to gather in more from the unseen audience out here. Keep writing.

Expand full comment
author

"A surgeon brushing nerves unknown" - I often feel nervous while writing, to the point where it's a block. Other times I can't push forward without gettng nerves a-jangling.

I trust it's a positive thing: recently it's reminded me not to go on for too long. It's helped to discern the tendency to rant (not a bad thing, if done well) from analysis, without I hope getting too clinical.

Keep commenting.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately the simplification of everything was well underway before the net. One example: the translation “industry”. Dostoevsky has had a “makeover” from a husband/wife couple – Pevear and Volokhonsky who have been the beneficiaries of a relentless hype train for decades now. This has led to a backlash mainly from sites usually referred to as “conservative” or “Right Wing” – but that is because the critics of P&V have no other outlet available to them. And haven’t we seen that situation again and again with covid?

But you can see the problem: How many readers of Dostoevsky or Tolstoy etc. can read both Russian and English? They are obviously dependant on translators and few have the time and patience to trail through every translation available. Hence the hype machines are on to a winner there – provided they have sufficient money and resources at their disposal.

Result: the streamlining of a cultural treasure through a filter which will determine how that treasure will be presented to future generations. It’s quite disturbing.

Expand full comment

The question to be asked is who is blocking other channels? Why are the critics of P&V not being allowed to put their points forward in publications which would have a wider audience? It’s not even a matter of “Left” and “Right” – or rather, it’s that these labels are being used to control the consciousness of the public. Clearly P&V had a huge financial backing from investors who were determined to milk the profits. And they were not going to allow a free exchange of ideas to interfere.

Expand full comment
author

I have also come across the P&V phenomenon. The narrowing of search results, the downgrading of older forums like Tripod, and Google's suppression of bloggers (it used to have a tab for them, I recall, or included them in the news search) has made it harder to find reviews of, or comments on, translations.

Threre's also the attack on academics who don't toe the party line. An authority on Russia like the late Stephen Cohen (d. Sep 2020) would be dismissed or filtered away.

Perhaps we should become ungovernable, as Tom Luongo says. Kick over the traces. Search different countries, sources, cultures, perspectives at random - as if riding to work a different way each day. It cannot be worse than broken search.

Thank you for subscribing.

Expand full comment

Critical thinking is essential in determining what to read, when to stop and what to believe. We can choose free thought but it takes material effort.

The wrapper has become more important than the substance to attract consumers. In the product development stage the media starts with a narrative, the brewer starts with a witty name and the author starts with a hook.

How to grow is the question for any enterprise from the corporate conglomerate to the one man show. I discovered Moneycircus in a zerohedge forum. I don't recall the hook but I stayed for the substance. In turn I have referred it to other freethinkers who have a propensity to look behind the magicians curtain. As you mentioned less people are reading but they are listening. Guest appearances on a podcast or two improves discoverability.

Expand full comment
author

A wine buyer for a supermarket chain once told me how they invent quirky stories about some guy tending his vines on a hillside - then slap the label on their bulk wine. Provenance!

Expand full comment