First, about Brooks. As time passes and he ages, I find his writing to be an earnest, if not always comprehensive or successful, attempt at centrist sobriety. With this latest column, that aging shows up as nostalgia for a time he didn't experience as an adult—specifically the 1960s (he was born in '61)—continuing a theme the Times has been promoting since last December (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/07/opinion/men-fiction-novels.html) and following up with several other articles, including two on the same day (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/style/fiction-books-men-reading.html, and https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/arts/straight-white-male-novelists.html). He’s weaving all this into a larger narrative that suggests there was less division when everyone shared the same cultural touchstones. For as long as there have been novels, the most popular novels tend to lean toward speculative and sensationalist genres rather than literary works. The best-selling novel of the 60s was Valley of the Dolls! Only two books that might be considered “literary”—Franny and Zooey and To Kill a Mockingbird—made it into the top 10. I think what Brooks misses is a time when there were tastemakers who controlled the flow of cultural products through the media conduits as opposed to the apparent chaos of today’s digitally dispersed cultural products; a time when information flowed downstream from culture, rather than culture now being downstream from information.
Regarding your double agent postulate. I want to stay optimistic, but I’m worried that the AI agents, if they’re truly capable, might end up working for the companies that create them rather than for us, the users.
Jim, thanks for reading and the insightful remark. You're more sympathetic to Brooks than I am. On top of the tastemakers, there's also the "only three broadcast channels, no cable, no internet" mediasphere of the 60s.
That's what made "tastemakers" possible. A limited number of media conduits and transmission formats for those conduits meant that a mass standard could be established and controlled more easily. Brooks, in this context, is mistaking a desire for common ground with a nostalgia for a time when there was less ground.
Great work, Brad. And, yes, what happened to Brooks. He used to be one of the few people who got American culture...and then a positively Icarian descent!
Hey Grant, THANK YOU for reading. On Brooks, I don't know... but when I saw your comment I thought about Virginia Woolf's comment on Joyce's Ulysses: "an old man scratching his pimples."
Always a great read, Brad.
First, about Brooks. As time passes and he ages, I find his writing to be an earnest, if not always comprehensive or successful, attempt at centrist sobriety. With this latest column, that aging shows up as nostalgia for a time he didn't experience as an adult—specifically the 1960s (he was born in '61)—continuing a theme the Times has been promoting since last December (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/07/opinion/men-fiction-novels.html) and following up with several other articles, including two on the same day (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/style/fiction-books-men-reading.html, and https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/arts/straight-white-male-novelists.html). He’s weaving all this into a larger narrative that suggests there was less division when everyone shared the same cultural touchstones. For as long as there have been novels, the most popular novels tend to lean toward speculative and sensationalist genres rather than literary works. The best-selling novel of the 60s was Valley of the Dolls! Only two books that might be considered “literary”—Franny and Zooey and To Kill a Mockingbird—made it into the top 10. I think what Brooks misses is a time when there were tastemakers who controlled the flow of cultural products through the media conduits as opposed to the apparent chaos of today’s digitally dispersed cultural products; a time when information flowed downstream from culture, rather than culture now being downstream from information.
Regarding your double agent postulate. I want to stay optimistic, but I’m worried that the AI agents, if they’re truly capable, might end up working for the companies that create them rather than for us, the users.
Jim, thanks for reading and the insightful remark. You're more sympathetic to Brooks than I am. On top of the tastemakers, there's also the "only three broadcast channels, no cable, no internet" mediasphere of the 60s.
That's what made "tastemakers" possible. A limited number of media conduits and transmission formats for those conduits meant that a mass standard could be established and controlled more easily. Brooks, in this context, is mistaking a desire for common ground with a nostalgia for a time when there was less ground.
Great work, Brad. And, yes, what happened to Brooks. He used to be one of the few people who got American culture...and then a positively Icarian descent!
Hey Grant, THANK YOU for reading. On Brooks, I don't know... but when I saw your comment I thought about Virginia Woolf's comment on Joyce's Ulysses: "an old man scratching his pimples."
My favorite Virginia Woolf comment: She observed T.S. Eliot used to show up wearing a four-piece suit.