I'm sorry but this essay was unbearable to me, reactionary and pretentious. I think it was incredibly presumptuous of Greenwell to hijack another, younger woman writer's (thoughtful, good-faith) intervention on fatphobia in ALL FOURS, and put it in service of his boomer-esque, long-suffering crusade against wokeness among readers. Greenwell assumes that his intervention, and his reading of ALL FOURS, is more important and moral than Eisenberg's, and others like her. He could've easily written a lovely, attentive essay on the use of eroticized disgust in ALL FOURS without throwing Eisenberg's essay under the bus. (Maybe a small quibble, but I was annoyed that he introduced Eisenberg as merely a "writer" -- she's a whole-ass literary NOVELIST, a peer of July and Greenwell both.) The way he engages with Eisenberg's essay shows Greenwell using his considerable power and prestige to smack down other readings, and readers, who (ironically) offend HIS sensibility of how one ought to properly engage with art.
I hate when older writers use their careers as teachers as a basis for moral authority. I chafe whenever some high-brow literary writer speaks generally of what his "students" think -- in their imaginations, we're always this woke, aggregated Gen Z mass, a vague, young, threatening force. I get the sense Greenwell legitimately imagines students and younger readers to be like the satirized Juiliard students in the film Tar. That's lazy characterization. You can't make your entire schtick "kids these days are too woke and prone to judgement of art" and also dedicate your career to judging and reforming the way younger people engage with art. These sorts of people demonstrate a deep incuriosity towards what others (likely younger, marginalized) have to say.
I'm sorry but this essay was unbearable to me, reactionary and pretentious. I think it was incredibly presumptuous of Greenwell to hijack another, younger woman writer's (thoughtful, good-faith) intervention on fatphobia in ALL FOURS, and put it in service of his boomer-esque, long-suffering crusade against wokeness among readers. Greenwell assumes that his intervention, and his reading of ALL FOURS, is more important and moral than Eisenberg's, and others like her. He could've easily written a lovely, attentive essay on the use of eroticized disgust in ALL FOURS without throwing Eisenberg's essay under the bus. (Maybe a small quibble, but I was annoyed that he introduced Eisenberg as merely a "writer" -- she's a whole-ass literary NOVELIST, a peer of July and Greenwell both.) The way he engages with Eisenberg's essay shows Greenwell using his considerable power and prestige to smack down other readings, and readers, who (ironically) offend HIS sensibility of how one ought to properly engage with art.
I hate when older writers use their careers as teachers as a basis for moral authority. I chafe whenever some high-brow literary writer speaks generally of what his "students" think -- in their imaginations, we're always this woke, aggregated Gen Z mass, a vague, young, threatening force. I get the sense Greenwell legitimately imagines students and younger readers to be like the satirized Juiliard students in the film Tar. That's lazy characterization. You can't make your entire schtick "kids these days are too woke and prone to judgement of art" and also dedicate your career to judging and reforming the way younger people engage with art. These sorts of people demonstrate a deep incuriosity towards what others (likely younger, marginalized) have to say.