|
The criticism is valid, but also a little lame. The author takes on a ridiculing tone, painting Curtis as having big ideas but being too naive and infantile to actually develop them, a 16 year old raging at the shadowy elites, it's the system man, puts on RATM. That's the whole content of the critique, especially the first 3/4. Which is fine, I can see that. And yet. Curtis _does_ have big ideas, just chooses to develop them in an impressionistic manner. He's an artist in a way, a polemicist maybe, philosopher certainly. The writer is (for now) facing one of his betters, yet intuitively senses something is off, awash in a slight sense of superiority. The way this usually arises is because he's likely saturated by Curtis work, and has "cracked the code", the stylistic choices, the narrative structure. The veil has fallen, and now, as a God, he only sees the void. But that's because he's fully internalized Curtis' message, there's nothing new for him there anymore. |