Despite being an amateur Brooks-ologist, I had never seen this piece by @sissenberg that brilliantly takes Brooks seriously enough to show how ridiculous he is. I can't believe we've been blighted with this guy's opinions for so long. h/t @KevinMKruse phillymag.com/news/2004/04/0…
Brooks' response when @sissenberg calls him to ask about some of the uh...made up shit he puts in his writing is very telling about how Brooks see himself unique privileged as someone who somehow gets to tell truths with what are actually lies. 
I've spent a lot of time being irritated by Brooks, but also believing he's essentially harmless, but I think there's a line between @sissenberg's coverage of Brooks 15+ years ago to today's Substack warrior culture where the best $'s is in reflecting what people already believe.
So pleased to be able to link to this piece when I say how terrible I think David Brooks is and someone asks me what my beef is. phillymag.com/news/2004/04/0…
And for proof of my Brooks-ologist bona fides, I ask who else has written a long short story imagining what I think must be the tortured inner life of the man himself? biblioracle.medium.com/the-road-to-th…
When I was starting as a writer I was not aware that you could just make shit up as long as it tickled the fancy of the people you were trying to impress and fit the preconceived notion of the gatekeepers who were going to publish you. I know...naive.
Once I started publishing I'd developed enough self-respect to try to say things that I could support with evidence, rather than pulling them out of my nether regions because they make for a just-so story, so that's why maybe I'm a little bitter about David Brooks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
