> His next major growth spurt came when his university career ended. When Oxford University rejected his master’s application in 2020, Edwards posted a video of himself crying, entitled “oxford university rejected my masters application… (sorry this video is sad)”. Social media rewards confession. Authenticity, sincerity and vulnerability were important – more important than orthodox intellectual baubles.
It's literally pathetic.
pathetic
/pəˈθɛtɪk/
arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.
"she looked so pathetic that I bent down to comfort her"
I really have a hard time understanding why people post videos of themselves crying. Maybe I'm already old in my 30s, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around it.
Like, I get that at some level it's fishing for sympathy and pity, but your real friends are going to be there whether they have a video of you crying or not. Everyone else just... doesn't matter that much?
I think it's an interesting relationship between influencers, especially young ones, and their followers.
Young influencers of this nature get a following because of their authenticity. They're genuine, honest, about their experiences, and the comments reflect it. People in the comments open up about their own problems and insecurities and issues. It creates an "illusion of community" as Edwards says in the article.
Now couple with that the complication of making money. An influencer indirectly makes money from their followers. I could easily see how someone who makes that authenticity part of their brand/identity feeling an obligation to their followers to continue to be honest even on subjects of high emotion. These people who are responsible for your success, your lifestyle, how could you be anything but brutally honest with them?
And just like in real relationship where showing vulnerability can strengthen bonds, it has the same effect on the influencer-follower relationship -- despite in reality being parasocial. And strengthening that bond also results in more faithful followers, which is financially beneficial.
Now, whether a given influencer is being vulnerable due to obligation or due to financial incentives, is unclear. For many it seems more obviously financial. But for others it does seem like a bit of a complicated mixture of the two.
Edit: Here's the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8J8fWCNqCI . Personally this feels more genuine than financially motivated, but that's me. And to be fair there is no actual crying in the video! Seems like a bit of a dishonest wording by the author of the article to claim as such.
I disagree others don't matter that much. Attention means influence. If your tears garner attention, you prove your influence. Those seeking to influence to their benefit will see your proof and react accordingly.
(I felt the same way when I read this paragraph and the one about Jack being a target of abuse but I couldn’t resist an opportunity to ‘dang’ a ‘dang’ thread. At the same time it is touching how Jack has forged some semblance of a real world community out of this. I still can’t take what he does serious as a whole and I’m not warm to the idea that the “World’s most powerful literary critic is on TikTok” and I do have a sort of apathy toward the cultural intrigue borne from people in their twenties today. Like dang I was expecting a hit piece and was no less impressed to find it the opposite—fluff. Both poignant in some ways and pathetic in most per my own sensibilities.)
Echoing another commenter: poignant? Reading the article, for me it was poignant, only mildly, in the archaic sense of the word (sorry! But seriously—dystopian is the first word I'd use.)
I'm interested in your interpretation and what you took away from reading that. Can you elaborate?
For me it was poignant as the story of a young man who has for his entire life been keen on reading, writing, and communicating, who has in a way achieved what he was looking to achieve, and unknowingly created a set of shackles from his own success/fame that he's struggling to reason with and untangle. I can't imagine the pressure of loving to critique books, but then being slapped with labels like “#1 most read on GoodReads” . How could you make fun critique videos knowing that an honest negative critique could tank an author's career? It seems like a lot of pressure.
His quote about internet "community" also especially struck me as poignant: “You have this illusion of community when we’re really very alone.” There are loads of young people who I imagine have an over-emphasis in their lives on online "community", and I really do think it is an illusion. I've been toying with the idea whether community can really even exist if you can't see each other in person.
I'd be curious as to your interpretation that led to you finding the article poignant in the archaic sense (sharp or pungent in taste or smell) or dystopian.
I read what you're saying. I don't want to go into detail about all the things in the article that rubbed me the wrong way, although saying that makes me feel like I owe that, so, sorry about that.
I will say: I don't know who _you_ are, but I feel like _the average Joe_ would love to be this guy and would love to have his problems instead of Joe's.
Succumbing to the pressure of knowing "an honest negative critique could tank an author's career" sounds like a skill issue, as the young folk say. If that's your worry, you are not this Joe's reviewer! I want an _honest_ critique! That that's a lot to ask of my number one TikTok bookfluencer is dystopian!
poignant?
> His next major growth spurt came when his university career ended. When Oxford University rejected his master’s application in 2020, Edwards posted a video of himself crying, entitled “oxford university rejected my masters application… (sorry this video is sad)”. Social media rewards confession. Authenticity, sincerity and vulnerability were important – more important than orthodox intellectual baubles.
It's literally pathetic.
I really have a hard time understanding why people post videos of themselves crying. Maybe I'm already old in my 30s, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around it.
Like, I get that at some level it's fishing for sympathy and pity, but your real friends are going to be there whether they have a video of you crying or not. Everyone else just... doesn't matter that much?
I think it's an interesting relationship between influencers, especially young ones, and their followers.
Young influencers of this nature get a following because of their authenticity. They're genuine, honest, about their experiences, and the comments reflect it. People in the comments open up about their own problems and insecurities and issues. It creates an "illusion of community" as Edwards says in the article.
Now couple with that the complication of making money. An influencer indirectly makes money from their followers. I could easily see how someone who makes that authenticity part of their brand/identity feeling an obligation to their followers to continue to be honest even on subjects of high emotion. These people who are responsible for your success, your lifestyle, how could you be anything but brutally honest with them?
And just like in real relationship where showing vulnerability can strengthen bonds, it has the same effect on the influencer-follower relationship -- despite in reality being parasocial. And strengthening that bond also results in more faithful followers, which is financially beneficial.
Now, whether a given influencer is being vulnerable due to obligation or due to financial incentives, is unclear. For many it seems more obviously financial. But for others it does seem like a bit of a complicated mixture of the two.
Edit: Here's the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8J8fWCNqCI . Personally this feels more genuine than financially motivated, but that's me. And to be fair there is no actual crying in the video! Seems like a bit of a dishonest wording by the author of the article to claim as such.
I disagree others don't matter that much. Attention means influence. If your tears garner attention, you prove your influence. Those seeking to influence to their benefit will see your proof and react accordingly.
Please don't post snark to HN threads. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(I felt the same way when I read this paragraph and the one about Jack being a target of abuse but I couldn’t resist an opportunity to ‘dang’ a ‘dang’ thread. At the same time it is touching how Jack has forged some semblance of a real world community out of this. I still can’t take what he does serious as a whole and I’m not warm to the idea that the “World’s most powerful literary critic is on TikTok” and I do have a sort of apathy toward the cultural intrigue borne from people in their twenties today. Like dang I was expecting a hit piece and was no less impressed to find it the opposite—fluff. Both poignant in some ways and pathetic in most per my own sensibilities.)
Backseat moderation is also against the guidelines.
2 replies →
Echoing another commenter: poignant? Reading the article, for me it was poignant, only mildly, in the archaic sense of the word (sorry! But seriously—dystopian is the first word I'd use.)
I'm interested in your interpretation and what you took away from reading that. Can you elaborate?
For me it was poignant as the story of a young man who has for his entire life been keen on reading, writing, and communicating, who has in a way achieved what he was looking to achieve, and unknowingly created a set of shackles from his own success/fame that he's struggling to reason with and untangle. I can't imagine the pressure of loving to critique books, but then being slapped with labels like “#1 most read on GoodReads” . How could you make fun critique videos knowing that an honest negative critique could tank an author's career? It seems like a lot of pressure.
His quote about internet "community" also especially struck me as poignant: “You have this illusion of community when we’re really very alone.” There are loads of young people who I imagine have an over-emphasis in their lives on online "community", and I really do think it is an illusion. I've been toying with the idea whether community can really even exist if you can't see each other in person.
I'd be curious as to your interpretation that led to you finding the article poignant in the archaic sense (sharp or pungent in taste or smell) or dystopian.
I read what you're saying. I don't want to go into detail about all the things in the article that rubbed me the wrong way, although saying that makes me feel like I owe that, so, sorry about that.
I will say: I don't know who _you_ are, but I feel like _the average Joe_ would love to be this guy and would love to have his problems instead of Joe's.
Succumbing to the pressure of knowing "an honest negative critique could tank an author's career" sounds like a skill issue, as the young folk say. If that's your worry, you are not this Joe's reviewer! I want an _honest_ critique! That that's a lot to ask of my number one TikTok bookfluencer is dystopian!