Steven Levy wrote that Paul Graham was a "hacker philosopher" and his writings certainly show. Graham comes across as every philosophy grad student does: desperate to legitimize his work as cool and meaningful in the eyes of his peers. Hiding behind pedantic nitpicks over definitions, Graham attempts to elevate typing on a keyboard into a form of high art.
In his piece "Hackers and Painters" Graham desperately seeks to make the point that while other computer scientists are foolishly content to allow themselves to be mislabeled, he and his hacker brethren choke under the oppressive yolk of "scientist". Throughout the piece Graham meanders through a series of critiques about higher education and how it doesn't suit the kind of work hackers do. Ultimately this leads me to wonder why he felt the need to pursue such education in the first place. It seems that what Graham truly wants is to divorce himself from the ideas of traditional programming. He whines about industry practice and the idea of writing research papers. Graham seems a man who isn't happy unless there's something around for him to complain about. Near the end of the piece he comes up with the earth shattering idea of writing code on the side as a hobby. For all his talk of hacking as art, he offers up zero examples of it. Rather he time and again retreads the concept, tweaking his explanation every time while offering little new in the form of meaningful commentary. "Hackers and Painters" is a hack job of an essay meant to convince the reader that ordinary programming is some unapproachable monument of skill and taste that cannot ever be taught.
In a sense, Graham and Levy were made for each other. Both men seek to legitimize their idea of being a hacker as something cooler and edgier then it really ought to be. After years of living on the fringes because of their status as nerds or losers, Graham and Levy now seek to elevate hackerdom to the heights of the average high school jock. The new cool kid has arisen to take up his keyboard and schools some noobs about how much more intelligent he is than them, and how nobody understands how sophisticated his work really is. While Graham may not have as extreme a definition of being a hacker as Levy, he is no less pretentious about it.
"Why Nerds are Unpopular" reads as an attempt to retcon awkward high schools years into some sort of misunderstood phase where his avant garde nature. Children everywhere are bullied, and we all agree this is a bad thing that should stop. For Graham however, it seems as though his victim complex never truly went away even when all the success of his later life came flooding in. He is the guy at the high school reunion who is dieing to flaunt his success in the face of his former bullies. There is no nuance to his arguments, only bitterness that some kids used to be mean to him.
While I admire the success Paul Graham has found, I find his essays to be completely unbearable to read. He prattles on endlessly about how cool he is because he is a nerd and a hacker as though it's supposed to make me care. I don't dislike him because he's a nerd, I dislike him because he's a pretentious ass who thinks he's more profound than he really is.
In his piece "Hackers and Painters" Graham desperately seeks to make the point that while other computer scientists are foolishly content to allow themselves to be mislabeled, he and his hacker brethren choke under the oppressive yolk of "scientist". Throughout the piece Graham meanders through a series of critiques about higher education and how it doesn't suit the kind of work hackers do. Ultimately this leads me to wonder why he felt the need to pursue such education in the first place. It seems that what Graham truly wants is to divorce himself from the ideas of traditional programming. He whines about industry practice and the idea of writing research papers. Graham seems a man who isn't happy unless there's something around for him to complain about. Near the end of the piece he comes up with the earth shattering idea of writing code on the side as a hobby. For all his talk of hacking as art, he offers up zero examples of it. Rather he time and again retreads the concept, tweaking his explanation every time while offering little new in the form of meaningful commentary. "Hackers and Painters" is a hack job of an essay meant to convince the reader that ordinary programming is some unapproachable monument of skill and taste that cannot ever be taught.
In a sense, Graham and Levy were made for each other. Both men seek to legitimize their idea of being a hacker as something cooler and edgier then it really ought to be. After years of living on the fringes because of their status as nerds or losers, Graham and Levy now seek to elevate hackerdom to the heights of the average high school jock. The new cool kid has arisen to take up his keyboard and schools some noobs about how much more intelligent he is than them, and how nobody understands how sophisticated his work really is. While Graham may not have as extreme a definition of being a hacker as Levy, he is no less pretentious about it.
"Why Nerds are Unpopular" reads as an attempt to retcon awkward high schools years into some sort of misunderstood phase where his avant garde nature. Children everywhere are bullied, and we all agree this is a bad thing that should stop. For Graham however, it seems as though his victim complex never truly went away even when all the success of his later life came flooding in. He is the guy at the high school reunion who is dieing to flaunt his success in the face of his former bullies. There is no nuance to his arguments, only bitterness that some kids used to be mean to him.
While I admire the success Paul Graham has found, I find his essays to be completely unbearable to read. He prattles on endlessly about how cool he is because he is a nerd and a hacker as though it's supposed to make me care. I don't dislike him because he's a nerd, I dislike him because he's a pretentious ass who thinks he's more profound than he really is.
Comments
Post a Comment