One way or another, he offers the same remedy as Guardini did, in the middle of the 20th century, to the predicament of our rootlessness: asceticism and personal holiness. Not a bad prescription, one way or another.
Excellent piece. I must say, despite his arguments against our self-worshipping and identity-focused moment, I find much of Kingsnorth’s work to be really individualistic. I can’t help but walk away from writers/thinkers in his vein thinking, “well, having the means and ability to fully embody that lifestyle must be nice for you.” But I think the category of explainer, illuminator, and provoker is really helpful. In his best moments, I think Kingsnorth’s work provokes readers to at least break out of their categories of what reality has to be.
I must admit this sort of individualism drives me mad at times. It just has to be the person blessed with plenty of choices that goes about ascetic lifestyle and retreat into spirituality and things like that. Not that I hate him for showing the advantages of such a life. It's just that voluntary (and far from permanent) rebellious seclusion in a picture perfect cottage is too good to be true for absolute majority of us. And instead of inspiring it ends up frustrating.
Interesting. I probably respond most to Kingsnorth as Provoker. While I appreciated the effort he made in the first part of the book to create a historical and philosophical context for his argument, my favourite was definitely the last part where he let loose poetically and even ranted a bit. He has enough humility and self-awareness to make this style of writing fun.
Similar to your final point, I think it is important that the main take away is to practice setting limits in your life and re discover a kind of asceticism. It’s not a message one hears a lot.
Thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I, too, found the flow of the book's narrative a bit stilted and repetitive until I discovered it is essentially an expanded collection of essays. I've since read more of his work and it's clear that he's been chewing on these ideas for quite some time. I like knowing that. I like that his ideas have been polished and developed over many years, and so I forgive the stilted flow of the book itself.
I would say that I perceive a book like this as an Overton Window widener - it was on the NYT best sellers list, people are buying it and thinking about it and talking about it. All to the good.
And for what it's worth, I do think the answer to what we should do is to work on ourselves, get rid of smart phones, and join a club that meets face to face. Preferably with snacks. Life is nicer with friends and food.
The great question every follower of Jesus must face at some point is whether or not we continue to articulate the Word (logos), even when our capacity to make it flesh (Soma), and dwell among us falls short. I imagine that Paul Kingsnorth, like most of us has decided, that though his flesh fails to live fully into every ideal, if he does not speak, then the rocks will cry out. I don't know of anyone that takes Christian faith seriously that does not ultimately make the same decision.
Thank you for the review. I’ve ordered the book. I can’t wait to read it. I too have similar thoughts. I think there is wisdom in reforming our personal lives first it sounds almost individualistic but we are all members of the same body.
The Cosmos is expanding! History does not repeat itself! Orthodoxy, to me, is about what was! We have abandoned our mission to journey to the stars! Lost in morality plays, we no longer seek glory! The road to the stars is paved with glory! The cosmos doesn’t give a shit about fairness!
I had some extensive back-and-forth with Paul Kingsnorth and I thought it was generous of him to give an Internet anon like me the time of day. I backed off. He’s clearly a good man and did not need me haranguing him.
Thanks to this critique I now understand what my beef was. I was rejecting Kingsnorth’s belief that inner purification comes first before one ventures out into the world.
I dare say I know this is incorrect! It is Poppycock. It’s idealized and self-indulgent, human perception is far too multi-variant, it is a prescription for paralysis and or chaos.
The fundamental principle of all possible systems of ethics is: "prefer the better to the worse", (I would add: "to the extent of the significance of the difference").
It’s not a bad deal. This is just the way it works. Don’t shout and snap your feet because you want something fancy. Kingsnorth and for that matter, Christianity wants to exalt and in so doing obscures the obvious. Hubris.
If your answer is "Orthodox Christianity" you are deeply misperceiving the gestalt of the current social, economic, personal and technological spheres of interesection. We all love simple answers, but alas, they don't cover the needs of the moment.
The idea of the illuminator the explainer and the provoker is very interesting. Can anyone suggest names of some 'illuminator' that touched them profoundly?
I found the book to be engaging like a car accident off the side of the road. It was rough at times, his rabid anti-trans chapter and the dumb little lament about the demise of fireplaces and stoves where people could burn wood and peat in their own homes, but it was still a rather gripping read.
The dude (Kingsnorth) is suffering, (aren’t we all?) and pretty much done with trying to resist beyond what privileged folks have always kept as a back pocket “plan Z,” in this case, lose the phone, kill the TV, start a garden and homeschool your kids…oh, and pray to whatever neurotic “jealous” sort of deity your ancestors used to pray to. The historical and philosophical context was great. He makes his case and as a data point in our contemporary discussions on “what to do?” stakes out a “reactionary radical” perspective. This by itself makes it an essential read for anyone wanting to embellish a sense for the diverse ways our species is trying to process this unprecedented moment in the evolution of life on Earth.
This is a great review. I per-ordered the book and was looking forward to it. I liked it, but was somewhat disappointed and have struggled to pinpoint the exact reasons. You've helped me work through my thoughts.
As you highlighted, the definition of "The Machine" is broad (too broad for me). And since the book is built upon various essays, it didn't feel tight and cohesive.
Lastly, the conclusion fell flat. I don't want to raindance. In other essays and talks, his conclusions are more direct and compelling.
One way or another, he offers the same remedy as Guardini did, in the middle of the 20th century, to the predicament of our rootlessness: asceticism and personal holiness. Not a bad prescription, one way or another.
Paul Kingsnorth is great but Guardini, I think is the one that saw all of this coming and speaks about it in the deepest way.
Never heard of Guardini.. any recs as far as his work?
I agree.
Great thoughts for reflection here friend
Excellent piece. I must say, despite his arguments against our self-worshipping and identity-focused moment, I find much of Kingsnorth’s work to be really individualistic. I can’t help but walk away from writers/thinkers in his vein thinking, “well, having the means and ability to fully embody that lifestyle must be nice for you.” But I think the category of explainer, illuminator, and provoker is really helpful. In his best moments, I think Kingsnorth’s work provokes readers to at least break out of their categories of what reality has to be.
I must admit this sort of individualism drives me mad at times. It just has to be the person blessed with plenty of choices that goes about ascetic lifestyle and retreat into spirituality and things like that. Not that I hate him for showing the advantages of such a life. It's just that voluntary (and far from permanent) rebellious seclusion in a picture perfect cottage is too good to be true for absolute majority of us. And instead of inspiring it ends up frustrating.
Interesting. I probably respond most to Kingsnorth as Provoker. While I appreciated the effort he made in the first part of the book to create a historical and philosophical context for his argument, my favourite was definitely the last part where he let loose poetically and even ranted a bit. He has enough humility and self-awareness to make this style of writing fun.
Similar to your final point, I think it is important that the main take away is to practice setting limits in your life and re discover a kind of asceticism. It’s not a message one hears a lot.
Thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I, too, found the flow of the book's narrative a bit stilted and repetitive until I discovered it is essentially an expanded collection of essays. I've since read more of his work and it's clear that he's been chewing on these ideas for quite some time. I like knowing that. I like that his ideas have been polished and developed over many years, and so I forgive the stilted flow of the book itself.
I would say that I perceive a book like this as an Overton Window widener - it was on the NYT best sellers list, people are buying it and thinking about it and talking about it. All to the good.
And for what it's worth, I do think the answer to what we should do is to work on ourselves, get rid of smart phones, and join a club that meets face to face. Preferably with snacks. Life is nicer with friends and food.
The great question every follower of Jesus must face at some point is whether or not we continue to articulate the Word (logos), even when our capacity to make it flesh (Soma), and dwell among us falls short. I imagine that Paul Kingsnorth, like most of us has decided, that though his flesh fails to live fully into every ideal, if he does not speak, then the rocks will cry out. I don't know of anyone that takes Christian faith seriously that does not ultimately make the same decision.
The recurring internal dialogue of Paul Atreides in Dune comes to mind: “disengage, disengage, disengage…”
Thank you for the review. I’ve ordered the book. I can’t wait to read it. I too have similar thoughts. I think there is wisdom in reforming our personal lives first it sounds almost individualistic but we are all members of the same body.
Thanks for this. Although I am in many ways very aligned with Kingsnorth, I always feel a vague annoyance when I listen to him. I'm never quite able to put my finger on what it is about his project that I disagree with. My best attempt at articulating my difference was here: https://coffeewithkierkgaard.home.blog/2023/08/22/gluttony-fasting-and-feasting-three-approaches-to-technology/
The Cosmos is expanding! History does not repeat itself! Orthodoxy, to me, is about what was! We have abandoned our mission to journey to the stars! Lost in morality plays, we no longer seek glory! The road to the stars is paved with glory! The cosmos doesn’t give a shit about fairness!
I had some extensive back-and-forth with Paul Kingsnorth and I thought it was generous of him to give an Internet anon like me the time of day. I backed off. He’s clearly a good man and did not need me haranguing him.
Thanks to this critique I now understand what my beef was. I was rejecting Kingsnorth’s belief that inner purification comes first before one ventures out into the world.
I dare say I know this is incorrect! It is Poppycock. It’s idealized and self-indulgent, human perception is far too multi-variant, it is a prescription for paralysis and or chaos.
The fundamental principle of all possible systems of ethics is: "prefer the better to the worse", (I would add: "to the extent of the significance of the difference").
It’s not a bad deal. This is just the way it works. Don’t shout and snap your feet because you want something fancy. Kingsnorth and for that matter, Christianity wants to exalt and in so doing obscures the obvious. Hubris.
If your answer is "Orthodox Christianity" you are deeply misperceiving the gestalt of the current social, economic, personal and technological spheres of interesection. We all love simple answers, but alas, they don't cover the needs of the moment.
The idea of the illuminator the explainer and the provoker is very interesting. Can anyone suggest names of some 'illuminator' that touched them profoundly?
I found the book to be engaging like a car accident off the side of the road. It was rough at times, his rabid anti-trans chapter and the dumb little lament about the demise of fireplaces and stoves where people could burn wood and peat in their own homes, but it was still a rather gripping read.
The dude (Kingsnorth) is suffering, (aren’t we all?) and pretty much done with trying to resist beyond what privileged folks have always kept as a back pocket “plan Z,” in this case, lose the phone, kill the TV, start a garden and homeschool your kids…oh, and pray to whatever neurotic “jealous” sort of deity your ancestors used to pray to. The historical and philosophical context was great. He makes his case and as a data point in our contemporary discussions on “what to do?” stakes out a “reactionary radical” perspective. This by itself makes it an essential read for anyone wanting to embellish a sense for the diverse ways our species is trying to process this unprecedented moment in the evolution of life on Earth.
This is a great review. I per-ordered the book and was looking forward to it. I liked it, but was somewhat disappointed and have struggled to pinpoint the exact reasons. You've helped me work through my thoughts.
As you highlighted, the definition of "The Machine" is broad (too broad for me). And since the book is built upon various essays, it didn't feel tight and cohesive.
Lastly, the conclusion fell flat. I don't want to raindance. In other essays and talks, his conclusions are more direct and compelling.
Rumor has it that he and Dougald fought in a pub parking lot the first time they met.