I think I explained why I thought he wasn't worth reading. If you think he is then you should explain that.
As I said, I read a biographical piece in the NYTimes that mentioned his favorite book. Conrad is a great writer and that had me intrigued. But then after reading it, it didn't raise my opinion of him.
As for his existence, the guy sent bombs in the mail to innocent people. Fuck him.
>I think I explained why I thought he wasn't worth reading
Well no, you said why he wasn't worth reading, and then made claims about him and his work ("There was nothing to the man...")
My question is why you went out of your way to ignore the available first-hand sources, and preferred second-hand, and indirect, sources to judge his writing.
Why would you read the book he likes, but not what he actually wrote, before making claims about the value of his writing? And more importantly, why would you go out of your way to handle it this way? It seems to me you had interest in the ideas he might have (due to the bibliography) but went on a roundabout way to view them for no particular reason.
See, I'd understand if you, say, already knew the book, and considered it trash, and thus decided he probably doesn't know what he's talking about; but you apparently chose to put in the work to read the book over reading his actual writings, when the latter was probably more available and accessible. You specifically chose the indirect route over the direct one, and came to a very direct conclusion, and this decision confounds me.
I did. That's true. I said that someone who murders to call attention to his writing is not worth reading. Moreover, that there is nothing to the man. When Hinkley shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, I don't think she was impressed.
Now as to your question, I didn't judge his writing; I judged him. Terrorists who murder for acclaim aren't necessarily the most insightful writers cuz like if they were, they wouldn't need to murder.
It's apparent that you somehow think there is value or merit to his writing and by extension, him. Then that would be your task, to show that. I don't need to prove the negative. You need to show this great idea that Mr. Kaczynski proffered.
Cuz like I'm not seeing it.
BTW, if by the book you meant Conrad's The Secret Agent, no I didn't know the book. Conrad is a great writer but this isn't his best which to me would be Heart of Darkness. It's still worth a read, irrespective of Kaczynski.
While I did enjoy his manifesto, I'm not particularly interested in convincing you to read it; I'm just wondering why, when your curiosity was piqued, you chose to avoid the available first-hand source, which you've answered though I don't find your reasons very compelling
But to address that:
>Terrorists who murder for acclaim aren't necessarily the most insightful writers cuz like if they were, they wouldn't need to murder.
Its hardly the case that insightful writing will naturally spread; you yourself provide an example of why it might: you know his murders had little to do with his actual arguments (if you believe his claims), but use it as a reason to not even consider the argument. More generally, a solid argument can easily be publicly ignored for reasons unrelated to it, including style, origin, author's personal traits or behavior, media lambasting, politics, etc. We hardly live in a world where reason alone is sufficient.
That he resorted to terrorism was likely an unreasonable escalation to popularize his writing is irrelevant in all ways I can figure to whether or not he his ideas were insightful, or better yet, interesting. And given the history behind the document (which apparently grabbed your interest too), it seems unreasonable to me to expect nothing of value from it. It might be wrong, but its clearly going to be interesting.
And pretending the bombings never happened, would you have read it?
And then come to the conclusion that this was sufficient to judge his writings, and his existence