The Ascendency of the Commentariat/Why I Love Substack
Commentary is universal today.
This statement is not intended to libel our era, nor an implicit judgment against commentaries broadly. Crique, review, exegesis - whatever the act is called, it is necessary. Some of the most ancient commentaries concern Enūma Eliš, the Babylonian creation myth, telling the tale of the two primordial deities Apsu and Tiamat, whose mating brought about all things; most importantly the head of the new Babylonian pantheon, Marduk.
In this tradition, Biblical commentaries, usually called Biblical hermeneutics, appeared in tandem with the text itself. Whether you believe all should study the Bible intensely, or that interpretation of the Word should be primarily the task of the priesthood, are these Biblical commentaries not useful? If you have ever attempted to read the Bible you will quickly recognise, and likely lose yourself in, its complex nature. Alone we lack the cultural context to comprehend God's word to its fullest. The guiding hand of an expert (dare I utter the word!) is therefore a saving grace.
Ancient commentaries also cover Plato, medicine, literature, and practically every other topic imaginable. Indeed, why should this be surprising? After all, what is a commentary, except one half a scholarly conversation, or a lecture? Men with skill or knowledge wished to educate others on a topic, and so wrote in reference to an original text, that itself references other physical phenomena or abstractions.
The ancient physician Galen wrote copiously on the body; he referenced blood, bile, muscles, and the mind (among many other things). He in turn was referenced by many others. Hence a chain of reference is forged, bonded most strongly at the base, where Galen wrote of first-hand experiences, and weakest at the utmost, where a writer might reference a writer who referenced a writer who referenced Galen.
Though most of Galen's theories, with the advantage of hindsight, turned out to be limited, incomplete, or incorrect (which is no shame, considering the date of his writing), I suspect there is a link in that chain that would prove itself both strong and sophisticated. I view this process as something like Chinese Whispers, except that each individual may add some useful information to the message as well as distort it. Therefore there is necessarily a point upon this chain, be it near or far, whose link is best forged, whose steel is most refined, and whose content arrives closest to the truth.
The news is a form of commentary, whose links are, unfortunately, of poor quality steel for the most part. Even the simple news read-out is a commentary, as the writer must select from a wide pool of information which stories are worthy of inclusion. To do so he must use his particular judgment, often referring to a list of rules; his every decision, in a sense, is therefore a minor commentary of its own.
Gossip, too, is commentary of a crude sort. Before the printing press, news was passed from town to town by travelers, town criers, and the like. When meeting a stranger it was customary to inquire as to the news as a matter of priority. How else would you know if the next town over was safe, if the king was well, if the river had broken its banks?
Opinion pieces are the confluence of commentary, news, and gossip. They are a hydra, possessing the most addictive attributes of each. An opinion piece is usually written by someone regarded as an expert and, therefore, instills in the reader a sense of educated competence after having read it. Well-written opinion pieces are not overly long or laborious and thus do not impinge upon those limited by a high-time preference. Most of all, opinion pieces allow character and judgment to flow without impediment. Gossip is a powerful force.
I would put to you that gossip is such a powerful force that we now live, in part, under its twisting shadow. This is the Ascendency of the Commentariat.
For the opinion piece is not bound merely to dry pages, musty gentlemen's clubs, or sterile skyscrapers. Enter the late-night talk show. Least of all is the talk show a mere translation of the opinion piece, no! It is an expansion, an emotion swelling, often festering, myopic monolith. The talk show is the gesamtkunstwerk of the opinion piece, the total expression... and the total manipulation. A trusted, charismatic voice fronts a script written by half a dozen propagandists, a shining studio gives visual legitimacy via a display of wealth, music soars to accentuate the desired emotional reaction (usually cynical humour), and clapping is employed for psychological effect, pushing the mind of the watcher to conform with the group.
This is the opinion piece on an overload of dopamine, the sophistication and subtleties of writing damned before the keening of a wild audience and the rictus grin of some snake-oil celebrity.
Worse, the talk show is now democratised; technology has allowed for the format's replication en mass. And I mean mass. YouTube proliferates with commentaries, and an increasing number thereof begin to resemble the production values of the talk shows they ape. As a rule, YouTubers usually attempt a more thoughtful, inquiring investigation of issues than the mainstream, but I do not believe that will last indefinitely. Indeed, we have already seen the beginning of the transformation with our own eyes. Incentives, as always, point toward serving the lowest common denominator.
And the ranks of the commentariat swell every day (indeed, you're reading a recent member now), expanding the scope of content any individual might absorb. Sometime soon, we shall look back and wonder: which thoughts are our thoughts? Is there anything - even a spec of spectral dust - I might call my own? It is currently possible, easy even, for a man to sit at his desktop every day and incorporate the commentaries of others into his own, until he has nothing, and they have everything.
Until his mind is a cheap mould of a dozen others, who themselves are a weak link on that great chain of commentary. Already, children do not ask: 'what would Jesus do' but 'what would my favourite YouTuber do?'
Substack, graciously unhurried, save us all.