
When Oscar Wilde Colluded with Russians - pepys
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/10/18/oscar-wilde-colluded-russians/
======
klenwell
As a fan of Oscar Wilde, I find the headline's suggestion that he shares some
kind of allegiance with the likes of Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump Jr.
unsavory.

Here's the passage near the end of article that struggles to pardon the
headline:

 _In the past, fears of an outside (Russian) agitator were often used to test
the loyalty of people who had very little reason to feel loyal in the first
place: the Irish in Great Britain, African Americans during the Red Scare. The
present-day fears of Russian collusion have an altogether different tinge to
them: they are associated with the powerful, not the powerless, a paradigmatic
shift that has left many feeling confused as to what to believe._

Yeah, it's a stretch. Then again it was Wilde who wrote:

 _One of the chief causes that can be assigned for the curiously commonplace
character of most of the literature of our age is undoubtedly the decay of
Lying as an art, a science, and a social pleasure._

So maybe he'd have something to say in the defense of Donald Trump and his
Russian collaborators.

~~~
labster
It's really unfair to the Russians to be grouped with such a poor liar as
Donald Trump. His lies are all the same, and assuredly do not advance the art.
If everything is always the worst or the best as in Trumpean narratives, there
is no place for building to a climax, nor a proper denouement.

~~~
topmonk
I believe that Trump lies in order to get the media to cover the topic he's
talking about.

He feeds them with some juicy factual error they can jump up and down on,
along with some controversial topic they'd rather not cover.

It works to a certain degree. It also sometimes backfires, "Violence on many
sides" about Charlottesville was his attempt to get them to talk about Antifa,
IMO, but was spun as he was defending white supremacy.

The problem is that it's become so cliche that he lies, it's worn out its
usefulness. It worked in the election, but now everyone is annoyed, including
his supporters. It's hard to align yourself with someone who is beaten up so
badly every day, regardless if he's hurting his opponents or not.

~~~
NicoJuicy
Why do you think Trump is that smart?

The only success he had was: Trump Tower, renting out his name because of
Trump Tower, a tv-show because of Trump Tower. He wouldn't be anything without
his dad's money or a very lucky investment.

He was in a helicopter and thought, hey. I want that big ass tower. I can buy
it and he calls his dad.

~~~
wolco
The only success is Trump Tower? It is a sad and false meme.

Are we forgetting that Trump became president without any support from his
party. He crashed the party changed the playbook and won. If becoming
president isn't a success what is?

~~~
NicoJuicy
Successfully finishing it, I doubt he will manage that.

PS. Why did he won? He became president because everybody thaught he was a
smart business man ( and not a politician), because he appeared in a tv-show (
the apprentice - which is about "smart businessmen" ) because of Trump Tower.

And did you ever look at who "produced" the apprentice? Guess who claims that
"Trump" is a good businessman....

Your statement still doesn't falsify mine.

------
emmelaich
Interesting to read about the nihilist story fad of the late 1800s at least.

In this context
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday)
(1908) makes more sense - as a parody of the genre as much of anything else.

~~~
walshemj
And the similar spy scare stories of Quex

------
B1FF_PSUVM
Poor Oscar was just click-baiting, like the Paris Review.

Here, have a Fake Steve of 2011 vintage: [http://www.fakesteve.net/2011/01/my-
talk-with-a-left-wing-ha...](http://www.fakesteve.net/2011/01/my-talk-with-a-
left-wing-hack.html)

Same old, but it seems ages ago.

------
stefanwlb
Yawn, this is really getting old and tiring, I didn't really there were so
many bigots on hn.

~~~
emmelaich
Could you elaborate? I can't tell from your comment who you think is bigoted
and against what.

------
shell_scripter
oh god. this propaganda is spreading like cancer. i'm already avoiding sites
like cnn, nyt, wapo, facebook and reddit because i'm sick of it, and now it's
coming to this site where i take refuge?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
If you don't like the story consider down voting it or simply hiding it.

------
ignoramceisblis
I find it interesting that one commenter glibly pronounces that Donald Trump
has "Russian collaborators" \- ostensibly for nefarious purposes - even
though, with nearly a year of investigation, I'm not made aware of conclusive
proof of such collaboration.

More interesting is the article itself, which I might summarise as: an
eyecatching headline (which is of course the one thing all readers will see),
98% of the text being some historical context concerning one of Oscar Wilde's
plays, and then the last few sentences straining to relate the headline with
the article and the headlines of other modern articles--on supposed "Russia
collusion".

Though the effort, this time, - given the headline and closing remarks - seems
quite clearly to suggest that 'this whole Russia collusion thing might not be
so bad after all'.

Most interesting is how this article has been cobbled together and published
within just a few days of the reemerging Uranium One scandal, this time,
suggesting collusion between none other than the past Democrat presidential
candidate and Russia:

[http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-
uncov...](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-
russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration)

Though I've been "very" surprised at the lack of attention this got from many
major American media corporations, at least on the first day of its release.
Some outlets other than The Hill covered it - Breitbart, Fox News, and perhaps
more ("names that shall not be mentioned") - but Reddit, for example, had
quite a lot of nothing to say about the matter, at least on the most visible
portions of the site.

I suppose some prefer to speak of "Oscar Wilde's collusion with Russians"
instead of other, important matters.

~~~
Brakenshire
This is so paranoid as to be absurd. Your contention is that an article in an
obscure literary magazine about an author from 100 years ago is to be used as
a means of distraction about this scandal?

This article stands approximately zero chance of diverting the news cycle in
the least way, and its 'collution is not a bad thing' line as you describe it
has no relevance to Clinton, because it's explicitly about the powerless, not
the powerful.

Fair point about the other commenter glibly talking about Russian
collaborators, might I suggest a concise reply to their comment?

~~~
ignoramceisblis
> This is so paranoid as to be absurd. Your contention is that an article in
> an obscure literary magazine about an author from 100 years ago is to be
> used as a means of distraction about this scandal? This article stands
> approximately zero chance of diverting the news cycle in the least way, and
> its 'collution is not a bad thing' line as you describe it has no relevance
> to Clinton, because it's explicitly about the powerless, not the powerful.

My contention is nothing of the sort. I do not believe this article could be
or was intended to be a distraction or diversion. I'm also unsure of how you
extrapolated that. It is, as you say, an obscure literary magazine.

The main relevant takeaway is that I believe a significant portion of the
readers of this article - or just the headline - could walk away with the
association of 'collusion with Russia might not be so bad'. That's it. You
could add the parameter for "power", as you describe, but I believe enough of
the reader population will abstract that away, and simply recall the simpler
association.

I also provide context on why this association may be more valuable to have,
for certain parties.

What I think you could say is "absurd" is how my original comment consisting
of: a correction to another user's comment, my summary of the article, and
relevant points of context has been treated. It appears at the bottom of the
page, below a comment with the full content being "Yawn, this is really
getting old and tiring, I didn't really there were so many bigots on hn.",
with text slightly darker than the near-white text of that comment, and mine
is the only comment that is hidden or collapsed by default. I'm unsure of how
Hacker News text shading and comment visibility is set, but are my statements
not relevant to the article at hand? I was here for meaningful discussion.
(For that last question, Brakenshire, I don't expect you to reply.)

