In a previous piece for The New York Times, Nellie Bowles criticized Jordan Peterson, portraying him negatively. In a recent essay, she expressed regret for the collateral damage caused by her focus on going viral. Bowles used to measure success by the response from the Twitter mob, which led to her leaving the Times and adopting a more careful approach to her writing.
Her new book, Morning After the Revolution, lacks the strong convictions seen in her past work. While she offers some colorful reporting on recent events, her analysis often falls short of providing meaningful insight. Bowles’ shift from a progressive takedown artist to a more moderate, satirical commentator works well in short weekly roundups but struggles to deliver substance in a book-length review.
Rather than taking principled stances, Bowles often resorts to sarcasm, offering little beyond entertainment value. Her reluctance to take a firm position on contentious issues like gender and sexuality reflects a broader trend of avoiding strong opinions in favor of moderation. This approach, she believes, allows her to avoid alienating extremists on either side but also limits the depth of her analysis.
While Bowles’ writing style is engaging and humorous, it lacks the depth and conviction needed to make a significant contribution to important conversations. Her journey from cancel culture enthusiast to a more moderate commentator reflects a broader trend of avoiding controversy. Ultimately, Bowles’ work feels incomplete, hinting at a need for more courage and conviction to truly stand out in the crowded landscape of political commentary.
