The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: “Here's Some Stuff We Don't Like”
Date: August 21, 2025
Main Theme:
The Commentary panelists confess to literary and cultural touchstones that widely command admiration but, for various reasons, leave them cold or unimpressed. Each host picks a revered book, author, or work of art that eludes their affections, leading to a lively, contrarian, but thoughtful roundtable on taste, reputation, and literary fashion.

Episode Structure & Panel

• Host: John Podhoretz
• Participants: Abe Greenwald, Seth Mandel, Christine Rosen, Matthew Continetti

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Spirit of Contrarianism (03:25)

• Premise: Each panelist names a “great” or “beloved” work they just cannot like—works others defend passionately, but which simply don’t connect, or even repel.
• Goal: Honest, not snarky; some works are simply not to one’s taste, even if their “greatness” is not denied.

2. Confessions of Distaste & Inaccessibility

Matthew Continetti: Charles Dickens (03:25)

• "I am allergic to one of the great novelists of the English language." —Matt (03:46)
• Admits never finishing a Dickens novel, not even A Christmas Carol. Enjoys passages, but can’t get through more than a page or two before losing interest.
• John Podhoretz observes that Norman Podhoretz, legendary critic, felt similarly: admired Dickens, but couldn’t read him (05:03).
• John makes a case for Dickens' structural influence on the novel and memorable openings—acknowledging Dickens' notoriety for verbosity: “His works are dense and overlong, often because he was paid by the word.” (07:00)

Christine Rosen: Moby Dick by Herman Melville (08:00)

• Despite multiple attempts and respect for Melville’s short stories, “I cannot stomach Moby Dick. And I have tried, and I have tried.” (08:10)
• Recounts reading a comparative biography to prepare for another attempt—still couldn't get past 50 pages.
• Seth and John agree; John notes the book “was a huge flop on its original release, and it caused Melville to undergo a 30 year writer's block.” (11:19)
• They reflect on the famous “Cetology” (whale science) chapter’s impenetrability—a hurdle that “anybody who actually manages to get through...I have deep respect for.” (12:36)

Abe Greenwald: Hamilton (the musical) (15:56)

• “I don’t hate it, but I think it’s wildly overrated...My problem is, I don’t care about the music really, almost at all.” (15:56)
• Appreciates its inclusive approach to American history, but finds that “the music leaves me a little cold” and doesn’t revisit it after one listen.
• John counters: “There are 36 songs in Hamilton. There's not a bad song... ten of them will live as long as this is.” (17:58)

Seth Mandel: The Lord of the Rings (books and films) (24:05)

• “I have never been able to connect with it...I’m not a big fantasy reader in general, but I have nothing, I have no grudge against the genre.” (24:05)
• Tried reading after the film’s release; couldn’t engage with either. Christine notes connecting only by reading them aloud to her kids.
• Several on the panel agree. Matt: “Tom Bombadil starts singing, and I throw it across the room.” (25:21)
• Podhoretz lampoons Tolkien’s method: “They get up and then they walk and then they stop and have lunch, and then they walk some more... For a three-volume novel of...the fight between good and evil...there's a lot of walking and not a lot of action.” (27:33)
• Panel jokes about anticipated listener backlash: “Which is to say we are going to get so much mail about this.” —Abe (28:45)
• Contrast with C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books: more accessible, adventure-focused, and suited to children.

John Podhoretz: Stendhal (esp. The Red and the Black; The Charterhouse of Parma) and T.S. Eliot (34:34, 36:30)

• Finds Stendhal’s “narrative sarcasm or a kind of archness...kept at a remove from the characters.”
• Tried twice to read his masterpieces, can’t see what the fuss is about, despite acknowledgment by respected critics. (36:35)
• Brief tangent on T.S. Eliot: loves “Prufrock,” but dismisses most of the rest as “deliberately obscurantist… working to evade your ability to understand.” (38:30)
• Christine gently disagrees, noting “Ash Wednesday” and other poems do hold up, as does Matt on the “Four Quartets.”

3. Wider Reflections

The Evolution and Politics of Literary Reputation (41:00–43:00)

• John examines the “journeys of reputations.” Trollope was dismissed for his commercialism, but is now celebrated. Conversely, the status of Ulysses and James Joyce, icons of modernist difficulty, seems in decline. “I really wonder whether anybody really holds that view anymore.” (39:56)
• Panel laughs at how works are rebranded by current events or politics: e.g., Stendhal’s Charterhouse as a guide for the 'resistance' (42:38).
• John criticizes heavy-handed, agenda-driven literary criticism (citing a New York Times essay on Mansfield Park and slavery). (43:34)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Matthew Continetti on Dickens:
  "Ask me to get through more than one page, and I am like someone slogging through a vast desert, looking for water." (03:46)

• Christine Rosen on Moby Dick:
  "I cannot stomach Moby Dick. And I have tried and I have tried." (08:08)
  “I got about 50 pages, and I’m like, I can’t. I can’t do it. And I put it aside.” (09:14)

• John Podhoretz on The Lord of the Rings:
  "They get up and then they walk and then they stop and have lunch, and then they walk some more... For a three-volume novel...there's a lot of walking and not a lot of action." (27:33)

• Abe Greenwald on Hamilton:
  "My problem is I don’t care about the music really, almost at all...The music leaves me a little cold. Not my thing." (16:09)

• Seth Mandel on Tolkien:
  "I can’t find any way...I can’t even sort of get on the track, really, with the book." (25:39)

• Christine Rosen (joking about Tolkien fans):
  "They're like Beyoncé's fan base. We're going to get a lot of..." (28:49)

• Matthew Continetti’s summary of contrarian spirit:
  "I think in general, we can disrecommend the New York Times." (45:01)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:25 – Matt's Dickens aversion and the Dickens mini-symposium
• 08:00 – Christine’s battle with Moby Dick
• 11:00 – The “Cetology” chapter & Melville’s post-Moby Dick writer’s block
• 12:54 – Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan connects Dickens and Melville
• 15:56 – Abe’s critique of Hamilton
• 17:58 – John defends Hamilton’s score
• 18:52 – The "second act problem" of Broadway musicals
• 24:05 – Seth’s indifference to The Lord of the Rings
• 27:33 – Podhoretz’s lampooning of Tolkien’s narrative style
• 34:34 – John’s struggle with Stendhal
• 36:30 – T.S. Eliot: Great poet or a barrier to enjoyment?
• 39:56 – The shifting status of Joyce and Ulysses
• 42:38 – Literary fashion & topical rebranding of classics
• 43:34 – Modern ideological overreadings of the canon
• 45:01 – Panel’s joking “disrecommendation” of the New York Times

Tone & Style

• Conversational, witty, and unabashedly opinionated
• Respectful disagreement, self-effacing confession
• Frequent asides, literary history, and meta-commentary about the canon and fame
• Playful jabs at one another’s picks—contrarian but never snobbish

Summary List: What the Panel "Doesn’t Like" (44:00)

• Matthew Continetti: All of Dickens
• Christine Rosen: Moby Dick
• Abe Greenwald: Hamilton
• Seth Mandel: The Lord of the Rings
• John Podhoretz: Stendhal’s novels (Red and the Black, Charterhouse of Parma); most T.S. Eliot
• Plus: A strong group "disrecommend" for modern New York Times trend pieces

For Listeners Who Haven’t Heard the Episode

This episode is an enjoyable, candid exploration of how personal taste can run up against cultural consensus. The panelists puncture the aura of “unimpeachable” literary and artistic fame—confessing their own failed attempts, sharing their bemusement at the canon, and reinforcing the idea that disliking a revered work does not necessarily amount to a failure of intellect or moral character. Their playful and thoughtful approach ensures listeners will come away with a sense of the enduring—and shifting—nature of reputation, and the essential subjectivity at the heart of every reader’s journey.