A response about neutral vs. emotional lit

Here you will find a blog post about emotional vs. neutral lit. The actual post is less interesting than the discussion that follows, partly because the writer throws emotional lit into hyperbole - even calling it "emotional lit" kind of makes it sound like writers employing the use of emotions are trapped in some Victorian-era psych ward for hysteria cases. Also problematic is that the "neutral" writer is defined as one who "only expresses what actually happens, without including their own judgements," which is actually impossible unless you're some kind of New Critic who believes ultimately that a single interpretation is possible with the right order of words.

If emotional writing acts as "a sort of propaganda" by using emotions to manipulate the reader "into thinking in ways that are not rational," a "neutral" tone (I even have problems with using the word "neutral" here, since it's affected, neutrality is impossible - maybe one reason why the author switches to "dead-pan" to cover his tracks a bit) uses that same kind of propaganda, using emotions to manipulate the reader. The only difference, perhaps, is the goal of the "neutral" manipulation is to get the reader to think in ways that are rational.

In reading the comments on Tao Lin's stories, I see a lot of "I have always felt this way but was never able to express it so succinctly" kind of sentiment. That's the power of neutral writing - it enters your brain like a fact you always knew. On the other hand, "neutral" writing is just as affected as "emotional" writing and, if done poorly, the seams start to show. From one of the blog comments:

I guess I just feel like the overwrought detachment that I see in the work of people like Tao Lin, to me is an empty gimmick. I understand depression, have it myself, but am being finally, I think treated sucessfully. I understand that detachment is a function of the way the modern world with all its technology and distractions makes us and blah blah blah etc...; however, I don't want to read a writer who doesn't see the world as a dynamic, wonderous thing. [...]

Tao Lin responds to the criticism, suggesting that sarcasm or irony are involved and says "that is a kind of thinking that could lead to thinking that you are 'right' and other people are 'wrong' in terms of art," which I think is true and also pretty soundly refutes the blog post they are discussing.

This is all interesting to me because I think I've been pushing harder towards detachment in my own writing over the past few months. It hasn't been a conscious movement, but I read it as funnier, sharper, and ultimately more true when the world happens to a character who observes acutely but is largely unimpressed. In turn, that kind of fiction is most likely to grab me, particularly when it is flash fiction. (My own reasons for writing in terms of fact over emotion may have more to do with the goal of a story as a philosophical statement, but that's a topic for another day.)

Anyway, what do you guys think of this short-form literary nihilism?