It's not bracket city, those are all Clojure data structures. The example could also be written like this:

http://gist.github.com/468107

Code is data :)

Counted the same number of brackets in both Node.JS and Clojure examples.

In my eyes it's more structured, since it's all data structures.

This sounds like:

I don't know how clojure works.

I know how clojure works.

...

People say similar things about javascript.

Syntax aesthetics shouldn't be an important metric for technology choices.

Why not? Aesthetics improve readability and maintainability, (probably) trading out for less raw speed. If I'm less concerned about performance than maintainability, why shouldn't aesthetics play a large role in my decision?

For me, unfamiliarity with a syntax is easy to confuse as poor aesthetics of the syntax.

I got to the point of understanding and enjoying clojure's syntax very quickly.

Because it can lead you to make arbitrary choices. People usually disagree vehemently on matters of aesthetics. I didn't say it shouldn't play any role, it just shouldn't be an important one. Focus too much on syntax over semantics and you're bikeshedding.

I get lost easily in non-lisp-code nowadays =x The unwritten standard for lisp indentation works out quite readably

They "shouldn't" be, but more often than not they are. At least in my experience of try to introduce people to new languages/technologies.

Counter-point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

That's a usability issue, not an aesthetic one.