I’ve long enjoyed Chuck Klosterman’s essays when I’ve encountered them, but I hadn’t read any of the several book length collections of his work. BGB correspondent and legal adviser, Shaft, handed Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs off to me one day at lunch. I had officially run out of excuses, so I took it out for a spin.
This collection of pop-culture essays are a mixed bag. Some are brilliant. For example, there is an outsanding piece on the MTV show The Real World. It argues that as the show goes on, the “roles” played by the cast members become more restrictive, and this is reflected in the youth culture at large. It makes sense when he says it.
Another essay that I particularly enjoyed explains the inner workings of newspapers. Klosterman convincingly argues that newspaper journalism is shaped more by who answers the phone first than by corporate agendas. An essay on the marketing of breakfast cereals is genius.
Then there are some essays that fall a little short. Chuck went to a Dixie Chick concert that was filled with gay guys and teenage girls. The article argues that the Dixie Chicks are huge because teenage girls are the new teenage boys. This same article also argues against the band Uncle Tupelo as inauthentically “authentic.” Parts of this one seemed a stretch.
What Klosterman does in these essays is tie bits of arcane but readily available nuggets of pop culture together to create new ideas. There is no support for some of these tenuous logical jumps other than Klosterman’s suggestion that the connection is there. Either you make the leap with him or you don’t. You take the red pill, or you take the blue pill. Most of the time, I was right there with him.
On the provenance of this book: We agreed yesterday that this is unnecessary, but the history of this particular copy of this book is interesting - to me, anyway. As I noted, this book was loaned to by Shaft. It was loaned to him by Swizzle D. I took the book with me on vacation, wherein it was mangled pretty badly in my luggage - but it remains readable. I passed it along to a friend of mine who is a newspaper journalist to get his take on the journalism article (he doesn’t have a snappy nickname). I’ll have to check on its current whereabouts. If this was a CD, the RIAA would make sure that we’d all be doing hard time.
Anyway, time for a book etiquette question: It would appear that I owe Swizzle D a new copy (or another book as a replacement) for being its destroyer. Or does the blame/responsibility lie with Shaft, the original borrower? Does the replacement need to be new? Or can it be used?
Klosterman-ia:
- Klosteroo writes about Muhamad Ali and Rap on ESPN.
- The Onion A/V Club interviews Chuckie.
- The K-man wonders where all the barefoot kickers in the NFL have gone.
- Chaz-meister on Bonds and Ruth and what it all means.
- Chuck-a-roni on the problem of Snakes on a Plane.
- Shaft’s BGB review of SD&CP is here.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 am
The question you have raised regarding your duties/obligations to Swizzle D is an interesting one on many levels — ethical, philosophical, legal, and comical. But rather than go through those contortions, suffice it to say that when Swizzle gave it to me, she didn’t expect it back. The same isn’t true for when I gave it to you. So you should buy me lunch.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
Buying you lunch is the easy way out. I think that I need to explore all avenues here. Maybe I’ll send a letter to the New York Times Sunday Magazine’s The Ethicist columnist.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
The title of that book alone makes it worth picking up.
I’m going to watch for your letter to The Ethicist. Or maybe I’ll submit an ethical question myself. Then I can say I’ve been published in the New York Times.
My take on your dilemma? You return the book in good condition to the person who lent it to you. And if that person wants a lunch instead of the book, you buy the lunch!
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Now, lunch and a book, that would be a truly Lenten penance.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Herm: Why does my Catholic guilt have to be brought to bear on the issue? I’m trying to keep this at the ethical level. While I have issued a definitive mea culpa, is penance really required from an ethical standpoint, or merely restitution.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I’m sorry, DJ. My Catholic guilt made me say it. Sister Mary Frank in the black-and-white get-up and compulsory confession made my ethics, I’m afraid. However, that being said, I think Beth had all the answers.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
My fourth grade ethics professor, Sister Mary Jean, would have had me in sack cloth and ashes in Shafts front yard - which I was trying to avoid.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
DJ — Two mistakes here on your part. One is that you didn’t truly take responsibility, instead essentially blaming the mangling of the book on your suitcase. And secondly, you totally blew it by not waiting to get the book back from your friend to whom you lent it, at which time you could have blamed your friend for mangling it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I think each of you owes me a book. I’m not sure why, but I’m certain this is the right and just course of action.
The Klosterman piece at the Onion AV Club is actually his iPod random shuffle, which is interesting, as is the heated debate (in which I participated) about said person’s relative merit as pop culture sage.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Oops, I stand corrected, that IS an interview. The AV Club also features his iPod, if you care.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Never question me again, Flava!
Without reading The Onion talk about Klosterman’s worthiness of sage status, I’ll say this: there’s not much magical about what he does. In fact, I’m sure that you or I could do something similar without breaking too much of a sweat. He’s doing it though.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Bingo! It’s the doing part of doing something that’s a bitch. But I hear ya. From what I’ve found, he’s actually got a pretty standard formula: a fairly well thought-out, if long-winded defense of a weak — or completely ridiculous — premise.
The whole Snakes on a Plane thing was a textbook example. He goes a long way to make two points: 1)with movies, it’s better to lead people to the water and hope they drink, because if you try to please everyone, you’ll completely satisfy no one, and b) you can’t purposely create an ironically good movie, because it will be neither.
OK, clever enough, but he bases it all on this premise: “People get confused by the term populism, especially when that word is applied to entertainment. People seem to think calling something “populist” means it was purposefully constructed to be stupid, solely to attract the largest possible audience.”
Uh… they do? Really? It forms a convenient framework for his arguement, but is this REALLY an issue about which anyone was conflicted? More to the point, is this even an issue?
so I think what probably does is get into long arcane conversations with fellow geeks over beers at the local hipster bar, somewhere in there makes a compelling point, or a point that sounds clever, anyway, and then fashions some lame context in which to frame it for an article.
Yeah, I could do that. But again, I don’t and he does, so hats off to Mr. K.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
flav: His recent defense of steroids in the NFL (which can be found at http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070319&sportCat=nfl) is exactly that. He mixes apples with oranges and comes up with cumquats.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Flav/Herm: We’ve got a web site, and we’re not afraid to use it. If you guys want to get crackin’ on your pop-culture essays, we can easily publish. I’ve had an idea rolling around in the back of my head for a while that I may commit to “paper”…
March 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Hmmm. Well, Junior has given be a dandy little cold, so the only thing I’m ready to commit to at the moment is some OJ, The Price is Right and the promise of a nap. But once I get back in the groove, I may send some musings your way.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
For the record, I surrender my copy of Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs. However, if someome would procure a copy of Revolutionary Road by Ricahrd Yates for me, I would graciously accept. I have Shaft’s Blansky book and am sure to get a molotov cocktail through my bedroom window soon if not returned. Thatt’s how Shaft rolls.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Flava: I look forward to your musings. I’ll get to work on mine. Maybe.
Swizzle D: Welcome back. I think that we’ve established that Jim is responsible for getting you a copy of Revolutionary Road. Somehow I owe him lunch. He loves that Banksy book - proceed cautiously…
March 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Swizz — You’ve not only got my Bansky book, but also my only DVD of the first eight episodes of Frisky Dingo. I want them both back soon or I’m liable to either spray paint the Mona Lisa on the side of your house or sick the X-ticles on you.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
In the interests of full disclosure, I should let everyone know that I posted a response to the article by Mr. Special K I linked to above on one of my many blogs. That post can be found at http://nextintheseries.blogspot.com/index.html.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Herm: Excellent piece. I think you did a nice job of pointing out the logical fallacy in that argument.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Thanks.