Good Klosterman story in Esquire

No. No you are not.

That was one awesome book. The type that left me going shit! I wish I'd thought of that...only to realize he probably nailed it far better than I could have.

He's a great writer, but a lot of his stuff just doesn't connect with me. I'll have to give this one a read.

 

I'm 21, and I like almost all of his essays.

One vote for "a generational thing"?

 

Knighted Brown,

... except that there are all kinds of young writers that I enjoy and respect, not CK.

YHS, etc

 

And their names are...

CK writes in a style that younger people can relate to, I think. It's all about being obsessed with stuff, having to share your opinion about that stuff, but also having a cynical detachment to it, pretending you don't really care, and you definitely don't care if other people don't care about your opinion, because it's just bullshit anyway. That's Klosterman, as I see it, and 95 percent of the time, I really enjoy it. He is very good a magazine profiles, but I like his essays a lot as well.

Here is one thing I find a bit repetitive, though, not about Chuck but about this site: Why when we talk about a certain piece from certain writers (Klosterman, Bill Simmons, Rick Reilly, T.J. Simers, Gary Smith) do we always really end up debating whether or not people "get" that person. It seems like every Simmons column becomes a debate about whether his career is relevant, and whether he's relevant, and instead we rarely debate the actual piece as opposed to the person. I'm guilty of it too. It just seems silly to rehash the same arguments, again and again, every time we want to talk about a piece by a certain writer.

 

Funny you mention Simmons . . . . . .

In the past, Simmons has done a blog on his site that basically consists of he and Mr. Klosterman exchanging e-mails and yukking it up with pop culture references, amusing anecdotes, long-winded takes and prettily worded turns of phrase to talk about these ultimately trivial things.

Based on being completely unimpressed with those ramblings, I haven't bothered to seek out Klosterman's work. Based on his lead for the story posted above, I don't plan to change that policy.

As with all things, to each their own.

 

I like Klosterman, and I'm a damn sight older than he is.

His back-scratching relationship with Preppy Bill forces me to tweak his rating downward, slightly, however.

 

Mr Down,

I suppose your shit-eating attitude needs swift rebuke. I would consider Eggers, David Foster Wallace to be others on the generational divide (and please don't bother doing the DOB on them and saying that they're not young enough). I read anything that they write. Eggers of course being all over the place as far as quality goes like a lot of the McSweeney/Believer crowd, he just hits higher notes (Staggering Genius is rightly labeled and What is the What is right there beside it)than the rest (with the exception of Lethem, maybe Myla Goldberg, let's say). Wallace always does interesting and sometimes transcendent stuff, fiction and non. Klosterman can't fill their fountain pens--I mean, power-up their Ipods or whatever. And I actually like Simmons--Klosterman always gives me the sense that he (wants you to remember that he) is slumming in sports, while for Simmons it's true and first love.

Mr Down, I would posit that Eggers and the McSweeneys and Wallace write for younger readers too--just smarter ones. I have no idea how familiar you are with their work. CK aims low (I suppose he has to) and apparently hits with some. Maybe he grazed my Birkenstocks. When I say "a generational thing" I'm being facetious--truth is, defiantly down-market CK sucks.
Maybe "Down-market" is apropos.

YHS, etc

 

Did this blog come with a warning from the Surgeon General? Something like, "CAUTION: Reading this blog could result in the irreversible loss of brain cells and IQ points."

 

For the same reason you can't review a Rolling Stones album without reviewing it in the context of it being the Stones. An artist, for better or worse, is inextricably tied to the work. For people in the know, it's difficult to separate the two.

 

The citizens of hell must be shivering.

Because I agree with hh 100 percent here.

Totally cliched lede, and my time means too much to me to plow past the third graf.

 

That's fine, Pringle, but one of the biggest flaws with criticism today is a writer's inability to separate celebrity from art. It's much harder to judge something on its merits (and I'm no longer talking about Klosterman here, since his "art" is so closely tied to his persona), which is why critics, especially weak ones, resort to writing about celebrities lives instead of the actual films, albums, books they write. Philip Roth the person is certainly a part of the art he creates, as is Johnathan Franzen, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Jeff Tweedy, and all the way on down to Brittney Spears, but much of the criticism about those kind of artists focuses on who they are as people as opposed to whether their "art" sinks or swims on its own merits. And I think that's the easy way out. It's entertaining, on occasion, and it's certainly the cool way of doing things, but for the most part, it's too easy. And it favors people with limited talent, but compelling (at least to someone) personal lives, like a Jessica Simpson.

Here is a good example of what I'm talking about: Dana Stevens is probably my favorite movie critic today. And this is her review of Sophia Coppola's movie, Marie Antoinette. 90 percent of it is about what a spoiled little shit Sophia is, and 10 percent of it is about the movie. It's an entertaining read, from one of my favorite writers, but it's weak criticism. And you see this kind of thing all the time.

http://www.slate.com/id/2151855/

I'm just saying it would be interesting, on occasion, to debate the merits of an actual Bill Simmons piece (and this is coming from one of his regular critics) without delving into the whole He Would Never Make It At Newspapers, He's A Spoiled Rich Kid, He Is What's Wrong With America argument.

A lot of Simmons stuff is crummy, but some of it is interesting and good. And different. Sometimes that gets lost in the rush to shout him down for being such a bitter dickhead.

 

But does a guy like Simmons even want his work to be separated from his persona? You could even argue that his work exists only to supplement the persona and is therefore without merit or function on its own.