Classic or Dud: Chuck Klosterman

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The kind of person who loves Chuck Klosterman is probably no more in touch with "mainstream America" than the kind that reads the New Yorker (even ignoring any overlap).

I don't really believe in "mainstream America" anyway. I don't think there's such a thing.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Sunday, 27 February 2000 02:41 (13 years ago) Permalink

3 years pass...

What do you say, folks? I have my own opinions, but I wonder what other people think. My feeling is that he spends a tad too much ink on being clever and a tad too little on what he's reviewing.

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Monday, 7 April 2003 14:51 (10 years ago) Permalink

Has Klosterman gone too far?

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 7 April 2003 14:53 (10 years ago) Permalink

a guy completely unfamiliar with the notion 'history is written by the victors'

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 14:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

Nice timing, cause I just finished reading "Fargo Rock City" not two days ago. (Where was "Fargo" in the book?--65 miles north. I hope that a marketing hack came up with the title, and not Klosterman himself...) I'd say the book had loads of problems as far as the consistency and supportability of its main arguements, but it worked well as personal memoir. Klosterman's got an engaging writing voice, but the populism vs. the critics thing is his hammer that makes every critical opportunity into a nail, if you get my drift.

I do think the earlier thread on the Ratt/Ramones deaths brought out some suprising defensiveness in the responses. I'm not sure why people saw his fixation on Ratt's "popularity" as such a weak point. I think his arguement is that, on the surface, it might seem strange that Dee Dee's death got "more attention", since Ratt had more mainstream exposure; and that it's the weight given to an artist by the critical apparatus that ultimately trumps the importance of mere sales / airplay numbers. I don't think he's proposing that the situation is unjust because Ratt were truly somehow "better", just that the critics' history-making tends to obscure significant (by some measure) bands or artists that aren't judged significant (by a select set of other measures). This is not a particulary insightful observation, nor is the situation it describes limited to music-crit, but I do think it holds some water.

That said, one not particularly insightful observation such as this is not enough to hold up an entire book, much less an entire approach to music criticism (although to be fair, I haven't read much else of Klosterman's writing).

And so: neither classic nor dud, but his writing works a lot better when he's just talking about himself, and acknowleging all his biases and emotional attachments, rather than letting these create a righteous-contrarain critical voice that approaches dud.

― arch Ibog (arch Ibog), Monday, 7 April 2003 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

In Texas a few weeks ago, he left a half eaten chocolate egg in the back of my car with little Flintstones-vitamins-sized candies inside. Still edible!

Hadn't met him or read him before that, but I loved his rock lists in the recent Spin. That shit is so much harder than it looks. Classic so far...

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, 7 April 2003 18:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

I like Klosterman generally, and I love lists, but that lists issue was the worst issue of Spin ever

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

significant (by some measure)

But what is the measure if not supreme personal concern or interest? In which case the popularity card is a red herring on his part. Personally I think James Blount's take says it all, and explains why he's so frustrating in the end.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

He kinda reminds me of Lester Bangs, minus you know, all the drugs and moustaches and long hair and all the Anthony DeCurtis hate and being dead and all. As for C/D, too early to tell.

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:33 (10 years ago) Permalink

when you compare that recent Spin list issue with their 35th Anniversary of Rock issue circa thirteen years ago (Jim Morrison on the cover), the decline in quality from then to now is stunning.

He's like Bangs without the talent, or the heart, or the ideas, or the balls, or the curiosity, or the drugs. He might have the gut though, not sure (willing to bet though). Probably a similar wardrobe.

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm pissed off at him for pre-empting my shtick. Fargo is like NYC compared to where I'm from!

― dave q, Monday, 7 April 2003 19:42 (10 years ago) Permalink

Haha you said that about Donna Gaines too. You'd better write that book before you get preempted by someone else!

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:45 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'll buy whatever book dave writes

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

"chuck klosterman is an idiot with a gimmick - he's a revisionist know-nothing who pretends to be a journalist and a critic but is, in fact, a small-minded hypocrite who opposes the very notion of journalism and criticism. He's Lester Bangs without a clue - a solipsistic shithead whose book never gets beyond the i-like-it-other-people-like-it-therefore-it's-good populism that refutes the very idea of quality as something apart from commercial success. I'm surprised Chuck Eddy, whose metal-bound contrarian views at least are based on an artistic sensibility and some intelligent thought, hasn't sued him for stealing his first name and his shtick."

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=249342&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

'a small-minded hypocrite who opposes the very notion of journalism and criticism'

...like i was saying upthread!!!

― dave q, Monday, 7 April 2003 20:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

I like a lot of his stuff, but when he's off its pretty worthless (not to mention the guy needs to name names as far as the critical establishment he claims to go against). I haven't really enjoyed his new Spin column yet but I thought Fargo Rock City was a lot of fun.

I've actually been buying SPINs a lot lately, even though its been six months or so since my subscription ran out. The last one was REALLY disappointing. The Dischord article was haphazard, the Linkin Park piece blatantly unenthusiastic (understandably but still disappointing), and the Good Charlotte piece, despite being on the cover, was only half a page (for relationship advice, reaffirming Joel is the nice one). Plus the review are pretty bland.

I thought the lists issue was pretty funny though. Cute song quotes.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 7 April 2003 20:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

that Ira rant is awful!

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 7 April 2003 22:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Ira rant?

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 7 April 2003 23:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

the one Yanc3y quoted/linked to

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 7 April 2003 23:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

yeah, that rant sucks. exactly what I meant where I wish he'd name names rather than go on about rock snobs or whatever. Maybe interview a "rock snob" and see if maybe they can explain to him why Dee Dee got more attention in his death aside from the good music/bad music deal.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 00:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

I like Klosterman. Maybe it's because I don't think of him as a journalist, exactly, and certainly not someone I would look to for suggestions re something to listen to. But he is generally entertaining about the stuff in his sphere, and I thought Fargo Rock City was a fun book.

Agreed that the Spin list issue was terrible. It looked like something you'd find in some one-off 'zine stacked in some forgotten bar alcove.

Ira Robbins and Chuck Klosterman see the world differently, no news there.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 00:50 (10 years ago) Permalink

the (jaw-droppingly awful) spin lists issue made me realize one thing, being dave marsh is harder than it looks.

― notfazed (notfazed), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 01:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

oh wait. my response to Matos's "Ira rant" was a response to the original Klosterman article. Ira's thing was cheap too.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 01:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

this is probably fodder for another thread, but here goes, since there are evidently some other SPIN readers here:

1. anybody else wish SPIN reviewed more records? their section (and RS's, admittedly) gets punier and punier. and don't try to sell me on that "more records, more opinions, let's do this" thing.

2. anybody wish more than 15 people - with some writing 2-3 reviews per issue - were writing the reviews?

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 11:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Re: Ned's But what is the measure if not supreme personal concern or interest? In which case the popularity card is a red herring on his part. Personally I think James Blount's take says it all, and explains why he's so frustrating in the end.

Of course he's motivated by his personal concern AND interest--is that so awful? I'd say yes, when he tries to pretend that's not what's motivating his writing--but when he occasionaly owns up to it I think it's hardly a problem. I'd argue that many people want their critics to be motivated by their particular emotional attachments; part of the fun of reading them is getting a glimpse of someone's possibly irrational passion for something that you don't feel so strongly about yourself. This is not to bolster up Klosterman's writing, cause I think it's got plenty of problems, as described throughout this thread. And so yeah, his playing of the popularity card is a problem cause it's disingenuous, but the personal motivation that he's trying to cover up doesn't seem as bad as the effort to obscure it.

― arch Ibog (arch Ibog), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 12:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

Of course he's motivated by his personal concern AND interest--is that so awful?

Certainly not! I think we're agreeing here. I have no problem with him talking about what he loves, but as you say, trying to justify something on the basis of its former popularity evades the issue.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 12:21 (10 years ago) Permalink

Fargo Rock City by Chuck Klosterman

"The Guns 'N' Roses it's OK to like"

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 12:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

I just read an advance of Klosterman's forthcoming book. It's like reading ILX if ILX was just Anthony Miccio and James Blount talking to one another and they were almost always wrong: essays on Billy Joel, the Lakers, the Real World, the Sims, a particularly ILMish one on why popular country music is real and important and it's tiresome snobbery to think otherwise, pop culture / sports / music / etc. In fact, at least two semi-regular ILX posters -- D0uglas W0lk and (huck 3ddy -- make appearances. Douglas drinks some orange juice.

I think people here will likely have a bit of the Narcissism of Small Differences thing going on with this book -- the subject matter is so exactly the sort of thing covered here, and the approach to working through it is very similar, that the immediate response is to recoil when he gets this or that bit of it horribly wrong. (There's an unfortunate comment about Dexy's that would make some people's heads explode. And he has absolutely no clue what he's even saying about soccer.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

That said, it was entertaining, and he has plenty of good things to say. (The "getting it wrong" thing is exactly that board-bred narcissism, always wanting to leap on the "missteps." Though he is just patently stupidly wrong about soccer, at least.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

Final note: his Ugly Midwesterner version of the Ugly American schtick goes in and out as it suits him, I think.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

nabisco goes out of his way to hurt me

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

I didn't mean that in a bad way at all!

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:21 (10 years ago) Permalink

ie. whutchutalkinabout n1tsuh?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:21 (10 years ago) Permalink

does he do alot of whining in the book? cuz that's my main gripe

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

it's not the whining so much as the belief that he has a right to whine and no one else does. it's an underdog-bully complex.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Just finished Fargo Rock City recently. I enjoyed it lots, but what disappointed me was a lack of conviction. Which, in a way, he admits to in the Epilogue, where he says something to the effect of "no way am I going to convince anyone that Theatre of Pain is Carole King's Tapestry" but (again paraphrasing) "how could something that was the soundtrack to so many people's lives not be culturally important?".

So, even though he is defensive about 80s hair metal, and twists himself into a pretzel trying to defend its sexism and so on, there's almost a hollowness in the middle of his argument. I mean, I wish he'd simply take the idea that Theatre of Pain IS better than Tapestry, run with it, and see where that leads him.

― Wired Flounder (Wired Flounder), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:50 (10 years ago) Permalink

sociology is killing music crit, it's like retroactive market research, and is (as beleaguered advertisers in this shrinking economy will probably admit while drunk) probably equally useful

― dave q, Tuesday, 20 May 2003 12:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

mebbe so, but I think we love pop music for some pretty blatantly sociological reasons.

however I agree it's not always fun to hear people try to tease out and pontificate on those reasons.

and agreed that the retroactivity of it all often feels like a dud.

― arch Ibog (arch Ibog), Tuesday, 20 May 2003 12:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

So did anybody but me see that psychotic New York Press cover story yet? I mean, what the fuck????? Don't have to get into it at the moment; I'm just amazed there's no thread about it yet....

― chuck, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 19:23 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I just read it too, it was linked to from the Mostly Weird blog. Here's the link. More thoughts anon.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 19:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

All I can say at the moment, is that Mark Ames appears to be a very disturbed individual.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 19:38 (9 years ago) Permalink

he namedrops Lou Reed, Kim Deal, Guided By Voices, David Lynch, Sid and Nancy and other hallowed figures of the avant-garde

?!?!??!?!? can we have a definition of avant-garde plz?

this is horrible. what an embarrassment for a paper that i thought had been all embarrassed out for years now. insult to injury -> this'll fuel chuck k's underdog complex even more!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 19:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

and i mean, the way the dude rips on the cusack line of thought is ridiculous! he reads it as if chuck is biting baudrillard?!?!? jesus. this d00d sounds like fun-hating motherfucker.

(my guess is k's schtick reminds him of his own, but he's languishing in the ussr writing for an awful paper while chuck gets big. i'm embarassed for him)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

I just picked up a copy. Why, I don't know. Just when I think NY Press couldn't possibly get any worse, it does.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

I mean this book seems pretty bad, but jeez lighten up on the hyperbole, guy. And is it really worth a cover story?

― hstencil, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

This guy Ames is hilarious. He's like: "Oh no, Klosterman criticized porn! He's a closet fundamentalist!" Or: "Oh no, Klosterman drinks chocolate milk! He's a closet bourgeouis!" Or: "Oh no, Klosterman wears a t-shirt in his author photo! He's a child molester!" His bizarre extrapolations would be laughable if they weren't so spiteful. Meanwhile, the quotes from Klosterman's book actually sound pretty droll. If anything, it made me want to read it.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wow. Having read little by either Klosterman or Ames (other than a couple of the former's Spin columns), I have to say Klosterman comes off looking okay in comparison to this bitter, angry rant of a "review". From making personal appearance (saggy ass-faces and t-shirts stretched in struggles?) cracks to offering him out for a fight, I mean... WTF!!!???

It's like barely disguised aching homoeroticism or something.

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

except for the fact that it's really, really badly written, that's pretty much a quintessential ny press piece. (the one thing i do give them credit for is decent writing, most of the time anyway.) from the start, the nyp has read like a really bad, and really desperate, journalism review, whose only recognizable point of view is that it's jealous of, and hates, all other writers and all other publications.

the press rarely writes about music (or any other subject); instead, it writes about what other writers are saying about music. and it always claims, of course, that they are wrong. it's as if the paper is staffed by a roomful of people who don't go to movies, don't listen to records, don't go outdoors, and probably don't socialize with other humans. they just read about all that stuff in other newspapers and magazines.

the thing that's amazing to me is that in spite of all that, they've managed to publish a number of really good writers over the years, including another guy named ames (jonathan) who i hope is no relation to this one.

― fact checking cuz, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:42 (9 years ago) Permalink

IIRC, Mark Ames writes for some ex-pat Moscow publication. The only I piece of his I remember seeing used the word "raghead" a lot.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 324 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

klosterman is fine at reporting a story but somewhere along the way he decided that his taste was worth reporting on.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

thats the problem - he seems so afraid to actually draw a hard line anywhere, so you can read 20 pages of the dude writing about music without any real indication of what he actually likes. instead he's just content to use half-baked "think about it, bro" statements like "Steely Dan were more subversive than every punk band combined"

― you can expect punches, kicks and even worse (frogbs), Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:15 (1 year ago) Permalink

it's basically in line with his general thing of trying to seem smart by equivocating and making unclear statements.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:19 (1 year ago) Permalink

for the ilxor who has everything

http://www.amazon.com/HYPERtheticals-50-Questions-Insane-Conversations/dp/0307587924

― da croupier, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

i'm actually kind of impressed that he commodified his love of inane hypotheticals

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:23 (1 year ago) Permalink

"The group's weakness is their obsession with transposable power ballads, most of which sound like what would happen if Bob Rock helped Coldplay write a really loud song for Garth Brooks (which would undoubtedly be the most popular song in the history of mankind, were it to literally exist)."

^^i fucking swear he manages to work a Bob Rock reference into every music piece he ever does

― l0u1s j0rdan (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:25 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

He's apparently the New York Times' new Ethicist columnist.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/07/chuck_klosterman_to_be_nyt_s_new_ethicist_a_new_twitter_handle_suggests_the_music_critic_has_landed_a_new_job_at_the_sunday_magazine_.html

― Poliopolice, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

haha!

― tylerw, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:15 (11 months ago) Permalink

i don't know what nyt ethicist column is, and maybe ethicist doesn't have anything to do with ethics, but in case it does, klosterman would be my last choice for such a column

― Mordy, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:37 (11 months ago) Permalink

(not that i'm saying that i think he's unethical, but that until now his shtick seems to be explicitly non-ethical)

― Mordy, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:38 (11 months ago) Permalink

it's like an advice column where people write in and are like "i was at a coffee shop and I got up for a second and someone took my seat." and then the ethicist advises them on the appropriate course of action.

― tylerw, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

oh, in that case i'm sure he'll do great

― Mordy, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

I usually avoid the Ethicist column like the plague - too much portentous solemnizing and faux-certitude - but I'll probably check it out now, just out of curiosity. Maybe Klosterman will be able to deliver his sermons with enough of a wink to lighten the mood.

― o. nate, Thursday, 7 June 2012 20:14 (11 months ago) Permalink

"Best known for his Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs collection" Really? That's his biggest book?

― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 8 June 2012 09:32 (11 months ago) Permalink

which other one is more popular?

― Mordy, Friday, 8 June 2012 09:36 (11 months ago) Permalink

Fargo?

― licorice oratorio (baaderonixx), Friday, 8 June 2012 10:03 (11 months ago) Permalink

nah. i'm sure this isn't scientific but fargo is #42,378 on amazon, sd&c is #9,032

― Mordy, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:11 (11 months ago) Permalink

sd&c was the one seth cohen read.

― a hauntingly unemployed american (difficult listening hour), Friday, 8 June 2012 10:12 (11 months ago) Permalink

^^^^ important influence

― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 8 June 2012 13:51 (11 months ago) Permalink

Huh, well there you go, can't argue with sales. I always thought Fargo was the one that made his name and then Killing Yourself to Live cemented his rep. Those seem to me like original, substantial books even now, whereas S,D&CP is a hideously titled collection of glib, dated essays. Much prefer the less schticky Klosterman IV - he's underrated as an interviewer. I prefer seeing him do interesting things with a format as unpromising as, say, a Wilco profile for Spin, rather than going the full Klosterman with the kind of flip bullshit that used to fill his Esquire columns (the one about why people hate America being a low). So, um, basically I like him best when he’s not doing the thing that has made him one of the most successful journalists in America.

― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

S,D&CP is my least favorite of his books (haven't read the fiction) because it indulges in a lot more faux-generational/"we all do this, and if you don't you're a self-hating liberal" bullshit that unfortunately tends to do better than the more openly idiosyncratic essays in his later books and Fargo.

― da croupier, Friday, 8 June 2012 14:40 (11 months ago) Permalink

"i'm a weirdo obsessed with a facet of pop culture" just doesn't sell as well as "we are the generation obsessed with a facet of pop culture"

― da croupier, Friday, 8 June 2012 14:41 (11 months ago) Permalink

The podcast that Grantland posted yesterday - a conversation between he and Joe Walsh - has so many moments where he disappears up his own ass trying to find a point. But it's Joe Walsh, so it has a certain nutty charm despite Klosterman.

― EZ Snappin, Friday, 8 June 2012 14:44 (11 months ago) Permalink

From way upthread

A couple months back they featured Klosterman, and the first book he plugs is Atlas Shrugged

I am shocked that this ambitious, successful, reactionary writer loves Ayn Rand.

― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:58 (11 months ago) Permalink

pretty much everything this guy does in public (and in private for all i know) is an unmitigated disaster, so i guess... good luck NYT?

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:07 (11 months ago) Permalink

they certainly share "life is good" as a philosophy.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:09 (11 months ago) Permalink

xp Should retitle it The Challopsian or What Would Axl Do?

― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:09 (11 months ago) Permalink

Alfred - they go through that song LINE BY LINE.

"Did you own a Maserati?

Not then, but I do now.

You lost your license --

I lost my whole wallet!"

It's strangely funny.

― EZ Snappin, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:14 (11 months ago) Permalink

You lost your license --

I lost my whole wallet!

^^lol i would love to kick it with joe walsh

― wack nerd zinging in the dead of night (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 8 June 2012 16:21 (11 months ago) Permalink

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 16:25 (11 months ago) Permalink

pretty terrible: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/halfhearted-half-brother.html

― Mordy, Sunday, 10 June 2012 00:19 (11 months ago) Permalink

Joe Walsh is so rad. He's got my vote!

― freebroheem (loves laboured breathing), Sunday, 10 June 2012 06:41 (11 months ago) Permalink

Well in a way Klosterman's probably going to make that column more honest, by dispensing with the pretense and making it indistinguishable from Dear Abby.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:08 (11 months ago) Permalink

It will still, of course, be terrible.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:09 (11 months ago) Permalink

i don't see anything terrible in that column Mordy posted

― la musica de harry frogbs (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:10 (11 months ago) Permalink

"oh noes the dude known for saved by the bell riffs didnt use the catergorical imperative in an advice column about sick cats, emmanual kant is spinning in his FUCKING GRAVE!!!!"

― la musica de harry frogbs (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

― the route is ban (k3vin k.), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:16 (11 months ago) Permalink

mordy otm

― balls, Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:19 (11 months ago) Permalink

i guess i dont read enough newspaper columns where randos tell me how to live my life to know if this is terrible or not

― la musica de harry frogbs (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

everyone's very aware of yr aversion to reading

― balls, Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:21 (11 months ago) Permalink

frightening to think that klosterman got this gig off of that ridiculous at the time even more hilarious in retrospect 'breaking bad is better than the wire cuz the wire is liberal and breaking bad is serious moral show cuz good guy turns out to be bad guy' grantland piece.

― balls, Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:25 (11 months ago) Permalink

You can’t love someone out of guilt.

sizable portion of the NYT readership will beg to differ

― (REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:28 (11 months ago) Permalink

― balls, Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:25 AM (23 minutes ago)

oh my god, had never read this

― the route is ban (k3vin k.), Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:49 (11 months ago) Permalink

It makes sense that they would hire Klosterman, because they need young readers, and young people love Klosterman. He is very in tune with young people, so will speak to them. And they will listen, because it is Klosterman, voice of a generation, who will be familiar to everyone of that generation, which is young and likes young things and especially young people telling them the best ways to go about doing young things and solving young problems in a voice they understand, because they are young and generally don't listen unless someone is speaking to them in a language they understand. Plus there was the time he reviewed "Chinese Democracy."

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 10 June 2012 16:32 (11 months ago) Permalink

Was Joel Stein too busy?

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 10 June 2012 16:41 (11 months ago) Permalink

in that ethicist column a guy asks if he should be welcoming to his disliked half-sister because of her loneliness and need for companionship -- he explicitly says "does someone else’s desire for connection .. outweigh my personal preference?" -- and chuck spends three paragraphs explaining why the guy does not need to be welcoming to his half-sister merely because she is related to him.

― a hauntingly unemployed american (difficult listening hour), Sunday, 10 June 2012 17:26 (11 months ago) Permalink

i actually thought that was the least bad of the 3

― the route is ban (k3vin k.), Sunday, 10 June 2012 17:34 (11 months ago) Permalink

well yeah it did not include the part where he explains that the way you know it's ok to own a pet but not ok to own a human is that it is currently socially acceptable to give away a pet. ethics!

― a hauntingly unemployed american (difficult listening hour), Sunday, 10 June 2012 17:45 (11 months ago) Permalink

5 months pass...

okay, this is pretty weird

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8624514/chuck-klosterman-david-petraeus-scandal-living-cia-conspiracy-theory

looks like it's just a coincidence but still, what if....what if....

― frogbs, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:13 (6 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.