― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Thursday, 28 August 2003 17:18 (twenty years ago) link
You elitist, Maura! ;-) The Coulter comparison is harsh but you know, the more Klosterman continues the more it starts to make a certain sense...
(My view on Klosterman, ie rather overrated (Robert Plant inadvertantly but perfectly cutting him down directly is still a thing of joy), remains the same; my view on Ames is that he's useless.)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 August 2003 17:28 (twenty years ago) link
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 28 August 2003 17:29 (twenty years ago) link
― don weiner, Thursday, 28 August 2003 18:26 (twenty years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 28 August 2003 22:16 (twenty years ago) link
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 28 August 2003 22:20 (twenty years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 28 August 2003 22:27 (twenty years ago) link
He does say some less-than-informed things to Liz Phair and Robert Plant in his interviews with them, but by being blunt and risking offense with them he gets some of the better quotes I've heard from those artists. His willingness to hear out opposite arguments in those cases is one major reason the comparison to Ann Coulter bothers me.
His reviews in SPIN seem lacking to me, he can be hit-or-miss and it's possible that just like with his hero Axl Rose fame will not benefit Klosterman's work, but his openness, humor and insights make him one of the more interesting and exciting writers out there. But as Nabisco noted earlier, I share similarities in taste and style.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 28 August 2003 22:42 (twenty years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 28 August 2003 22:44 (twenty years ago) link
He does make a ton of good points about CK being useless, though he himself is as well. Screw 'em both.
― ham on rye (ham on rye), Sunday, 31 August 2003 02:24 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 31 August 2003 03:17 (twenty years ago) link
― Dock Miles (Dock Miles), Sunday, 31 August 2003 03:25 (twenty years ago) link
― Clarke B., Sunday, 31 August 2003 20:17 (twenty years ago) link
What exactly was "weird" or "assholish" or "speaking for womankind" about his reaction?? (Or "stupid," as that Ames retard said?) It was actually one of the smartest excerpts Ames quoted, seems to me.
― chuck, Sunday, 31 August 2003 20:35 (twenty years ago) link
― s1utsky (slutsky), Monday, 1 September 2003 00:59 (twenty years ago) link
― Clarke B., Monday, 1 September 2003 04:04 (twenty years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 1 September 2003 04:42 (twenty years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 1 September 2003 04:43 (twenty years ago) link
― dave q, Monday, 1 September 2003 07:18 (twenty years ago) link
Lester Bangs? Maybe not. But I'll take him.
― Chandler, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 21:36 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil, Thursday, 11 March 2004 02:58 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 11 March 2004 03:01 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 11 March 2004 03:02 (twenty years ago) link
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 11 March 2004 03:23 (twenty years ago) link
!
Uh, I'm with Mike on this one. But Stence, can you let me know how ya know?
Perhaps tellingly, today I was listening to Rush.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 03:30 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil, Thursday, 11 March 2004 03:37 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 04:01 (twenty years ago) link
― andrew s (andrew s), Thursday, 11 March 2004 04:06 (twenty years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 11 March 2004 04:09 (twenty years ago) link
― lovebug starski, Thursday, 11 March 2004 11:55 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 11 March 2004 12:59 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 13:58 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:49 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:59 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 15:29 (twenty years ago) link
― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 11 March 2004 16:34 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:05 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:09 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:12 (twenty years ago) link
― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:21 (twenty years ago) link
If you disagree with Atlas Shrugged, it basically means you disagree with the concept of “being great.”
what a douchebag.
― hstencil, Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:33 (twenty years ago) link
The Franzen reference is worse, though, because I think about how someone coming up to be saying something similarly negative about Loveless would just get a 'hey, that's fine' statement from me. Is my love for that album not justified in his eyes because I don't see fit to go into that ridiculous kind of defense he demands for his love objects? Fuck it.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:43 (twenty years ago) link
Animal Farm by George Orwell (Signet, $8). No one has ever written something so brilliant, so concise, so insightful, and so charming all at the same time.
― hstencil, Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:52 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 11 March 2004 18:02 (twenty years ago) link
"Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs" really feels like the thoughts of a guy who's spent a lot of time at the end of a couch watching too much tv, listening to the "cool rock" (and everything else) on the radio, and arguing with his roommate about ridiculous subjects that have no bearing on reality.
With that mindset, you end up ascribing a lot of personal importance to whatever's going on at the time, but you quickly end up realizing that it's going to be replaced by something else in short order. There's not really a strong sense of foundation or history, more about the here and now. Klosterman's sitting downstream from the guys who are idolizing the influential "greats" that stand the test of time, so he only ends up with the end product.
I'd imagine his writing has changed over the last few years, but that's my impression. Even the Rand thing fits in -- huge, romantic notions of greatness, without the thought that someone's probably already done all this and thought it through. It's all about the spectacle and the emotion.
― mike h. (mike h.), Friday, 13 August 2004 15:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Friday, 13 August 2004 16:15 (nineteen years ago) link
Its ironic, yes?
I enjoyed SD&CCP overall, the Ayn Rand thing makes sense but that's part of his sort of juvenile appeal I suppose. I think ppl in this thread are really making a bigger deal out of him than need be, as if he's TRYING to change the world or something. His self-deprecation is appreciated, he's wrong a lot but whatever. Its an enjoyable read, trashy and entertaining.
― djdee2005, Saturday, 14 August 2004 05:02 (nineteen years ago) link
― djdee2005, Saturday, 14 August 2004 05:06 (nineteen years ago) link
He managed to articulate my own fascination with "Saved By the Bell" very precisely. However I would say the worst essay in the collection is the piece toward the end about how Vanilla Sky is actually a "good" movie because well... actually it's not and in discussing cinematic discourse on the nature of reality Klosterman gets way off point. He doesn't seem to have a point in the essay other than not exactly sure why everyone hated the movie but him. If anyone else has read it, then they might possibly concur with me that Klosterman's enjoyment of the film is completely predicated on his own stated attraction to actress Penelope Cruz.
― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Saturday, 14 August 2004 05:32 (nineteen years ago) link