Here’s the other quote from Chuck Klosterman IV that I mentioned earlier, this one from an essay in Esquire on people who feel betrayed by pop culture:
Do you want to be happy? I suspect that you do. Well, here’s the first step to happiness: don’t get pissed off that people who aren’t you happen to think Paris Hilton is interesting and deserves to be on TV every other day; the fame surrounding Paris Hilton is not a reflection on your life (unless you want it to be). Don’t get pissed off because the Yeah Yeah Yeahs aren’t on the radio enough; you can buy the goddamn album and play “Maps” all goddamn day (if that’s what you want). Don’t get pissed off because people didn’t vote the way you voted; you knew this was a democracy when you agreed to participate, so you knew this was how things might work out. Basically, don’t get pissed off over the fact that the way you feel about culture isn’t some kind of universal consensus. Because if you do, you will end up feeling betrayed. And it will be your own fault. You will feel bad, and you will deserve it.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that eight pages after this is a piece from Spin about overrated, underrated, and accurately rated bands that’s chock full of bold assertions in a tone that suggests you’re an idiot if you don’t agree (in a certain sense, Klosterman is nothing but a hipster Mike Kozlowski…). In another way, though, that just makes it work better.
I’m a little more conflicted about this quote– applied too broadly, it seems like a recipe for complacency. The world needs people who are pissed off because other people didn’t vote the way they wanted– otherwise, nothing would ever change.
It would make a lousy organizing principle for a society. But as a recipe for maintaining your own personal sanity, I think he’s got a good point.
IHNJH, IJLS:
“Klosterman is nothing but a hipster Mike Kozlowski…”
Bwahahahahaha!
TIA, CO.
It would make a lousy organizing principle for a society. But as a recipe for maintaining your own personal sanity, I think he’s got a good point.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but given that you’re a member of American society’s priviledged class (white, male, heterosexual, and relatively financially secure), of course you do. Somehow, I doubt that pretending that society’s shortcomings (“people didn’t vote the way [they] wanted”) are irrelevant is the path to happiness for a gay couple who can’t get married, or a New Orleans family who got screwed by FEMA, or the woman who gets passed over for promotion because she might get pregnant and go on maternity leave and/or quit.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but given that you’re a member of American society’s priviledged class (white, male, heterosexual, and relatively financially secure), of course you do. Somehow, I doubt that pretending that society’s shortcomings (“people didn’t vote the way [they] wanted”) are irrelevant is the path to happiness for a gay couple who can’t get married, or a New Orleans family who got screwed by FEMA, or the woman who gets passed over for promotion because she might get pregnant and go on maternity leave and/or quit.
That’s an excellent point, and nails the reason behind my vague dissatisfaction with the idea.
I think the original quote really resonates because over the last few years I’ve watched a lot of poltiically-oriented blogs that I used to enjoy become well-nigh unreadable, through something very much like the betrayal mechanism he describes. George Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, and I was born before Watergate, but the level of invective directed at people who voted Republican in the last election makes me uncomfortable. And also sort of sad, to see sharp and interesting people sucked into a spiral of bitterness and betrayal.
That probably still sounds a little too smug and elitist, but I need to go take the dog to the vet, and really can’t keep working on the phrasing.
Damn… with all that is going on at the start of the academic year, I did NOT need to know that Chuck Klosterman has a new book out. I’m a sucker for his brand of hipsterer-than-thou pop-culture ephemera.
but the level of invective directed at people who voted Republican in the last election makes me uncomfortable.
Indeed. And, it goes both ways; depending on where you are, invective against “borderline treasonous” Deomcrats happens as well.
-Rob
There’s a certain irony in the fact that eight pages after this is a piece from Spin about overrated, underrated, and accurately rated bands that’s chock full of bold assertions in a tone that suggests you’re an idiot if you don’t agree (in a certain sense, Klosterman is nothing but a hipster Mike Kozlowski…). In another way, though, that just makes it work better.
*************************************
There is also the irony he got worked up enough about people who get worked about things to write about not getting worked up about it including using profanity to get his point across. You then add that I was motivated enough to write about that and you get a cycle.
His central point about being happy I somewhat disagree with, I know many people who are happy debating, discussing, getting worked up, being passionate and engaged in certain aspects of life. Doing what Charles suggests would actually hinder their happiness. Perspective is important but everyone is different.
but the level of invective directed at people who voted Republican in the last election makes me uncomfortable.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. The majority of “invective” I come accross at some of the major lefty blogs is directed at the Republican incumbents and conservative media operation, not at the voters per se. To the extent that it is directed at the general right-leaning populace it is hard to say it isn’t justified. Bush’s moral, intellectual and personal failings were pretty clear from the start, and the nominal left has been subjected to cries of cowardice, treachery, elitism, moral bankruptcy, etc. for years. After flip-flopping, swift boating, Gore’s a liar, and Clinton’s wang it’s hard not to feel a bit betrayed by the willingly ignorant or duplicitous.
And the clincher, as pointed out by Pam, is that unlike pop-culture these things matter; who you vote for affects not only yourself but billions of people worldwide in potentially catastrophic ways. To not take it personally may be good advice for your short term peace of mind, but to not take it seriously is foolhardy.
I tend to think of myself as the hipster Mike Kozlowski, actually…
Anyway, this Klosterman fellow sounds like a real asshole. Gosh, how terrible it is for people to like things! Definitely something that needs to be stomped on.
(Also, I’ll note as a parenthetical, that sometimes other people liking the same things you like is a prerequisite for you being able to continue liking more of the things you like. Because too many people lack basic taste and human decency, for instance, I’ll never get to see the second season of Firefly.)
Gosh, how terrible it is for people to like things! Definitely something that needs to be stomped on.
Again, the point is not that liking things is bad (that would be a stupid argument for him to make, as his other collections include long essays about the greatness of KISS and Billy Joel), it’s that you shouldn’t take it personally when other people don’t like the same things you do. Leaving aside the political part for a moment, it’s excellent advice when it comes to pop culture.