Comments on: How come I can’t get no Tang ’round here? http://www.antinomian.com/2006/07/24/how-come-i-cant-get-no-tang-round-here/ sound, fury, etc. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:11:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: kara http://www.antinomian.com/2006/07/24/how-come-i-cant-get-no-tang-round-here/#comment-466 kara Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:54:53 +0000 http://www.antinomian.com/wp/?p=753#comment-466 eric, i know you're aware of how i feel about chuck klosterman's writing. for those of you who don't know - i think the writing itself is terrible and akin to a really half-assed paper written for a blow-off class. it is based far too often on quoting someone or something and then saying 'i agree with this' (you'll notice he does this a few times in that esquire article [how did this guy get to write for esquire? why is he so popular? i don't understand this.]). and most frustratingly, the opinions expressed therein seem designed to be contrary and provoke a reaction. i do not understand why people read this guy. the only reason i read these two pieces was so i could validly comment on them. admittedly i went in with my prejudices, but i didn't find anything that urged me to reconsider my dislike of his writing. i think this esquire article is a prime example of why i read a few of the essays in that one book of his then threw it back at you in disgust. i did however enjoy the gamespot interview. he spent the whole time backpedaling and asserting that his article was really saying all of these things that it clearly was not, or could not even be interpreted as <em>implying</em>, no matter how wild the reader's imagination. i think maybe he just lives for creating controversy - the journalistic (and i use that word loosely) equivalent of a drama queen. eric, i know you’re aware of how i feel about chuck klosterman’s writing. for those of you who don’t know - i think the writing itself is terrible and akin to a really half-assed paper written for a blow-off class. it is based far too often on quoting someone or something and then saying ‘i agree with this’ (you’ll notice he does this a few times in that esquire article [how did this guy get to write for esquire? why is he so popular? i don't understand this.]). and most frustratingly, the opinions expressed therein seem designed to be contrary and provoke a reaction.

i do not understand why people read this guy. the only reason i read these two pieces was so i could validly comment on them. admittedly i went in with my prejudices, but i didn’t find anything that urged me to reconsider my dislike of his writing. i think this esquire article is a prime example of why i read a few of the essays in that one book of his then threw it back at you in disgust.

i did however enjoy the gamespot interview. he spent the whole time backpedaling and asserting that his article was really saying all of these things that it clearly was not, or could not even be interpreted as implying, no matter how wild the reader’s imagination. i think maybe he just lives for creating controversy - the journalistic (and i use that word loosely) equivalent of a drama queen.

]]>