Cover
I recently decided to start reading again. Literature, that is. And while I am not excluding any topics or genres, I am primarily directing my attention toward classic modern philosophy (an oxymoron, I know) and classic fiction. I have felt an urge lately to become both more self aware and more creative, and I feel this is the best literary avenue to explore that. My goal is to use this space to write a response on each title I read. However, these will not be what you traditionally consider to be book reports—I am going to be exploring specifically what these titles meant to me, what reaction I have (if any) and whether or not I feel the content of the book can be of what I consider any use to others.
It is somewhat ironic, then, that the first book I have chosen explores basically the same ideals, only instead of other books being the topic, eclectic modern people/events/entertainment are the focus. Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman is a collection of essays commenting on multiple pop culture topics; a self-described “low culture manifesto”. Klosterman writes about all manner of topics, and while the specific subject matter of each essay deals with something seemingly dissimilar from the last, there is a common theme that connects all items in the book: taking something seemingly arbitrary or meaningless created (or existing) in “pop culture” and extrapolating a deeper meaning from it, which Klosterman then somehow manages to apply to nearly all mankind (i.e. “there are two kinds of people in the world…”).
A prime example of this is in the “dirty” middle portion of the book. Using internet pornography and Pamela Anderson as his fundementals, Klosterman presents arguably some of his deepest, most widely reaching paradigms of humanity of the entire book. According to him, internet pornography is almost solely responsible for the advancement of web-related technology, and in turn, the advancement (or de-evolution, depending on how you look at it) of electronic human interaction. Similarly, he insists that the most important piece of video he owns is Pam Anderson’s sex tape with then husband Tommy Lee, as it is basically a look at society’s subconscious concept of what it means to be a celebrity, and on a larger scale, what qualities today’s society values.
I’m not addressing the validity his arguments—they are parallels that he chose to make for himself—but I will say that they are certainly parallels I would have never come up with on my own. Whether that statement is an endorsement of a higher intellect or labeling him an absurdist, I really don’t know—he shows flashes of both. There is no question Klosterman is certainly a fantastic writer, and knows how to manipulate literary device to express exactly what point he wants to get across. It’s the reader’s job to decide if these arguments are something they can buy into. But I firmly believe that whether you buy what he’s selling or not, Klosterman could care less.
Many times while reading the book, I got the impression of Klosterman as someone that knows he is smarter than you, and just testing you, the reader. He reminds me of the type of guy you meet at a party that will debate you in great length over some irrelevant detail or innocuous comment you may have made, just to see if he can get you to change your position on it (and many times succeeding, just to then say “I was just kidding, I can’t believe you changed your mind!”). In other words, I think he makes many of his observations simply because he can, and is in turn curious about challenging your reasons for believing what you do. I wouldn’t be surprised if these aforementioned parallels just occur to him as possibilities, and since he is fully aware that these are not common observations made by the layman, he will push them just to see if he can get someone to bite. Take his dissection of Saved by the Bell for example. He posits that the cast of Saved by the Bell are incredibly accurate social archetypes, not because they embody a type of person specifically, but because they embody nobody wholly, thus making them more malleable to a greater audience. Hearing his argument, you initially say “of course, that makes perfect sense! Why didn’t I think of that?” But then later, you find yourself thinking, “Wait a second, its Saved by the Bell. a) How deep a connection can actually be made, and b) these characters are so over the top, the same argument could be made that they can’t realistically be related to anybody, ever.”
I just realized that it seems like I am bashing the book, or giving it a negative review. This is not the case. While I did at times feel the victim of a little TMI, overall I found the book to be extremely entertaining and enlightening. I found myself starting to think in the same context as Klosterman—everything seen, read, touched, experienced or encountered is possibly holding the key to understanding…I don’t know, humanity or something…and just needs to be deconstructed. It’s refreshing and maddening at the same time, but definitely not dull.
liveanotheryear 