Down Goes Klosterman!

Just off reading fascinating books by Malcolm Gladwell and Jon Krakauer, I took a risk and went with a book that had not been recommended to me in any way, shape or form. That book was Eating the Dinosaur by Chuck Klosterman. I had heard that Klosterman was a good writer and I find him to be a very interesting guy during his appearances on Bill Simmons' podcast. So when he promoted his brand spanking new book, it seemed the irreverent type of musings that would interest me. Unfortunately, I found much of the book to be more boring than CSPAN. I stuck through it to until the end, but that end could not have come quickly enough.



Eating the Dinosaur is what you might get if you start with a Gladwell book, change the subjects of the chapters from interesting ones (like what hidden advantages did Bill Gates have in his youth that led to his massive success) to ones that are so esoteric that any insight provided is meaningless outside of that one specific scenario, add a healthy dose of pretension, and include pop culture references so obscure (without explanations) that you often need to have wikipedia handy in order to understand what the heck he is talking about. Does that sound like a fun book to read?

He especially ticked me off when he went out of his way to criticize amateur writers and bloggers around the world for overuse of exclamation points as a cheap method of inserting meaning into their writings when words alone should have sufficed for a decently talented individual. This is something I am aware that I do, but I feel that it has a purpose. I do it for the same reason I use italicized words or questions marks - because I want a sentence to be read in a particular way. Klosterman's particularly sharp criticism of this practice as overused and cliche was especially annoying because he repeatedly used ANOTHER overused writing cliche: the ironic last sentence of a chapter used as a call-back to tie a chapter together. Don't get me wrong - this practice used correctly can be very effective and clever, but he falls back on it in almost every chapter, so I don't want to hear him moan about my exclamation points.

The chapters were an odd mix of fascinating and boring. For example, I enjoyed the chapter on why laughtracks on sitcoms are stupid. I also enjoyed his takes on Weeezer and the Unabomber. But chapters comparing and contrasting Kurt Cobain to David Koresh and Garth Brooks' rebirth as Chris Gaines were serious chores to get through. I even had to skip a chapter on voyeurism because I didn't want the Hitchcock classic Vertigo ruined for me. Each chapter is completely unrelated to anything else in the book. There are segments on football, ABBA, time travel and Ralph Sampson. This is not necessarily a problem, but just something I thought you should know.

Have you ever met a stereotypical overthinker? Did it make you think, "I'm glad I'm not him/her. I'd hate to be privy to what goes on in their mind because it must be torturous." I have. And reading Eating the Dinosaur feels like being let into one of those people's minds and I didn't like it. He ached to find reasons for things where none exist and couldn't accept that. And furthermore, the things he sought reason for were often pointless to solve anyway. Who cares if people misinterpret the lyrics of Weezer by trying to impose added layers of meaning that, in truth, were never part of Rivers Cuomo's intention? Is he trying to change the way that Weezer goes down in the annals of rock and roll? Not really, he is just thinking out loud, and he is a man whose thought process is painful. I kinda pity him. Although I overthink things from time to time, I thank the lord that I have not spent weeks of my life trying to deconstruct why people answer when asked a question. Klosterman seriously devotes an entire chapter to determining why people are compelled to answer a question when asked in an interview. I am sure that he would denounce me as a simpleton for dismissing his deep philosophical issues, but this man has clearly devoted more of his life to solving questions that don't need to be solved than anyone I know.

The other impression this book made upon me was that it is very surprising that he and Bill Simmons seem to be friends. Simmons is pretty much his polar opposite. Klosterman is an overthinker in every sense of the word, and Simmons is an underthinker who goes by his gut. I find it very surprising that Klosterman is willing to engage him in debate on Simmons' The BS Report podcast, yet he does. Good for him.

I intended to read a few more of his critically acclaimed books, but after this experience, he has moved wayyyyyyy down my list. Don't bother. There are much more worthwhile reads.

If anyone can provide me with any comparison between this book and his others, I'd love to hear it.