I Wear the Black Hat, by Chuck Klosterman

I have a theoretical “beer question.” I sometimes ask this as a litmus test about famous people, or authors (assuming the author isn’t famous, I guess), or psudo-famous people. The question is: would I enjoy sitting down and having a beer with this person? (If you’re uncomfortable with that, substitute a cup of coffee for beer- I don’t mind. The premise is the same.) Barack Obama: Yes. Michael Jordan: No. Lance Armstrong? No way. Stephen King? Yeah, I think so. Mike Schmidt? Yes, please. (Of course, I will never in a million years even have the choice to have a beer with any of these people- this is a theoretical exercise only. If I had the chance to  sit down with Michael Jordan or Lance Armstrong, I would, of course.)

Chuck Klosterman comes across as a very “accessible” author. Because Klosterman writes nonfiction (he’s written some fiction, too), I feel like I get a glimpse into his life- a well-measured glimpse, I’m sure, but still a glimpse- and I think I would answer my “beer question” about Chuck with a resounding “yes.” (I live on a different continent than Chuck does, so the actual carrying out of such a thing would be difficult, but still. (Hey, Chuck- if you ever travel to East Africa, let me know!))

So it may go without saying that I really enjoy reading Chuck Klosterman’s works. It almost doesn’t matter what it’s about- music, movies, basketball, villains- I’ll read it. (I feel the same way about Malcolm Gladwell, actually.) I like the way Klosterman thinks.

For example, on page 15: “It has always been my belief that people are remembered for the sum of their accomplishments but defined by their singular failure.” Or on page 129: “Whenever someone says something that’s both realistic and abhorrent, it makes me suspect everyone else is lying about everything else.” Page 120: “Expressing outrage over a president’s lack of honesty is like getting upset over a sniper’s lack of empathy: It’s an integral component of the vocation.”

See what I mean? Engaging, thoughtful, and easily accessible.

I love Klosterman’s central question: Why do people become villains? He uses multiple figures in history to explore the topic. He uses Joe Paterno, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Hitler, of course, and even the connections between Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and O.J. Simpson. Chevy Chase, Batman, characters from The Wire, Muhammad Ali. Even the list of bands Chuck hated while growing up- year by year! (My major one would be Willie Nelson, but I can’t even remember why I hated him any more, besides that I remember a friend calling him a “dirtbag” once.)

Klosterman finds a relationship between self-confidence and escaping villainy- like with Kobe Bryant and his misbehavior in Colorado. Kobe refuses to ever, ever address the issue, and will not answer questions on the topic. The whole subject has slid away, and what remains is Kobe’s “desire to win,” and “killer instinct on the court.” In the same way, if Bernhard Goetz had just kept his mouth shut after he shot four young men in a New York City subway, he might be regarded as a hero today. Instead, he’s just loony.

So, a villain, according to Klosterman, is someone who knows the most but cares the least. Just think about that one for a while, and then use the historical figures listed above to see where they fall. Paterno knew about Jerry Sandusky, but chose to do nothing about it. George W. Bush seemed to care, but Dick Cheney? Oof.

Anyway, CK is just interesting to read. Another section of particular interest to me is Chuck’s assertion that back in the 1970’s and ’80’s, parents generally worried about what content was being ingested by their children. In the 1990’s and later, parents are now more concerned about what medium is being used- even more than what content. This is absolutely true in my own life. Part of this, of course, is because the kind of medium available in 1982 is totally different than now. My parents just had to make sure I didn’t spend too much time in front of the “boobtube,” as my dad called it. M*A*S*H reruns were what I watched, mostly. Well, that and Phillies games. Dukes of Hazard? (Talk about a show that has aged badly…)

Anyway, now with the internet, my kids just lay down on the couch with a computer in front of their face. Or the computer and their phone. We try to check on their content absorption to a certain extent, but we find ourselves talking about “screen time” instead of the “boobtube.” As Chuck writes on page 131, “The medium is [now] far more problematic than the message.”

The “Hitler section” was also fascinating- mostly to watch Chuck’s linguistic gymnastics as he tried to cover the problem of Hitler while not offending anyone. A difficult task, I imagine. I think he succeeded, though, as he mostly wrote about the problem of writing about Hitler.

The bottom line is that this book did not disappoint. It is a smorgasbord of fun theories, examples, and solid research. How does this guy know so much? And then to be able to put it all in an easily-accessible writing style- well, this guy is talented, no doubt about it.

And if he ever comes to Kenya, I would take him out for a beer. (Or a cup of coffee.)

Stats

Published: 2013

Category: Nonfiction

Pages: 224

Rating on Goodreads: 3.64

Why I Read This Book: I like Chuck!

How I Rated This Book: 4/5

What’s Next: Arcadia, by Lauren Groff

11/22/63, by Stephen King

Time for confessions. Waaaaay back in 1987 or 1988, I wasn’t reading very much, after years of reading Hardy Boys, Louis L’Amour, and way too many books about baseball. School and girls had taken over my life. (One of those girls is now my wife, though, so it wasn’t all bad.) Anyway, I was home alone one weekend, and I was actually… bored. I hopped in the car and drove to the mall, which was the only place to buy books back then, and I went looking for something to read. I walked out with Stephen King’s It. (I purchased it- I didn’t steal it, just so you know.)

I then proceeded to inhale the novel in about a week, and this set me off on reading again. I plowed through ‘Salem’s Lot, Carrie, Cujo… I probably read ten King books in a row. Since then, I haven’t had a “dead zone” (hah) in my reading. So in a way, I credit King for bringing me back into a love of fiction. (And to this day, The Stand is one of my favorite books.)

With all that said, I believe that we the readers enter into a contract of sorts with King when we begin one of his sweeping, epic-length novels. We’ll overlook the digressions, dead spots, and sometimes-heavy-description because King is going to take us somewhere new, exciting, and fascinating. A place we (I) would never have thought could have existed. That’s why I read Stephen King, and why I read 11/22/63.

11/22/63 tells the story of Jake Epping, a thirty-something English teacher, who walks through a “rabbit hole” and goes back in time to a particular day in 1958. He can, from there, decide to change history, although history works pretty hard to avoid being changed. When he goes back through the rabbit hole, he returns to 2011, only two minutes later than when he walked through the hole, even if he stayed in the 1950’s for years and years. If he goes back through to the past a second time, everything “resets,” so he can try multiple times if need be (although we find out later that it wasn’t as easy as Jake and his friend Al thought).

A short digression here: if you could go back in time, what would you want to do? What would be important to do? Try to stop Hitler before 1939? Stalin? Stop the Manhattan Project? I’ll admit that every once in a while, I look at my 9th graders and wish, just for a minute, that I could go back and have a re-do on my high school experience, as long as I could still have the maturity and knowledge I have now. (Thank goodness we can’t actually do such a thing.)

Jake (and Al) believes that saving JFK could have the biggest positive outcome. Think about it: maybe the Vietnam war wouldn’t have escalated like it did. Maybe the Civil Rights Movement would move ahead faster. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King might not have been assassinated. The Butterfly Effect might impact many millions of people in a positive way.

So King takes us back in time, when the United States was a more trusting, innocent place. We follow Jake as he stalks Lee Harvey Oswald, trying to determine if he acted alone or if there was a wide-ranging conspiracy. Jake met a woman, fell in love, taught English to 1950’s teenagers, went to the drive-in for movies, and immersed himself in the times.

November 22, 1963 finally arrived, and Jake changed history… but it didn’t have the outcome he was expecting.

It took almost 800 pages to get there, so the contract was in effect. King meanders, digresses, and describes until I was ready to scream, but he took me somewhere interesting- somewhere I would never have expected. I also loved how King subtly alludes to his own novels, like It, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, and Christine. This one had only a touch or two of the horror that King is obviously famous for, so this would be a good place to start for those who are looking for a place to begin reading King’s novels.

Stats

Published: 2011

Category: Fiction

Pages: 849

Rating on Goodreads: 4.23

Why I Read This Book: I sometimes enjoy large, sweeping novels!

How I rated this book: 3/5 stars