WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.500 Welcome Deep Divers. Have you ever paused mid 00:00:03.500 --> 00:00:06.700 scroll or maybe mid read mid watch and felt that 00:00:06.700 --> 00:00:09.539 kind of insistent pull, you know, between what 00:00:09.539 --> 00:00:12.699 feels just completely undeniably real and what, 00:00:12.699 --> 00:00:15.179 you know, intellectually is actually a carefully 00:00:15.179 --> 00:00:18.820 constructed story? Yeah, that line. That ever 00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:21.640 blurring line between, let's say, authenticity 00:00:21.640 --> 00:00:24.960 and artifice in the stories we're taking in every 00:00:24.960 --> 00:00:27.859 single day. It's a huge question. Really central 00:00:27.859 --> 00:00:30.550 now. It is. And it's precisely what we're here 00:00:30.550 --> 00:00:32.710 to unpack today. We're taking a deep dive into 00:00:32.710 --> 00:00:35.829 the mind and, frankly, the radical work of an 00:00:35.829 --> 00:00:37.909 author and filmmaker who hasn't just explored 00:00:37.909 --> 00:00:40.289 these boundaries. No, he's been actively shaping 00:00:40.289 --> 00:00:43.899 them for decades. Exactly. David Shields. He's 00:00:43.899 --> 00:00:46.820 a true provocateur, a relentless innovator, someone 00:00:46.820 --> 00:00:50.200 whose ideas have genuinely reshaped how we think 00:00:50.200 --> 00:00:52.479 about storytelling in the 21st century. And that's 00:00:52.479 --> 00:00:54.420 the perfect way to frame it because Shields isn't 00:00:54.420 --> 00:00:56.420 just, you know, watching these big shifts happen 00:00:56.420 --> 00:00:59.420 from the sidelines. He's a fervent, almost, you 00:00:59.420 --> 00:01:02.259 could say, evangelical advocate for totally new 00:01:02.259 --> 00:01:04.340 forms of expression. He believes they're absolutely 00:01:04.340 --> 00:01:06.700 essential. Essential for what, exactly? essential 00:01:06.700 --> 00:01:09.579 to reflect our contemporary experience. The way 00:01:09.579 --> 00:01:11.980 we interact with information now, with narrative, 00:01:12.420 --> 00:01:16.180 with reality itself. His work, it really challenges 00:01:16.180 --> 00:01:19.480 our deepest ideas about genre, about authorship, 00:01:19.879 --> 00:01:22.439 even about truth in art. Right, he pushes us 00:01:22.439 --> 00:01:24.799 to question basically everything we thought we 00:01:24.799 --> 00:01:27.400 knew about how stories get told and how we receive 00:01:27.400 --> 00:01:29.980 them. He really does. So our mission today is 00:01:29.980 --> 00:01:32.719 pretty clear. We're going to try and understand 00:01:32.719 --> 00:01:35.159 Shields' fascinating evolution as an artist. 00:01:35.700 --> 00:01:38.980 will trace his journey from, say, his early, 00:01:39.019 --> 00:01:42.040 more traditional fiction right up to his groundbreaking 00:01:42.040 --> 00:01:44.879 and, yeah, often polarizing manifesto, Reality 00:01:44.879 --> 00:01:48.340 Hunger. That book made waves, big waves. Definitely. 00:01:48.680 --> 00:01:50.939 We'll look at how his radical ideas sparked both, 00:01:50.939 --> 00:01:52.780 you know, passionate praise and it's been pretty 00:01:52.780 --> 00:01:55.519 serious controversy. And ultimately how they've 00:01:55.519 --> 00:01:58.620 profoundly influenced modern literature, documentary, 00:01:58.719 --> 00:02:01.359 film, and maybe even the way you approach the 00:02:01.359 --> 00:02:03.079 huge tapestry of stories you encounter every 00:02:03.079 --> 00:02:04.890 day. Yeah, it connects directly. We're going 00:02:04.890 --> 00:02:07.769 to explore why his work feels so urgent, so relevant, 00:02:08.069 --> 00:02:11.810 especially now, in an age where those lines between 00:02:11.810 --> 00:02:14.550 fact and fabrication, between the authentic and 00:02:14.550 --> 00:02:17.530 the, well, curated, just seem thinner than ever. 00:02:17.610 --> 00:02:20.330 More permeable, yeah. Exactly. So to really get 00:02:20.330 --> 00:02:24.370 a handle on where Shields' ideas came from, this 00:02:24.370 --> 00:02:27.250 relentless drive to challenge artistic norms, 00:02:27.830 --> 00:02:31.400 his skepticism towards traditional stories. we 00:02:31.400 --> 00:02:33.580 need to rewind a bit. Go back to beginning. Yeah, 00:02:33.699 --> 00:02:35.900 go back to his origins, to the environment where 00:02:35.900 --> 00:02:38.460 his thinking was really forged. David Shields, 00:02:38.500 --> 00:02:42.060 born in Los Angeles, 1956, into what's described 00:02:42.060 --> 00:02:44.639 as a lower middle class Jewish family. Okay. 00:02:44.860 --> 00:02:46.699 Now, his parents weren't, you know, your typical 00:02:46.699 --> 00:02:49.360 suburban couple. Both were journalists. Ah, that's 00:02:49.360 --> 00:02:51.639 interesting. Right there. Huge clue about the 00:02:51.639 --> 00:02:54.300 intellectual and maybe ethical climate he grew 00:02:54.300 --> 00:02:56.759 up in. His mother was the West Coast correspondent 00:02:56.759 --> 00:02:59.180 for The Nation for years, a political activist 00:02:59.180 --> 00:03:01.419 deeply involved. Her life was about pursuing 00:03:01.419 --> 00:03:04.939 truth, exposing power. Wow. The Nation. Serious 00:03:04.939 --> 00:03:08.360 stuff. Totally. And his father, a speechwriter 00:03:08.360 --> 00:03:12.009 for progressive politicians. a wordsmith, crafting 00:03:12.009 --> 00:03:15.530 messages to persuade, to inspire, to frame public 00:03:15.530 --> 00:03:18.990 debate. So words and truth and the framing of 00:03:18.990 --> 00:03:21.710 truth were central from the start. Can you imagine 00:03:21.710 --> 00:03:24.530 the dinner table conversations? Yeah. Not exactly 00:03:24.530 --> 00:03:27.969 small talk, I bet. Probably not, no. Then, 1962, 00:03:28.889 --> 00:03:31.330 Shields is just six, the family moves to San 00:03:31.330 --> 00:03:34.120 Francisco. right into the heart of it all, the 00:03:34.120 --> 00:03:35.740 anti -war movement, the civil rights movement, 00:03:36.219 --> 00:03:38.560 very politically charged atmosphere. Right, and 00:03:38.560 --> 00:03:40.620 the thick of things. And they weren't just observers. 00:03:41.020 --> 00:03:43.000 His parents were deeply involved. They often 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:46.219 opened their home, offered it as a shelter, a 00:03:46.219 --> 00:03:48.139 safe haven for people involved in the movements. 00:03:48.300 --> 00:03:50.759 Really walking the walk. Absolutely. So this 00:03:50.759 --> 00:03:52.340 wasn't just childhood. It was like an immersion 00:03:52.340 --> 00:03:54.860 course in social justice and critical thinking 00:03:54.860 --> 00:03:57.379 and, you know, taking apart dominant narratives, 00:03:57.580 --> 00:03:59.759 constantly engaging with big issues. So growing 00:03:59.759 --> 00:04:02.770 up around journalists, activists. Yeah. people 00:04:02.770 --> 00:04:05.310 always questioning, investigating. It had to 00:04:05.310 --> 00:04:07.129 instill a critical perspective, right? On truth 00:04:07.129 --> 00:04:09.129 itself, how stories are built, the power dynamics 00:04:09.129 --> 00:04:11.030 behind them, how they get shaped and consumed. 00:04:11.310 --> 00:04:13.849 You can absolutely see the seeds there. For his 00:04:13.849 --> 00:04:16.170 later work questioning artistic authenticity, 00:04:16.350 --> 00:04:18.990 the whole fabric of storytelling, he was almost 00:04:18.990 --> 00:04:21.769 predisposed to ask. What's real here and how 00:04:21.769 --> 00:04:24.189 is it being presented? Exactly. But what's really 00:04:24.189 --> 00:04:26.069 fascinating, I think, is that while he's absorbing 00:04:26.069 --> 00:04:28.990 all this critique, this deconstruction, he's 00:04:28.990 --> 00:04:31.509 also getting this incredibly strong traditional 00:04:31.509 --> 00:04:33.769 grounding in literature. Right. He wasn't just 00:04:33.769 --> 00:04:36.290 rebelling blindly. He knew the forms first. Precisely. 00:04:36.370 --> 00:04:38.569 He mastered them before he started dismantling 00:04:38.569 --> 00:04:41.470 them. So after that upbringing, he goes to Brown 00:04:41.470 --> 00:04:44.949 University, graduates Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum 00:04:44.949 --> 00:04:49.139 Laude, 1978. BA with honors in British and American 00:04:49.139 --> 00:04:51.959 literature. Okay, so seriously rigorous academic 00:04:51.959 --> 00:04:54.660 background. Deep dive into the canon. Definitely 00:04:54.660 --> 00:04:57.120 shows high intelligence, but also, yeah, serious 00:04:57.120 --> 00:04:59.180 engagement with established literary traditions. 00:04:59.600 --> 00:05:02.439 And then he goes on to get an MFA, honors in 00:05:02.439 --> 00:05:05.839 fiction. from the Iowa Writers Workshop in 1980. 00:05:06.160 --> 00:05:09.040 Iowa. Wow. That's like the pinnacle of traditional 00:05:09.040 --> 00:05:12.019 literary training. Exactly. So before he's tearing 00:05:12.019 --> 00:05:14.339 down genre walls, before the radical experiments, 00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:17.399 he was educated inside those walls, learned the 00:05:17.399 --> 00:05:19.899 rules, the mechanics from the inside out. Which 00:05:19.899 --> 00:05:21.839 makes his later critiques even more powerful, 00:05:22.100 --> 00:05:24.079 right? Because they come from this place of deep 00:05:24.079 --> 00:05:26.339 understanding. Absolutely. He knew exactly what 00:05:26.339 --> 00:05:28.660 he was taking apart and why he felt he needed 00:05:28.660 --> 00:05:31.740 to. It wasn't naive rejection. And it's that 00:05:31.740 --> 00:05:36.040 combination is that critical activist background 00:05:36.040 --> 00:05:39.500 plus the rigorous traditional education that 00:05:39.500 --> 00:05:41.980 makes his early career so interesting to track. 00:05:42.100 --> 00:05:44.259 Yeah, you see the shift starting. His first steps 00:05:44.259 --> 00:05:46.439 are pretty conventional. Debut novel, Heroes, 00:05:46.480 --> 00:05:49.480 1984, about a sports writer, college basketball 00:05:49.480 --> 00:05:51.660 player, fairly standard premise, right? Sounds 00:05:51.660 --> 00:05:54.060 like it, yeah. But then, just five years later, 00:05:54.519 --> 00:05:57.699 1989, Knopf publishes his second novel, Dead 00:05:57.699 --> 00:06:01.329 Languages. And this one's different. semi -autobiographical, 00:06:01.910 --> 00:06:03.970 about his own experience growing up with a severe 00:06:03.970 --> 00:06:06.490 stutter. Getting more personal, closer to home. 00:06:06.790 --> 00:06:08.329 And here's where it gets really interesting. 00:06:08.870 --> 00:06:10.649 The sources say while it was still technically 00:06:10.649 --> 00:06:13.769 fiction, it used significantly larger shards 00:06:13.769 --> 00:06:16.610 of reality than the first book. Shards of reality. 00:06:16.870 --> 00:06:18.949 I like that phrasing. It's good, isn't it? And 00:06:18.949 --> 00:06:21.449 it really marks that initial phase of his shift 00:06:21.449 --> 00:06:24.529 toward nonfiction. Hints of the collage, the 00:06:24.529 --> 00:06:26.889 anti -novel stuff to come. He's pushing at the 00:06:26.889 --> 00:06:29.230 edges of fiction. Leading real life into the 00:06:29.230 --> 00:06:31.910 narrative. Exactly. Seeing how much reality the 00:06:31.910 --> 00:06:34.110 form could hold. He continued this with Handbook 00:06:34.110 --> 00:06:37.410 for Drowning in 92, a novel and stories. Still 00:06:37.410 --> 00:06:39.569 experimenting with structure, fragmenting things. 00:06:39.829 --> 00:06:42.370 Like the traditional container wasn't quite big 00:06:42.370 --> 00:06:44.250 enough anymore for what he wanted to explore. 00:06:44.850 --> 00:06:48.009 He was testing the structural integrity of fiction 00:06:48.009 --> 00:06:50.110 itself. And if you connect that to the bigger 00:06:50.110 --> 00:06:53.029 picture, this wasn't just, you know, his artistic 00:06:53.029 --> 00:06:55.829 journey. It was a signal, a kind of harbinger 00:06:55.829 --> 00:06:58.009 of the genre -bending that would really define 00:06:58.009 --> 00:07:00.810 his later stuff. So when did it really crystallize? 00:07:00.810 --> 00:07:03.209 When did that evolution become something properly 00:07:03.209 --> 00:07:05.370 groundbreaking? I'd say the pivotal moment was 00:07:05.370 --> 00:07:10.509 1996. Publication of Remote. Reflections on life 00:07:10.509 --> 00:07:13.269 in the shadow of celebrity. Okay, Remote. This 00:07:13.269 --> 00:07:16.949 was Shields's first explicitly literary collage. 00:07:17.269 --> 00:07:19.089 A .O. Scott, I think it was in Newsday, called 00:07:19.089 --> 00:07:22.290 it one of the definitive texts of the 1990s, 00:07:22.649 --> 00:07:25.970 a trim, elegant, nonfiction answer to Infinite 00:07:25.970 --> 00:07:28.589 Jest. Wow, comparing it to Infinite Jest, that's 00:07:28.589 --> 00:07:31.540 serious praise. It is. Because remote isn't a 00:07:31.540 --> 00:07:35.139 linear story, it's a mosaic. Observations, anecdotes, 00:07:35.360 --> 00:07:38.279 quotes, reflections, all circling around celebrity 00:07:38.279 --> 00:07:41.100 culture. It's distorting influence. So the coherence 00:07:41.100 --> 00:07:43.759 comes from the theme, the collection, not a plot. 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:46.980 Exactly. Like a curated exhibition in book form. 00:07:47.079 --> 00:07:49.160 Yeah. And this book, it wasn't just a personal 00:07:49.160 --> 00:07:51.839 win for Shields. It cemented his reputation as 00:07:51.839 --> 00:07:55.160 a pioneer of collage. And crucially, it laid 00:07:55.160 --> 00:07:57.500 the groundwork intellectually and stylistically 00:07:57.500 --> 00:08:00.230 for the even more radical ideas in his most famous 00:08:00.230 --> 00:08:03.449 work later on. Manifesto. Manifesto. Remote showed 00:08:03.449 --> 00:08:06.170 he wasn't just writing about reality, he was 00:08:06.170 --> 00:08:08.970 starting to use reality itself fragmented, sampled 00:08:08.970 --> 00:08:11.730 as his main artistic medium, building his case 00:08:11.730 --> 00:08:13.670 piece by piece. And it feels like all those threads 00:08:13.670 --> 00:08:15.589 we talked about, the journalism background, the 00:08:15.589 --> 00:08:17.709 activism, the traditional education, those early 00:08:17.709 --> 00:08:19.910 experiments, it all just had to converge, didn't 00:08:19.910 --> 00:08:22.689 it? Seems inevitable looking back. Converging 00:08:22.689 --> 00:08:26.629 towards that seismic event. Reality hunger. A 00:08:26.629 --> 00:08:30.279 manifesto. published by Knopf in 2010. And this 00:08:30.279 --> 00:08:32.500 wasn't just, you know, a discussion. It was a 00:08:32.500 --> 00:08:35.639 declaration, a challenge. A call to arms, really. 00:08:35.879 --> 00:08:38.200 Absolutely. A provocation aimed right at the 00:08:38.200 --> 00:08:41.279 heart of contemporary art and literature. Alyssa 00:08:41.279 --> 00:08:43.679 Chappelle in Vanity Fair nailed it, didn't she? 00:08:43.820 --> 00:08:46.340 She called it a rousing call to arms for all 00:08:46.340 --> 00:08:48.919 artists to reject the laws governing appropriation, 00:08:49.340 --> 00:08:51.179 obliterate the boundaries between fiction and 00:08:51.179 --> 00:08:54.519 nonfiction, and give rise to a new modern form 00:08:54.519 --> 00:08:56.960 for a new century. I mean, talk about making 00:08:56.960 --> 00:08:59.220 a statement. It was like an artistic bomb dropped 00:08:59.220 --> 00:09:02.259 onto the scene. And it had legs. Linhub later 00:09:02.259 --> 00:09:04.740 called it one of the 100 most important books 00:09:04.740 --> 00:09:07.460 of the 2010s. It genuinely shaped the decade. 00:09:07.659 --> 00:09:10.639 So what does this mean for us? as readers, as 00:09:10.639 --> 00:09:12.679 consumers of art. It means we're dealing with 00:09:12.679 --> 00:09:14.720 a text that tried to redefine the whole game. 00:09:14.820 --> 00:09:17.299 And it sparked this huge necessary conversation 00:09:17.299 --> 00:09:20.139 about what art is, what it could be. Yeah, it 00:09:20.139 --> 00:09:21.919 fundamentally changes how you might approach 00:09:21.919 --> 00:09:24.299 the stuff you read or watch, doesn't it? Absolutely. 00:09:24.639 --> 00:09:26.659 And Reality Hunger isn't just about an idea. 00:09:27.139 --> 00:09:30.360 The book itself is the idea in action. It embodies 00:09:30.360 --> 00:09:33.970 its own argument. How so? Well, Shields' core 00:09:33.970 --> 00:09:37.009 concept, the reality hunger itself, comes from 00:09:37.009 --> 00:09:39.269 his observation of our culture, increasingly 00:09:39.269 --> 00:09:42.610 fragmented, right? And he sees people having 00:09:42.610 --> 00:09:46.820 this growing hunger for... doses of real life 00:09:46.820 --> 00:09:49.960 injected into the art they experience. We crave 00:09:49.960 --> 00:09:52.539 authenticity, even mediated authenticity. Like 00:09:52.539 --> 00:09:55.340 on social media, reality TV. Exactly. And he 00:09:55.340 --> 00:09:57.720 argued traditional genres, especially realist 00:09:57.720 --> 00:09:59.559 fiction, just weren't cutting it anymore. They 00:09:59.559 --> 00:10:02.120 hadn't changed much in centuries, he felt. They 00:10:02.120 --> 00:10:04.179 were trying to capture reality with outdated 00:10:04.179 --> 00:10:06.919 tools, failing to mirror the complexity, the 00:10:06.919 --> 00:10:09.399 disjointedness of modern life. So the form itself 00:10:09.399 --> 00:10:11.519 needed an update. That was his argument. And 00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:14.159 the book's structure is that update. It's not 00:10:14.159 --> 00:10:17.169 a linear argument. It's 618 numbered passages, 00:10:17.389 --> 00:10:20.190 26 chapters. And here's the kicker. Yeah. Roughly 00:10:20.190 --> 00:10:22.529 half the words in the book are from other sources, 00:10:22.909 --> 00:10:24.970 not Shields himself. Half, wow. That's not just 00:10:24.970 --> 00:10:26.970 influence. That's full on appropriation as a 00:10:26.970 --> 00:10:30.529 method. And the attributions? Apparently, Random 00:10:30.529 --> 00:10:32.789 House lawyers insisted so they're stuck in a 00:10:32.789 --> 00:10:35.210 fine print appendix at the end. But Shields didn't 00:10:35.210 --> 00:10:38.210 want them there. No. He actually encouraged readers 00:10:38.210 --> 00:10:42.450 to cut those pages out. To preserve the disorienting 00:10:42.450 --> 00:10:45.190 effect, he said, force you to engage with the 00:10:45.190 --> 00:10:47.750 ideas regardless of who first wrote them. That's 00:10:47.750 --> 00:10:50.190 incredibly bold. It's him demonstrating his whole 00:10:50.190 --> 00:10:53.470 artistic philosophy, his ars poetica, right there 00:10:53.470 --> 00:10:55.950 on the page. Precisely. Challenging the very 00:10:55.950 --> 00:10:58.730 act of reading, questioning originality itself. 00:10:58.970 --> 00:11:00.889 Okay, let's dive into the themes, because that's 00:11:00.889 --> 00:11:02.370 where it gets really uncomfortable for some, 00:11:02.509 --> 00:11:04.789 but maybe liberating for others. Starting with 00:11:04.789 --> 00:11:08.529 the big one. Appropriation and, yeah, plagiarism. 00:11:08.639 --> 00:11:11.620 The P word. The P word. He argues plagiarism 00:11:11.620 --> 00:11:13.919 has always been part of art, that the stigma 00:11:13.919 --> 00:11:16.480 is pretty recent, mostly tied to copyright law, 00:11:17.039 --> 00:11:20.259 not some inherent moral wrong. Right, a legal 00:11:20.259 --> 00:11:22.379 construct more than an artistic one, in his view. 00:11:22.500 --> 00:11:24.559 And he doesn't just tolerate appropriation, he 00:11:24.559 --> 00:11:27.039 encourages it. Wholesale appropriation, he says. 00:11:27.600 --> 00:11:30.480 Reality -based art hijacks its material and doesn't 00:11:30.480 --> 00:11:33.740 apologize. Strong words. But it's nuanced, isn't 00:11:33.740 --> 00:11:36.490 it? He's not saying just steal stuff. No, not 00:11:36.490 --> 00:11:40.169 quite. It's more about recontextualizing, representing 00:11:40.169 --> 00:11:42.830 existing material to create something new, like 00:11:42.830 --> 00:11:45.230 a DJ sampling a beat. Yeah, the hip -hop analogy 00:11:45.230 --> 00:11:47.190 is key. He has a whole chapter on it. Right. 00:11:47.409 --> 00:11:50.309 D -stake sampling, remixing, foundational to 00:11:50.309 --> 00:11:53.230 hip -hop. He holds that up as a model for literature. 00:11:53.710 --> 00:11:56.629 What's celebrated in music, taking existing sounds, 00:11:56.929 --> 00:11:59.639 transforming them. Why not in writing? Seeing 00:11:59.639 --> 00:12:02.840 the world's cultural output as this giant shared 00:12:02.840 --> 00:12:06.340 resource pool. Exactly. Not just static copyrighted 00:12:06.340 --> 00:12:09.419 things, but dynamic material for artists to reconfigure 00:12:09.419 --> 00:12:12.120 to spark new meaning. So it makes you think, 00:12:12.259 --> 00:12:14.860 right, in our remix culture online, sharing memes, 00:12:15.100 --> 00:12:17.659 snippets, are we all kind of living this already? 00:12:17.919 --> 00:12:20.279 Maybe informally, yeah. Is Shields just making 00:12:20.279 --> 00:12:22.500 formal art catch up to how we actually engage 00:12:22.500 --> 00:12:24.840 with information now? He's asking us to update 00:12:24.840 --> 00:12:27.799 our definition of originality. And building on 00:12:27.799 --> 00:12:30.299 that challenging authorship, he takes aim at 00:12:30.299 --> 00:12:32.659 the wall between memoir and fiction. Ah, yeah, 00:12:32.659 --> 00:12:35.600 that divide. He says it's mostly imaginary. Which 00:12:35.600 --> 00:12:38.700 is pretty provocative. His logic is based on 00:12:38.700 --> 00:12:42.120 how both forms actually work. Fiction writers. 00:12:42.440 --> 00:12:45.100 They pull constantly from their own lives, memories, 00:12:45.519 --> 00:12:46.659 observations. Sure, right? What do you know? 00:12:46.799 --> 00:12:50.000 And memoirists. They aim for accuracy, sure, 00:12:50.279 --> 00:12:53.519 but they rely on memory. And memory, Shield says 00:12:53.519 --> 00:12:56.360 flatly, does not necessarily reflect the truth 00:12:56.360 --> 00:12:59.059 of what occurred. So the act of remembering itself 00:12:59.059 --> 00:13:01.559 is a kind of fictionalizing. That's his point, 00:13:01.820 --> 00:13:04.820 leading to that killer quote, anything processed 00:13:04.820 --> 00:13:08.279 by memory is fiction. The moment you recall, 00:13:08.639 --> 00:13:11.440 shape, and narrate an experience, it's transformed. 00:13:11.779 --> 00:13:14.519 It becomes an interpretation. So the value of 00:13:14.519 --> 00:13:17.120 a memoir shouldn't just be about strict factual 00:13:17.120 --> 00:13:20.059 accuracy. That's what he argues. It's a fascinating 00:13:20.059 --> 00:13:21.919 thought experiment. Think about family stories, 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:23.980 how much reconstruction goes on there. All the 00:13:23.980 --> 00:13:27.259 time. And he famously brings up James Frey. A 00:13:27.259 --> 00:13:29.100 million little pieces. Oh yeah, the big scandal. 00:13:29.159 --> 00:13:31.379 He made stuff up. Right. Huge public outcry. 00:13:31.539 --> 00:13:33.860 Oprah got involved. But Shields' sys take was 00:13:33.860 --> 00:13:35.740 different. He said Frey's real mistake wasn't 00:13:35.740 --> 00:13:38.600 lying. It was apologizing. Really? Shields wrote, 00:13:39.059 --> 00:13:41.100 I'm disappointed not that Frey is a liar, but 00:13:41.100 --> 00:13:43.600 that he isn't a better one. He thought Frey should 00:13:43.600 --> 00:13:45.960 own the artistic license. Said something like, 00:13:46.500 --> 00:13:48.240 everyone who writes about himself is a liar. 00:13:48.379 --> 00:13:51.980 I created someone better than me. Wow. Yeah. 00:13:52.490 --> 00:13:55.110 That's quite a stance. It's not about endorsing 00:13:55.110 --> 00:13:58.090 deception. It's about making us think critically 00:13:58.090 --> 00:14:01.809 What is truth in a personal story factual accuracy 00:14:01.809 --> 00:14:05.370 or emotional truth? Artistic truth it forces 00:14:05.370 --> 00:14:08.440 you to see narrative as interpretation Always. 00:14:08.559 --> 00:14:10.759 Yeah. Regardless of the label. Exactly. Making 00:14:10.759 --> 00:14:13.080 us question our own demands for a true story. 00:14:13.440 --> 00:14:15.480 And this breaking free from structures, from 00:14:15.480 --> 00:14:17.840 categories, that leads right into his next big 00:14:17.840 --> 00:14:20.799 theme, right? The call for new forms. Absolutely. 00:14:21.039 --> 00:14:23.539 He puts huge importance on artists not just working 00:14:23.539 --> 00:14:26.200 within forms, but actively creating new ones. 00:14:26.519 --> 00:14:28.860 Forms that better fit our reality now. Because 00:14:28.860 --> 00:14:31.820 genre boundaries. Our limitations. Confinement. 00:14:31.940 --> 00:14:34.710 He calls genre that famous phrase... A minimum 00:14:34.710 --> 00:14:37.230 security prism. Love that. His belief. Those 00:14:37.230 --> 00:14:40.149 boundaries need constant bending, breaking, blurring. 00:14:40.389 --> 00:14:43.389 Because life isn't neat, it's messy, fragmented, 00:14:43.870 --> 00:14:45.970 defies easy boxes. And the form he champions 00:14:45.970 --> 00:14:49.750 most is collage. Yes. Reality hunger itself is 00:14:49.750 --> 00:14:52.629 a literary collage. He calls it an evolution 00:14:52.629 --> 00:14:55.679 beyond narrative. Why, an evolution? Because, 00:14:55.679 --> 00:14:58.559 he argues, traditional narrative beginning, middle, 00:14:58.840 --> 00:15:02.019 and conflict resolved, it forces a false sense 00:15:02.019 --> 00:15:05.360 of order onto the world. It suggests resolution 00:15:05.360 --> 00:15:08.019 is inevitable. Like stories have to make sense, 00:15:08.379 --> 00:15:10.700 have a neat ending. Right. And Shields challenges 00:15:10.700 --> 00:15:14.620 that directly. He says, story seems to say that 00:15:14.620 --> 00:15:16.559 everything happens for a reason, and I want to 00:15:16.559 --> 00:15:19.659 say, no, it doesn't. That hits hard. because 00:15:19.659 --> 00:15:22.200 we are conditioned to expect that narrative arc 00:15:22.200 --> 00:15:24.879 in everything. We are. We look for cause and 00:15:24.879 --> 00:15:27.519 effect, for meaning, even when it's not there. 00:15:28.059 --> 00:15:31.120 And collage, for Shields, is more honest. It's 00:15:31.120 --> 00:15:33.879 fragmented, open -ended. It reflects life's ambiguity. 00:15:34.059 --> 00:15:36.000 It doesn't pretend to give you answers. Exactly. 00:15:36.120 --> 00:15:38.120 It invites you to grapple with the questions, 00:15:38.299 --> 00:15:40.240 like looking at a fractured mirror, each piece 00:15:40.240 --> 00:15:43.179 shows something, but the whole picture is incomplete. 00:15:43.440 --> 00:15:46.159 complex, more like reality. Yeah, that makes 00:15:46.159 --> 00:15:48.139 a lot of sense. And what's really striking is 00:15:48.139 --> 00:15:50.399 he didn't just write the manifesto and stop. 00:15:50.639 --> 00:15:53.000 He lived it in his work afterwards. Kept putting 00:15:53.000 --> 00:15:56.259 those ideas into practice. Vigorously. In the 00:15:56.259 --> 00:15:58.799 decade after Reality Hunger, he published what? 00:15:58.860 --> 00:16:01.620 a dozen more books, many collaborative, almost 00:16:01.620 --> 00:16:04.379 all trying to embody that Ars Poetica. It wasn't 00:16:04.379 --> 00:16:06.559 just theory, it was his blueprint. He walked 00:16:06.559 --> 00:16:10.240 the talk. Totally. Look at Salinger, 2013, co 00:16:10.240 --> 00:16:12.320 -written with Shane Salerno, a New York Times 00:16:12.320 --> 00:16:15.019 bestseller. The oral biography. Right. It defied 00:16:15.019 --> 00:16:17.899 nonfiction conventions. No single author voice 00:16:17.899 --> 00:16:21.200 driving it. Instead, it pieces together interviews, 00:16:21.500 --> 00:16:24.340 letters, accounts, a mosaic portrait from primary 00:16:24.340 --> 00:16:26.990 sources. John Walsh in the Sunday Times called 00:16:26.990 --> 00:16:29.789 it stupendous, said the world wouldn't need another 00:16:29.789 --> 00:16:33.129 Salinger bio. High praise indeed. Then there's, 00:16:33.129 --> 00:16:35.750 I think you're totally wrong, a quarrel in 2015 00:16:35.750 --> 00:16:37.929 with Caleb Powell. Oh, the Book of Arguments. 00:16:38.029 --> 00:16:40.490 Essentially, yeah. Transcribed conversations, 00:16:41.129 --> 00:16:43.590 emails, two guys with very different views, praised 00:16:43.590 --> 00:16:45.710 for erasing that boundary between the public 00:16:45.710 --> 00:16:48.570 mask and the private self. Leslie Jameson said 00:16:48.570 --> 00:16:51.250 the goal was an agreement but collaborative inquiry, 00:16:51.529 --> 00:16:53.850 letting readers into the messiness. So applying 00:16:53.850 --> 00:16:56.850 the collage fragment idea to relationships, dialogue. 00:16:57.210 --> 00:17:00.480 And other collaborations did too. Jeff, one lonely 00:17:00.480 --> 00:17:02.940 guy using dating profile material, that thing 00:17:02.940 --> 00:17:05.539 you do with your mouth, the as -told -to -sexual 00:17:05.539 --> 00:17:08.440 autobiography, all showing art made from raw 00:17:08.440 --> 00:17:11.690 life, assembled, reassembled. And it's fascinating 00:17:11.690 --> 00:17:14.349 how he uses that method, not just for personal 00:17:14.349 --> 00:17:17.150 stuff, but to take apart bigger societal narratives, 00:17:17.450 --> 00:17:19.390 powerful institutions even. Like with War is 00:17:19.390 --> 00:17:22.349 Beautiful. Exactly. 2015, that book on New York 00:17:22.349 --> 00:17:24.630 Times War Photography, not just showing photos, 00:17:24.950 --> 00:17:27.509 but deconstructing them. Showing how aesthetically 00:17:27.509 --> 00:17:30.329 pleasing images of conflict could. Glamorize 00:17:30.329 --> 00:17:33.190 it. Manipulate perception. He sampled and remixed 00:17:33.190 --> 00:17:35.890 the Times own images to reveal this hidden narrative 00:17:35.890 --> 00:17:39.299 about media. beauty and power. Using their own 00:17:39.299 --> 00:17:41.839 material against them in a way, critically. And 00:17:41.839 --> 00:17:44.460 then nobody hates Trump more than Trump in 2018. 00:17:45.160 --> 00:17:48.079 Again, a mosaic of quotes, observations, a found 00:17:48.079 --> 00:17:50.359 object psychological portrait. Applying his methods 00:17:50.359 --> 00:17:52.940 to contemporary politics. Shows his ideas aren't 00:17:52.940 --> 00:17:55.619 just, you know, academic exercises. They're potent 00:17:55.619 --> 00:17:58.079 tools for critically analyzing media, power, 00:17:58.519 --> 00:18:00.740 the story shaping our world, peeling back the 00:18:00.740 --> 00:18:04.000 layers. And that commitment to deconstruction, 00:18:04.220 --> 00:18:07.369 montage, reality based art. It led him quite 00:18:07.369 --> 00:18:09.650 naturally into documentary film, didn't it? Seems 00:18:09.650 --> 00:18:11.849 like a logical next step. A powerful extension 00:18:11.849 --> 00:18:16.309 of the collage style. His 2019 film, Lynch. A 00:18:16.309 --> 00:18:19.809 history that was a major shift, he wrote, produced, 00:18:20.069 --> 00:18:22.170 directed. About Marshawn Lynch, the football 00:18:22.170 --> 00:18:24.930 player. Yes, but specifically about Lynch's use 00:18:24.930 --> 00:18:28.349 of silence, echo, mimicry as forms of resistance 00:18:28.349 --> 00:18:30.789 in the sports world. And the film itself uses 00:18:30.789 --> 00:18:34.589 montage. Found footage, interviews, juxtapositions, 00:18:35.109 --> 00:18:37.549 non -linear. just like his books. So the form 00:18:37.549 --> 00:18:39.890 mirrored the subject. Beautifully. And it was 00:18:39.890 --> 00:18:41.990 critically acclaimed. Premiered at Seattle Film 00:18:41.990 --> 00:18:44.789 Fest, awards at IDFA, Amsterdam, Golden, Sunbreak, 00:18:44.910 --> 00:18:47.069 Wynn. People really responded to it. They did. 00:18:47.490 --> 00:18:49.829 Hwasoo and The New Yorker called it the culmination 00:18:49.829 --> 00:18:52.269 of Shield's career, the ultimate expression of 00:18:52.269 --> 00:18:55.069 his vision across media. He's still going. Oh, 00:18:55.109 --> 00:18:57.950 yeah. Upcoming 2024 film and book, How We Got 00:18:57.950 --> 00:19:00.690 Here, sounds typically audacious, drawing lines 00:19:00.690 --> 00:19:03.349 between Melville, Nietzsche, Alan Bloom, Hujek, 00:19:03.509 --> 00:19:07.430 and Steve Bannon. Wow. Right. Forcing us to see 00:19:07.430 --> 00:19:10.490 unexpected connections shaping our present shows 00:19:10.490 --> 00:19:13.250 the intellectual daring, the breadth of his reality 00:19:13.250 --> 00:19:16.630 -based art, always pushing, connecting disparate 00:19:16.630 --> 00:19:20.230 things to find new, maybe uncomfortable, insights. 00:19:20.509 --> 00:19:24.410 OK, so back to reality hunger. As you'd expect, 00:19:24.829 --> 00:19:26.910 a manifesto that bold, that boundary breaking. 00:19:27.390 --> 00:19:30.309 It didn't land quietly. No, definitely stirred 00:19:30.309 --> 00:19:32.829 the pot. Lots of debate controversy right from 00:19:32.829 --> 00:19:36.210 the start. Absolutely. On one side, huge praise. 00:19:36.670 --> 00:19:38.630 People felt he was articulating something they 00:19:38.630 --> 00:19:41.190 already felt. Chuck Klosterman tweeted it might 00:19:41.190 --> 00:19:43.829 be the most intense, thought -accelerating book 00:19:43.829 --> 00:19:46.670 of the last 10 years. High praise from Klosterman. 00:19:46.910 --> 00:19:49.710 And Lucy Sante in the NYT Book Review said it 00:19:49.710 --> 00:19:52.130 urgently and succinctly addresses matters that 00:19:52.130 --> 00:19:54.470 have been in the air. She even predicted his 00:19:54.470 --> 00:19:57.759 book heralded the dominant modes to come. A paradigm 00:19:57.759 --> 00:20:00.940 shift. Seeing it as the future. But not everyone 00:20:00.940 --> 00:20:03.400 was buying it. Or maybe they felt he went too 00:20:03.400 --> 00:20:06.279 far. Understandable resistance. The book provoked 00:20:06.279 --> 00:20:08.900 substantial controversy, especially around his 00:20:08.900 --> 00:20:11.119 death of the novel claims. Yeah, novelists weren't 00:20:11.119 --> 00:20:14.279 thrilled about that. Understandably. And his 00:20:14.279 --> 00:20:17.380 advocacy of appropriation or artistic plagiarism, 00:20:17.640 --> 00:20:20.099 as critics saw it. James Wood in The New Yorker 00:20:20.099 --> 00:20:22.519 called it highly problematic. What was his main 00:20:22.519 --> 00:20:26.009 issue? Wood felt Shields promoted reality over 00:20:26.009 --> 00:20:28.309 narrative without really examining what reality 00:20:28.309 --> 00:20:31.470 meant. Too simplistic, maybe. He worried that 00:20:31.470 --> 00:20:34.130 devaluing narrative meant losing the tools we 00:20:34.130 --> 00:20:36.710 use to make sense of things, find meaning. A 00:20:36.710 --> 00:20:39.490 valid concern, perhaps. Did Wood dismiss him 00:20:39.490 --> 00:20:42.509 entirely? No, and this is key. Even Wood conceded 00:20:42.509 --> 00:20:44.809 that Shields' arguments about the tediousness 00:20:44.809 --> 00:20:47.150 and terminality of current fictional convention 00:20:47.150 --> 00:20:50.029 are well taken. So even critics admitted he was 00:20:50.029 --> 00:20:52.569 onto something, that he identified a real problem 00:20:52.569 --> 00:20:55.029 even if they didn't like his solution. Exactly. 00:20:55.470 --> 00:20:58.690 He hit a raw nerve, forced a conversation, even 00:20:58.690 --> 00:21:01.430 a contentious one, made people re -examine assumptions. 00:21:01.670 --> 00:21:03.849 That's often the mark of influential work. Right, 00:21:03.950 --> 00:21:05.910 it makes things happen. And that impact, that 00:21:05.910 --> 00:21:08.349 catalyzing effect, is why reality hunger has 00:21:08.349 --> 00:21:10.730 been so influential on 21st century non -fiction, 00:21:10.970 --> 00:21:13.369 on auto -fiction, on documentary film. It shaped 00:21:13.369 --> 00:21:16.400 the landscape. Definitely. It gave artists permission, 00:21:16.440 --> 00:21:19.640 almost, to blur lines, experiment with form, 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:22.279 engage more directly with the raw, messy stuff 00:21:22.279 --> 00:21:25.980 of life, break out of that minimum security prison 00:21:25.980 --> 00:21:28.359 of genre. Find new ways to talk about modern 00:21:28.359 --> 00:21:31.279 life. And this influence isn't just theory. Look 00:21:31.279 --> 00:21:33.660 at the recognition he's received over his career. 00:21:34.160 --> 00:21:37.240 Beyond Reality, Hunger Buzz, Guggenheim Fellowship, 00:21:37.519 --> 00:21:41.599 two NEAs, the P .N. Rebson Award, NYFA Fellowship. 00:21:41.880 --> 00:21:44.319 Serious accolades. Plus the Film Awards for Lynch. 00:21:44.589 --> 00:21:46.549 His book's hitting the New York Times bestseller 00:21:46.549 --> 00:21:49.410 list. The thing about life is that one day, you'll 00:21:49.410 --> 00:21:51.930 be dead, Salinger. Shows critical and popular 00:21:51.930 --> 00:21:54.589 appeal. Black Planet was a finalist for the National 00:21:54.589 --> 00:21:57.930 Book Critics Circle Award and PEN USA. So a consistent 00:21:57.930 --> 00:22:00.250 body of recognized work. Absolutely. It shows 00:22:00.250 --> 00:22:02.309 that even when he's controversial, pushing boundaries, 00:22:02.490 --> 00:22:04.589 making people uncomfortable, shields is a major 00:22:04.589 --> 00:22:07.009 force. Constantly pushing the envelope of what 00:22:07.009 --> 00:22:10.130 art can be and getting recognized for it. So 00:22:10.130 --> 00:22:13.470 wrapping this up. What does it all mean for us 00:22:13.470 --> 00:22:16.450 deep divers navigating our own lives? Lives full 00:22:16.450 --> 00:22:19.789 of mediated reality. David Shields really emerges 00:22:19.789 --> 00:22:24.450 as this... relentless innovator, right? A fearless 00:22:24.450 --> 00:22:28.349 provocateur. Someone who makes us rethink storytelling, 00:22:28.730 --> 00:22:31.589 rethink authenticity in art. From that start 00:22:31.589 --> 00:22:33.890 in journalism and activism. Through mastering 00:22:33.890 --> 00:22:36.430 traditional forms. To radically embracing collage 00:22:36.430 --> 00:22:39.049 and appropriation. He just consistently challenged 00:22:39.049 --> 00:22:41.930 the status quo, refused conventional boundaries. 00:22:42.250 --> 00:22:45.230 His impact on how we think about narrative, truth, 00:22:45.730 --> 00:22:48.349 genre in books. In film, it's undeniable. He 00:22:48.349 --> 00:22:50.390 influenced everything from non -fiction structure 00:22:50.390 --> 00:22:53.359 to doc - ethos. And he reminds us that the art 00:22:53.359 --> 00:22:56.000 we consume, it's never just a simple mirror of 00:22:56.000 --> 00:22:59.519 reality, it's always a construction, an interpretation, 00:23:00.160 --> 00:23:02.079 a choice. And maybe as we finish, it's worth 00:23:02.079 --> 00:23:04.519 thinking about this. In our age of deepfakes, 00:23:04.819 --> 00:23:07.319 curated online lives, this overwhelming flood 00:23:07.319 --> 00:23:10.400 of information, Shields' reality hunger feels 00:23:10.400 --> 00:23:12.640 more urgent than ever. More relevant now than 00:23:12.640 --> 00:23:15.759 in 2010, perhaps. Why possibly? His call to question, 00:23:15.960 --> 00:23:18.440 deconstruct, seek new forms of truth and expression, 00:23:18.480 --> 00:23:20.960 it feels vital. He forces us to be active engagers, 00:23:21.079 --> 00:23:22.880 not just passive consumers. So the final thought 00:23:22.880 --> 00:23:25.680 for everyone listening. With Shields' ideas swirling 00:23:25.680 --> 00:23:28.690 around... How do you figure out what's authentic 00:23:28.690 --> 00:23:31.910 in the art and info you take in daily? And maybe 00:23:31.910 --> 00:23:34.910 what new forms, what new artistic answers might 00:23:34.910 --> 00:23:37.710 emerge as our collective hunger for reality keeps 00:23:37.710 --> 00:23:39.710 evolving in this really complex century? It's 00:23:39.710 --> 00:23:42.069 a big question. It is. And it's one Shields' 00:23:42.230 --> 00:23:44.190 work absolutely compels us to confront. It's 00:23:44.190 --> 00:23:45.930 only going to become more important as we go 00:23:45.930 --> 00:23:46.190 forward.