WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.700 Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're here to take 00:00:02.700 --> 00:00:04.980 that pile of research, those articles, all that 00:00:04.980 --> 00:00:07.040 source material, and really pull out the key 00:00:07.040 --> 00:00:10.759 insights for you. And today, we're tackling Chuck 00:00:10.759 --> 00:00:13.460 Klosterman. He's someone who hasn't just written 00:00:13.460 --> 00:00:16.679 about low culture. He's used it really as the 00:00:16.679 --> 00:00:18.760 raw material for some pretty high -level thinking. 00:00:19.140 --> 00:00:21.399 Yeah, the sources paint this picture of him as, 00:00:21.480 --> 00:00:23.980 well, maybe the essential guide if you're trying 00:00:23.980 --> 00:00:25.879 to make sense of American pop culture today. 00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:28.660 Media theory, too, and even how we think about 00:00:28.660 --> 00:00:31.539 history. He really does have this unique knack, 00:00:31.559 --> 00:00:34.159 doesn't he? Taking subjects that, let's be honest, 00:00:34.280 --> 00:00:37.039 a lot of academics might just dismiss and giving 00:00:37.039 --> 00:00:39.619 them this serious, almost literary treatment. 00:00:39.780 --> 00:00:42.340 Uh -huh. Like analyzing glam metal with the same 00:00:42.340 --> 00:00:44.460 intensity you'd expect for, I don't know, Faulkner 00:00:44.460 --> 00:00:46.840 or something. Exactly. Or a fictional sports 00:00:46.840 --> 00:00:49.020 show. He gives it the same weight as, like... 00:00:49.280 --> 00:00:52.259 deep ethical argument. And the scope is just 00:00:52.259 --> 00:00:54.679 huge looking at the sources. I mean, 12 books, 00:00:54.840 --> 00:00:57.539 including two novels. He was a columnist for 00:00:57.539 --> 00:01:00.979 Esquire, for ESPN .com. Right. And maybe most 00:01:00.979 --> 00:01:04.659 famously, writing The Ethicist for the New York 00:01:04.659 --> 00:01:06.459 Times Magazine. He's kind of popped up everywhere. 00:01:06.879 --> 00:01:08.659 Covering things we maybe didn't even know needed 00:01:08.659 --> 00:01:10.599 covering until he sort of pointed it out. And, 00:01:10.620 --> 00:01:12.799 you know, it's worth remembering. This credibility, 00:01:12.959 --> 00:01:15.219 it started pretty early. The sources point out 00:01:15.219 --> 00:01:18.019 he snagged that ace cap deems Taylor Award back 00:01:18.019 --> 00:01:21.040 in 2002 for music criticism. Oh, right. 2002. 00:01:21.280 --> 00:01:24.099 Yeah. So that's not just trivia. It tells you 00:01:24.099 --> 00:01:27.260 the established critical world already saw him 00:01:27.260 --> 00:01:30.120 as a major voice in music, even before his like 00:01:30.120 --> 00:01:33.280 big pop culture books really hit the mainstream. 00:01:33.459 --> 00:01:36.379 OK, so that sets up our mission for this deep 00:01:36.379 --> 00:01:38.739 dive for you listening. We want to figure out 00:01:38.739 --> 00:01:42.079 how does someone. who gets known for dissecting, 00:01:42.079 --> 00:01:44.540 you know, 80s hair bands, often hilariously, 00:01:44.599 --> 00:01:47.579 but seriously, too. How does that guy evolve? 00:01:47.859 --> 00:01:50.140 How does he become a consulting editor for a 00:01:50.140 --> 00:01:52.280 site like Grantland, which was pretty intellectual, 00:01:52.459 --> 00:01:54.819 and then the person tackling ethics for The Times? 00:01:55.709 --> 00:01:58.049 That journey is what we need to unpack. Absolutely. 00:01:58.109 --> 00:02:00.530 So we'll start with his background, that journey 00:02:00.530 --> 00:02:04.310 from rural North Dakota to the media center of 00:02:04.310 --> 00:02:06.650 New York, because that starting point is really 00:02:06.650 --> 00:02:08.969 crucial to his whole perspective. And then, yeah, 00:02:08.990 --> 00:02:10.629 we'll spend most of our time really digging into 00:02:10.629 --> 00:02:13.289 the themes across all his books, his essays, 00:02:13.349 --> 00:02:16.449 looking at how he pulls off that blend of, let's 00:02:16.449 --> 00:02:18.590 say, serious thinking and sometimes seemingly 00:02:18.590 --> 00:02:20.889 trivial topics. All right. Let's get into that 00:02:20.889 --> 00:02:22.849 origin story then. Yeah. Because the geography, 00:02:23.050 --> 00:02:26.360 it feels really important here. Charles John 00:02:26.360 --> 00:02:30.580 Klosterman, born June 5, 1972, in Breckenridge, 00:02:30.699 --> 00:02:33.340 Minnesota. But raised somewhere else, right? 00:02:33.460 --> 00:02:35.099 That's right, yeah. Raised just across the border. 00:02:35.300 --> 00:02:38.360 His roots are pure American Midwest. Youngest 00:02:38.360 --> 00:02:40.520 of seven kids, Florence and William Klosterman. 00:02:40.719 --> 00:02:43.860 Grew up Roman Catholic on a farm. Windmere, North 00:02:43.860 --> 00:02:46.460 Dakota. Windmere, okay. Yeah, the sources really 00:02:46.460 --> 00:02:48.740 stress that. German and Polish descent. Very 00:02:48.740 --> 00:02:51.120 grounded rural background. Windmere, North Dakota. 00:02:51.379 --> 00:02:53.159 It really does feel like the key to his whole 00:02:53.159 --> 00:02:55.360 outlook, doesn't it? That kind of outsider looking 00:02:55.360 --> 00:02:57.960 in thing. He finished high school there, Windmere 00:02:57.960 --> 00:03:00.659 High in 90. Then went on to the University of 00:03:00.659 --> 00:03:03.360 North Dakota, graduated in 94. BA in journalism, 00:03:03.460 --> 00:03:05.879 minor in English lit. So you see the toolkit 00:03:05.879 --> 00:03:08.719 forming right there. The discipline of reporting, 00:03:08.919 --> 00:03:12.050 but also that literary analysis framework. And 00:03:12.050 --> 00:03:13.750 this is where it starts getting really interesting 00:03:13.750 --> 00:03:16.409 for you, the listener, to think about that contrast. 00:03:16.669 --> 00:03:19.289 I mean, the sheer difference between where he 00:03:19.289 --> 00:03:24.090 came from, this very rural farm based life in 00:03:24.090 --> 00:03:26.490 North Dakota, and what he ended up writing about. 00:03:26.930 --> 00:03:30.689 Super specific. often coastal pop culture phenomena, 00:03:31.129 --> 00:03:34.509 you know, L .A. glam rock, New York media stuff, 00:03:34.909 --> 00:03:39.050 celebrity culture. It's such a gap. And it feels 00:03:39.050 --> 00:03:41.189 intentional, like that distance is part of his 00:03:41.189 --> 00:03:43.189 method. Yeah. He wasn't in the culture he writes 00:03:43.189 --> 00:03:45.629 about originally. He had to, like, import it, 00:03:45.669 --> 00:03:48.770 right? Yeah. Magazines, MTV records. Importing 00:03:48.770 --> 00:03:50.590 it and then filtering it through that specific 00:03:50.590 --> 00:03:53.030 Midwestern lens. So what does that vantage point 00:03:53.030 --> 00:03:55.250 actually give him, analytically speaking? Well, 00:03:55.289 --> 00:03:58.050 I think it provides this unique almost answer. 00:03:58.090 --> 00:04:00.189 anthropological view of american media culture 00:04:00.189 --> 00:04:02.810 something someone say growing up in la or new 00:04:02.810 --> 00:04:04.590 york just wouldn't have he doesn't approach pop 00:04:04.590 --> 00:04:07.330 culture like it's inherently cool or something 00:04:07.330 --> 00:04:09.729 to aspire to. Right. It's more of an artifact 00:04:09.729 --> 00:04:12.169 to be examined. Precisely. Something to be observed, 00:04:12.449 --> 00:04:15.370 analyzed, and maybe found kind of weird or baffling 00:04:15.370 --> 00:04:18.089 sometimes. It gives him this layer of skepticism, 00:04:18.170 --> 00:04:21.370 I think. Skepticism. How so? Well, he can ask 00:04:21.370 --> 00:04:24.250 these really basic questions that people inside 00:04:24.250 --> 00:04:26.350 the bubble might just take for granted. Like, 00:04:26.350 --> 00:04:29.329 why do we all suddenly care about this particular 00:04:29.329 --> 00:04:32.889 celebrity? Or why did that band become historically 00:04:32.889 --> 00:04:34.769 important? When you're getting those signals 00:04:34.769 --> 00:04:37.420 from far... away, maybe they don't seem so obviously 00:04:37.420 --> 00:04:39.600 important. Exactly. They don't have an immediate 00:04:39.600 --> 00:04:41.959 impact on your daily life on a farm and wind 00:04:41.959 --> 00:04:44.300 mirror. So you're almost forced to think about 00:04:44.300 --> 00:04:46.779 their function, their construction, not just, 00:04:46.779 --> 00:04:50.079 you know, bask in their supposed coolness. Okay. 00:04:50.139 --> 00:04:53.420 So that's skepticism, that ability to be both 00:04:53.420 --> 00:04:56.170 into it and step back from it. That's the core 00:04:56.170 --> 00:04:58.870 of it. Think about it. How did a kid on a farm 00:04:58.870 --> 00:05:01.550 process something like metley crew? All that 00:05:01.550 --> 00:05:04.170 L .A. decadence. He had to analyze it, apply 00:05:04.170 --> 00:05:06.389 some kind of critical framework to something 00:05:06.389 --> 00:05:08.889 that was maybe designed not to be analyzed like 00:05:08.889 --> 00:05:11.370 that. Right. And that balancing act, that's his 00:05:11.370 --> 00:05:13.149 whole approach right there, taking seemingly 00:05:13.149 --> 00:05:16.389 ridiculous seriously. So the journalism training 00:05:16.389 --> 00:05:18.810 from UND gives him the tools. North Dakota gives 00:05:18.810 --> 00:05:22.910 him the perspective. He's basically set up perfectly 00:05:22.910 --> 00:05:25.240 to tackle the culture machine. Yeah, and that 00:05:25.240 --> 00:05:27.620 combination, that outsider view plus the actual 00:05:27.620 --> 00:05:30.680 journalism chops, let him start climbing pretty 00:05:30.680 --> 00:05:33.800 fast after college. Started right there in Fargo, 00:05:33.860 --> 00:05:35.920 North Dakota, as a journalist. But the first 00:05:35.920 --> 00:05:37.459 move wasn't straight to the coast, was it? He 00:05:37.459 --> 00:05:40.459 went to Ohio first. That's right, yeah. The Akron 00:05:40.459 --> 00:05:42.980 Beacon Journal. Reporter and arts critic. And 00:05:42.980 --> 00:05:45.319 that's a really important step, I think. Working 00:05:45.319 --> 00:05:47.759 at a mid -sized city paper like that, you have 00:05:47.759 --> 00:05:50.860 to cover everything, learn fast, write on deadline. 00:05:50.959 --> 00:05:53.120 It's like the perfect training ground. Honing 00:05:53.120 --> 00:05:55.139 the skills before hitting the big time. Which 00:05:55.139 --> 00:05:58.000 happened in 2002. That's the pivot point. Moves 00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:01.120 to New York City. Okay, NYC. And almost immediately 00:06:01.120 --> 00:06:05.060 lands at Spin Magazine. Senior writer and columnist, 00:06:05.100 --> 00:06:09.579 2002 to 2006. And remember, that 2002 ASCAP award 00:06:09.579 --> 00:06:12.459 lines up perfectly with this. So he arrives in 00:06:12.459 --> 00:06:15.180 New York already validated as a top music writer. 00:06:15.319 --> 00:06:17.139 And then the floodgates open, magazine -wise. 00:06:17.279 --> 00:06:19.680 The list and the sources is just all impressive. 00:06:20.040 --> 00:06:22.769 GQ. Esquire. In New York Times Magazine, The 00:06:22.769 --> 00:06:24.870 Believer, The Guardian, The Washington Post. 00:06:25.069 --> 00:06:27.389 I mean. He's everywhere. It shows incredible 00:06:27.389 --> 00:06:30.050 adaptability, right? Yeah. Writing for all these 00:06:30.050 --> 00:06:32.149 different audiences, different styles. Totally. 00:06:32.209 --> 00:06:34.990 And it wasn't just one -offs. His stuff kept 00:06:34.990 --> 00:06:37.750 getting picked for those best of anthologies. 00:06:37.930 --> 00:06:40.509 Best music writing, best American travel writing, 00:06:40.670 --> 00:06:43.370 even best American non -required reading. Non 00:06:43.370 --> 00:06:45.120 -required reading. I like that. Yeah. It speaks 00:06:45.120 --> 00:06:47.459 volumes, right. It shows consistency in that 00:06:47.459 --> 00:06:49.620 his voice worked across all these different fields, 00:06:49.800 --> 00:06:52.680 quality and versatility. But he didn't just stick 00:06:52.680 --> 00:06:54.500 to music, which is maybe the most interesting 00:06:54.500 --> 00:06:57.120 part of this phase. He branched out. Big time. 00:06:57.620 --> 00:07:00.240 The move into sports was significant. Started 00:07:00.240 --> 00:07:05.439 writing for ESPN's Page Two late 2005. Why sports? 00:07:05.459 --> 00:07:07.480 What was the connection? Well, think about it. 00:07:07.560 --> 00:07:10.319 Sports fandom, like rock fandom, involves intense 00:07:10.319 --> 00:07:13.399 loyalty, mythology, memory. Often completely 00:07:13.399 --> 00:07:16.199 irrational devotion, right? Absolutely. So as 00:07:16.199 --> 00:07:19.019 analytical tools, asking why we care so much 00:07:19.019 --> 00:07:21.160 about stuff that's ultimately kind of arbitrary, 00:07:21.420 --> 00:07:23.839 it just mapped perfectly onto sports, analyzing 00:07:23.839 --> 00:07:26.579 fandom itself. Okay, that makes sense. But then 00:07:26.579 --> 00:07:28.620 came the really big shift, the one that maybe 00:07:28.620 --> 00:07:30.980 reached the broadest audience, the ethicist. 00:07:31.220 --> 00:07:33.579 Yeah, taking over the ethicist column for the 00:07:33.579 --> 00:07:35.459 New York Times Magazine. That was huge. That 00:07:35.459 --> 00:07:37.779 feels like such a different gear. From analyzing, 00:07:37.899 --> 00:07:41.829 you know, Guns N' Roses lyrics to... advising 00:07:41.829 --> 00:07:44.670 people on real life moral quandaries. It's a 00:07:44.670 --> 00:07:47.110 massive leap on the surface. You're moving from 00:07:47.110 --> 00:07:50.230 analyzing cultural products to analyzing human 00:07:50.230 --> 00:07:53.129 behavior and justification, how we decide what's 00:07:53.129 --> 00:07:55.649 right and wrong and how we crucially explain 00:07:55.649 --> 00:07:58.509 those decisions to ourselves and others. Was 00:07:58.509 --> 00:08:01.149 there a risk, though? I mean, his style is often 00:08:01.149 --> 00:08:03.790 ironic, very self -aware. Could that have felt, 00:08:03.889 --> 00:08:07.300 I don't know, flippant? when dealing with serious 00:08:07.300 --> 00:08:09.839 ethical problems? That's a great question. And 00:08:09.839 --> 00:08:11.360 I think that's where his skill really shows. 00:08:11.480 --> 00:08:13.980 He didn't ditch his voice. He adapted it. He 00:08:13.980 --> 00:08:16.759 used that clarity, that knack for spotting contradictions, 00:08:16.759 --> 00:08:20.000 that sort of grounded Midwestern common sense. 00:08:20.199 --> 00:08:22.139 Not to make fun of the problems. Exactly. But 00:08:22.139 --> 00:08:24.439 to dissect the often kind of wonky assumptions. 00:08:25.319 --> 00:08:27.720 behind the questions people were asking, he treated 00:08:27.720 --> 00:08:29.759 the ethical dilemmas themselves almost like cultural 00:08:29.759 --> 00:08:32.299 artifacts. Like the way someone framed their 00:08:32.299 --> 00:08:35.360 moral problem often said more about our societal 00:08:35.360 --> 00:08:38.360 norms, our hidden biases, than whatever the right 00:08:38.360 --> 00:08:41.620 answer was. He was illuminating the weird logic 00:08:41.620 --> 00:08:44.200 we use to justify ourselves. It was less about 00:08:44.200 --> 00:08:46.480 giving simple answers and more about exposing 00:08:46.480 --> 00:08:49.519 the complexities, the human flaws baked into 00:08:49.519 --> 00:08:52.399 the questions. Okay, got it. So the early career 00:08:52.399 --> 00:08:55.269 builds the voice and the rigor. New York proves 00:08:55.269 --> 00:08:57.710 it's adaptable. Now let's really get into the 00:08:57.710 --> 00:08:59.909 books where he cements this whole worldview. 00:09:00.230 --> 00:09:01.970 Right. The books are where you really see him 00:09:01.970 --> 00:09:04.029 elevate this whole project, taking everyday stuff 00:09:04.029 --> 00:09:07.549 and making it feel, well, profound. His early 00:09:07.549 --> 00:09:09.610 books really laid the groundwork for serious 00:09:09.610 --> 00:09:12.429 pop culture criticism as we know it now. Starting 00:09:12.429 --> 00:09:16.009 with Fargo Rock City in 2001. A heavy metal odyssey 00:09:16.009 --> 00:09:18.929 in rural North Dakota. That title alone. With 00:09:18.929 --> 00:09:22.200 the umlauts. Ha. Yeah, the umlauts are key. It's 00:09:22.200 --> 00:09:24.899 pure Klosterman. And that book, it's the perfect 00:09:24.899 --> 00:09:27.360 embodiment of his core idea, isn't it? It's funny. 00:09:27.460 --> 00:09:29.200 It's a memoir. It's a history of glam metal. 00:09:29.320 --> 00:09:31.460 But it's more than that. It's like an anthropological 00:09:31.460 --> 00:09:34.129 study, you said. Exactly. It's about what happens 00:09:34.129 --> 00:09:37.830 when this super theatrical, very specific L .A. 00:09:37.850 --> 00:09:40.149 culture hair metal from the Sunset Strip gets 00:09:40.149 --> 00:09:43.269 beamed out to a totally different, isolated place 00:09:43.269 --> 00:09:46.210 like rural North Dakota. He analyzes the gap 00:09:46.210 --> 00:09:48.429 between the fantasy, the L .A. myth, and the 00:09:48.429 --> 00:09:51.269 reality of, you know, listening to Metley Crue 00:09:51.269 --> 00:09:53.049 while driving a tractor or whatever. Right. So 00:09:53.049 --> 00:09:56.049 that establishes the brand. Deep thoughts wrapped 00:09:56.049 --> 00:09:58.870 in a funny, self -aware package, taking rad as 00:09:58.870 --> 00:10:01.590 seriously as, I don't know. The romantics. Pretty 00:10:01.590 --> 00:10:04.570 much. And then jump forward to 2005, Killing 00:10:04.570 --> 00:10:08.049 Yourself to Live, 85 % of a true story, the road 00:10:08.049 --> 00:10:10.590 trip book about rock, death, love. Okay, we have 00:10:10.590 --> 00:10:12.990 to talk about that subtitle. 85 % of a true story. 00:10:13.470 --> 00:10:15.110 What is going on there? It's brilliant, right. 00:10:15.210 --> 00:10:17.669 By putting that number on it, 85%, he's doing 00:10:17.669 --> 00:10:19.429 a couple of really important things. First, he's 00:10:19.429 --> 00:10:21.370 telling you up front, look, memory is faulty, 00:10:21.389 --> 00:10:23.509 narrative gets shaped, this isn't pure fact. 00:10:23.730 --> 00:10:26.110 So managing expectations, but also... But also 00:10:26.110 --> 00:10:28.620 making a point. He's signaling his awareness 00:10:28.620 --> 00:10:31.620 of subjective reality, giving himself permission, 00:10:31.820 --> 00:10:34.799 maybe, to tweak things slightly to get at a bigger 00:10:34.799 --> 00:10:37.279 emotional truth, while simultaneously making 00:10:37.279 --> 00:10:40.559 you, the reader, constantly aware that you're 00:10:40.559 --> 00:10:43.080 reading a constructed narrative. The theme perception 00:10:43.080 --> 00:10:46.220 versus objective fact that comes back again and 00:10:46.220 --> 00:10:47.879 again, doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. It becomes 00:10:47.879 --> 00:10:50.200 central to almost everything he writes after 00:10:50.200 --> 00:10:53.529 that. Which leads us right into his big mainstream 00:10:53.529 --> 00:10:56.450 breakthrough books, the pop culture manifestos. 00:10:56.509 --> 00:11:00.009 Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs in 2003. That one 00:11:00.009 --> 00:11:03.470 was huge. A bestseller. How did it define a genre? 00:11:03.789 --> 00:11:06.250 Well, it wasn't just like random essays. It felt 00:11:06.250 --> 00:11:08.190 like a coherent argument. The argument being. 00:11:08.889 --> 00:11:11.309 Real insights about our culture are often hiding 00:11:11.309 --> 00:11:13.549 in plain sight in the stuff we usually ignore 00:11:13.549 --> 00:11:16.649 or call low culture. Right. The low culture manifesto 00:11:16.649 --> 00:11:19.250 subtitle. Yeah. He basically perfected the art 00:11:19.250 --> 00:11:22.269 of applying serious critical theory to, well, 00:11:22.429 --> 00:11:24.529 to Cocoa Puffs or Saved by the Bell or The Sims. 00:11:24.629 --> 00:11:26.710 I remember the Saved by the Bell essay. He argues 00:11:26.710 --> 00:11:28.649 the characters are these perfect archetypes of 00:11:28.649 --> 00:11:31.080 consumerism. Yeah, like they're so perfectly 00:11:31.080 --> 00:11:33.019 manufactured. They almost teach a generation 00:11:33.019 --> 00:11:35.600 how to navigate high school social structures 00:11:35.600 --> 00:11:39.100 and, you know, fake problems or analyzing the 00:11:39.100 --> 00:11:41.460 Sims to talk about modern romance and control. 00:11:41.679 --> 00:11:45.100 He finds the profound in the mundane. That's 00:11:45.100 --> 00:11:47.620 the hook. If you look hard enough, the big ideas 00:11:47.620 --> 00:11:49.860 are right there in the trivia stuff. Yeah. And 00:11:49.860 --> 00:11:51.620 he followed that up with eating the dinosaur 00:11:51.620 --> 00:11:54.879 in 2009. That one felt even more focused on how 00:11:54.879 --> 00:11:57.639 media and technology were changing how we perceive 00:11:57.639 --> 00:12:00.820 everything. Celebrity, time, reality itself. 00:12:01.159 --> 00:12:02.679 He was definitely ahead of the curve on some 00:12:02.679 --> 00:12:05.259 of that stuff, thinking about mediated life before 00:12:05.259 --> 00:12:07.419 it became, you know, our constant reality. For 00:12:07.419 --> 00:12:10.159 sure. And then, then comes the really interesting 00:12:10.159 --> 00:12:13.200 shift, where he starts using pop culture not 00:12:13.200 --> 00:12:15.820 just as the subject, but more as the evidence 00:12:15.820 --> 00:12:18.240 for tackling these big abstract philosophical 00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:20.519 questions. The philosophical turn, where does 00:12:20.519 --> 00:12:22.750 that start? You can really see it crystallizing 00:12:22.750 --> 00:12:25.669 with I Wear the Black Hat, grappling with villains, 00:12:25.970 --> 00:12:28.950 real and imagined, in 2013. That book isn't just 00:12:28.950 --> 00:12:31.429 about who's bad. It's about why we decide someone 00:12:31.429 --> 00:12:34.279 is a villain. It's about perception again. Exactly. 00:12:34.379 --> 00:12:38.080 Why do we collectively condemn, say, the unabomber, 00:12:38.179 --> 00:12:40.519 but maybe turn another destructive figure into 00:12:40.519 --> 00:12:43.620 an antihero or just forget them? It's not about 00:12:43.620 --> 00:12:46.000 a fixed moral score. It's about how villainy 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:48.779 functions within our cultural stories. So the 00:12:48.779 --> 00:12:52.159 villain is defined by how they fit into the narrative 00:12:52.159 --> 00:12:54.580 we tell ourselves about ourselves. That's a great 00:12:54.580 --> 00:12:57.279 way to put it. Who plays the role of antagonist 00:12:57.279 --> 00:13:00.179 in our current story? But the absolute peak of 00:13:00.179 --> 00:13:02.080 this philosophical approach, I think, in his 00:13:02.080 --> 00:13:05.159 most successful book in this vein was, but what 00:13:05.159 --> 00:13:07.799 if we're wrong? Thinking about the present as 00:13:07.799 --> 00:13:12.039 if it were the past from 2016. Ah, yes. This 00:13:12.039 --> 00:13:13.980 one feels like a real mind bender. It forces 00:13:13.980 --> 00:13:16.659 you, the listener, to really question your own 00:13:16.659 --> 00:13:19.080 time. Totally. It asks you to imagine looking 00:13:19.080 --> 00:13:21.299 back and now from the future, the way we look 00:13:21.299 --> 00:13:24.600 back at, say, the 1800s. What bedrock beliefs, 00:13:24.740 --> 00:13:27.000 what cultural certainties of today will seem 00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:29.100 completely wrong, maybe even laughable in 100 00:13:29.100 --> 00:13:31.379 years? It's an exercise in intellectual humility, 00:13:31.620 --> 00:13:33.919 basically. Confronting the idea that we're probably 00:13:33.919 --> 00:13:35.840 wrong about a lot of things we feel certain about. 00:13:36.110 --> 00:13:38.830 Right. He uses examples like maybe our understanding 00:13:38.830 --> 00:13:41.350 of gravity is just, you know, a temporary model 00:13:41.350 --> 00:13:43.149 that future science will completely overturn, 00:13:43.450 --> 00:13:46.610 like how we view pre -Newtonian ideas now. Or 00:13:46.610 --> 00:13:48.889 rock and roll. He questions if it will really 00:13:48.889 --> 00:13:51.950 be seen as this dominant, permanent art form 00:13:51.950 --> 00:13:55.090 we think it is. Yeah. He floats the idea that 00:13:55.090 --> 00:13:57.370 maybe future critics will see it as this weird, 00:13:57.490 --> 00:14:00.529 historically specific blip, like vaudeville or 00:14:00.529 --> 00:14:03.470 something. While maybe some writer, hardly anyone 00:14:03.470 --> 00:14:06.289 knows now, will be seen as the truly enduring 00:14:06.289 --> 00:14:09.309 figure of our era. So challenging the whole idea 00:14:09.309 --> 00:14:11.789 of predicting what lasts. Our certainty might 00:14:11.789 --> 00:14:14.129 actually be a sign that it won't last. It's a 00:14:14.129 --> 00:14:16.549 powerful idea. It forces you to question everything. 00:14:17.210 --> 00:14:19.870 Is democracy as we know it the final form? Is 00:14:19.870 --> 00:14:22.830 our understanding of basic biology correct? By 00:14:22.830 --> 00:14:25.250 making us imagine future historians finding our 00:14:25.250 --> 00:14:27.649 current bluffs quaint or absurd, he makes us 00:14:27.649 --> 00:14:30.110 sharper critics of the present. And clearly that 00:14:30.110 --> 00:14:32.409 approach resonated. His next major nonfiction 00:14:32.409 --> 00:14:34.990 book, the 90s from 2022, about that decade. See, 00:14:34.990 --> 00:14:36.850 viewed at number two on the Times bestseller 00:14:36.850 --> 00:14:39.649 list. Yeah. That kind of sustained success shows 00:14:39.649 --> 00:14:41.639 he's really tapped into something. We should 00:14:41.639 --> 00:14:43.740 also mention the collections, right? Chuck Klosterman 00:14:43.740 --> 00:14:46.779 V and Chuck Klosterman X. They seem important, 00:14:46.879 --> 00:14:51.139 too. Definitely. 4V from 2006 had articles, but 00:14:51.139 --> 00:14:54.340 also that semi -autobiographical novella hinting 00:14:54.340 --> 00:14:57.720 at his fiction writing. And X from 2017 had that 00:14:57.720 --> 00:15:01.440 amazing subtitle, a highly specific, defiantly 00:15:01.440 --> 00:15:04.360 incomplete history of the early 21st century. 00:15:04.659 --> 00:15:07.330 Classic Klosterman. Acknowledging the limits 00:15:07.330 --> 00:15:09.750 right up front. Exactly. It shows he sees his 00:15:09.750 --> 00:15:12.049 work not just as commentary, but as a kind of 00:15:12.049 --> 00:15:14.830 active, subjective archiving of our time through 00:15:14.830 --> 00:15:18.389 his very specific filter. OK, so beyond the essays 00:15:18.389 --> 00:15:20.549 and the big idea books, he's also experimented 00:15:20.549 --> 00:15:22.289 quite a bit, hasn't he? Fiction, other formats. 00:15:22.429 --> 00:15:24.049 Yeah, he hasn't just stuck to one thing. His 00:15:24.049 --> 00:15:25.690 fiction work is really interesting because you 00:15:25.690 --> 00:15:28.129 can see him using stories, hypothetical situations 00:15:28.129 --> 00:15:30.590 to explore those same core themes about perception, 00:15:30.870 --> 00:15:33.750 reality, isolation. Like Downtown Owl, his first 00:15:33.750 --> 00:15:35.600 novel in 2008. That one goes right. back to his 00:15:35.600 --> 00:15:38.600 roots right fictional town owl north dakota exactly 00:15:38.600 --> 00:15:41.419 after years analyzing culture coming out of the 00:15:41.419 --> 00:15:44.480 coast he flips it and gives voice to that quiet 00:15:44.480 --> 00:15:47.120 midwestern place that shaped his own skepticism 00:15:47.120 --> 00:15:49.840 it feels like putting north dakota back in the 00:15:49.840 --> 00:15:52.279 center of the story for a change then the visible 00:15:52.279 --> 00:15:55.600 man in 2011 that one's more sci -fi guy with 00:15:55.600 --> 00:15:58.710 a cloaking device Yeah, but it's classic Klosterman 00:15:58.710 --> 00:16:01.269 sci -fi. The device isn't really the point. It's 00:16:01.269 --> 00:16:03.929 a tool to explore our anxieties about being watched, 00:16:04.029 --> 00:16:06.950 about voyeurism, about the kind of detached observation 00:16:06.950 --> 00:16:09.649 that celebrity culture thrives on. The cloak 00:16:09.649 --> 00:16:12.149 is basically just a physical version of the critical 00:16:12.149 --> 00:16:14.190 distance he tries to achieve in his essays. Okay, 00:16:14.269 --> 00:16:16.590 that makes sense. But the really intriguing one, 00:16:16.629 --> 00:16:19.669 maybe, is Raised in Captivity from 2019, that 00:16:19.669 --> 00:16:23.139 collection of short stories described as Fictional 00:16:23.139 --> 00:16:25.940 nonfiction. What does that even mean? Yeah, fictional 00:16:25.940 --> 00:16:28.059 nonfiction. It's such a claustrum in term, isn't 00:16:28.059 --> 00:16:30.919 it? It really calls back to that 85 % true idea. 00:16:31.299 --> 00:16:34.379 Okay, how so? Well, it basically makes that concept 00:16:34.379 --> 00:16:37.740 official. It acknowledges up front that absolute 00:16:37.740 --> 00:16:41.019 objective truth is slippery, especially when 00:16:41.019 --> 00:16:42.960 you're dealing with weird anecdotes, personal 00:16:42.960 --> 00:16:46.120 memories, or things filtered through media. By 00:16:46.120 --> 00:16:48.720 calling it fictional nonfiction, he gives himself 00:16:48.720 --> 00:16:51.279 the freedom to explore ideas through made -up 00:16:51.279 --> 00:16:53.360 scenarios. While still asking you to think about 00:16:53.360 --> 00:16:55.759 the underlying point as if it were real analysis. 00:16:56.200 --> 00:16:58.799 Exactly. It's like saying the story might be 00:16:58.799 --> 00:17:01.379 invented, but the observation about human nature 00:17:01.379 --> 00:17:03.940 or society embedded within it, that part's real. 00:17:04.059 --> 00:17:06.420 Think about that. It's a statement about the 00:17:06.420 --> 00:17:08.960 limits of pure journalism in a way. Interesting. 00:17:09.019 --> 00:17:11.519 And then he even did those card sets, HY hypotheticals 00:17:11.519 --> 00:17:13.779 and supratheticals. Yeah, which is kind of fun. 00:17:13.819 --> 00:17:16.759 It basically takes his main tool, the weird hypothetical 00:17:16.759 --> 00:17:19.180 question designed to spark debate and reveal 00:17:19.180 --> 00:17:21.319 assumptions, unless the audience use it themselves, 00:17:21.720 --> 00:17:24.700 turns his method into a party game almost. So 00:17:24.700 --> 00:17:26.980 he's spreading the method. And he did actual 00:17:26.980 --> 00:17:29.460 academic work, too, taught in Germany. Yeah, 00:17:29.559 --> 00:17:32.579 Leipzig University, 2008, Picador guest professor 00:17:32.579 --> 00:17:35.430 for literature. So he wasn't just commenting 00:17:35.430 --> 00:17:37.809 on American culture. He was teaching international 00:17:37.809 --> 00:17:40.930 students how to analyze it critically. Plus his 00:17:40.930 --> 00:17:43.609 role at Grantland. That feels significant. Original 00:17:43.609 --> 00:17:46.150 consulting editor. Absolutely vital. Grantland 00:17:46.150 --> 00:17:48.910 was trying to do something specific, blend serious, 00:17:48.990 --> 00:17:51.789 long -form writing with sports and pop culture. 00:17:52.690 --> 00:17:54.789 Klosterman's involvement gave it instant intellectual 00:17:54.789 --> 00:17:57.710 credibility. He was the perfect bridge figure 00:17:57.710 --> 00:17:59.789 for what they were trying to achieve, connecting 00:17:59.789 --> 00:18:02.809 that old -school journalism depth with a new, 00:18:03.009 --> 00:18:05.210 smarter take on culture. And then there are all 00:18:05.210 --> 00:18:07.630 the media appearances. He seems to pop up in 00:18:07.630 --> 00:18:10.250 documentaries, TV shows. Yeah, he's become a 00:18:10.250 --> 00:18:12.299 recognizable cultural... figure in his own right 00:18:12.299 --> 00:18:14.940 like in that lcd sound system documentary shut 00:18:14.940 --> 00:18:16.559 up and play the hits right his interview with 00:18:16.559 --> 00:18:18.539 james murphy was kind of the core of that film 00:18:18.539 --> 00:18:21.339 wasn't it it really was it provided the intellectual 00:18:21.339 --> 00:18:24.740 spine the why behind the band's decision to stop 00:18:24.740 --> 00:18:26.920 he wasn't just a talking head he was framing 00:18:26.920 --> 00:18:29.400 the whole narrative and then the more yeah well 00:18:29.400 --> 00:18:32.059 funny appearances like being animated on adult 00:18:32.059 --> 00:18:35.750 swim huh Yeah, on Carl's stone -cold lock of 00:18:35.750 --> 00:18:38.250 the century of the week. Which is great, because 00:18:38.250 --> 00:18:40.150 it shows he doesn't take his own persona too 00:18:40.150 --> 00:18:43.190 seriously. The humor comes from plopping his 00:18:43.190 --> 00:18:46.269 very analytical style into that completely absurd 00:18:46.269 --> 00:18:48.970 context. And didn't he have that line about Wikipedia? 00:18:49.390 --> 00:18:52.450 Oh yeah, the best. Carl keeps spouting nonsense. 00:18:52.869 --> 00:18:55.869 And Klosterman deadpans, asking if Carl's facts 00:18:55.869 --> 00:19:00.079 are, quote, perhaps from Wikipedia. It's perfect. 00:19:00.240 --> 00:19:03.460 It's his whole career in one line, bringing media 00:19:03.460 --> 00:19:06.019 literacy critique to the weirdest places. He 00:19:06.019 --> 00:19:08.400 even showed up on documentary now. Yeah. Playing 00:19:08.400 --> 00:19:10.420 a fake music critic. Right, for the Blue Jean 00:19:10.420 --> 00:19:13.059 Committee. Again, willing to satirize the very 00:19:13.059 --> 00:19:15.440 thing he actually does for a living. That takes 00:19:15.440 --> 00:19:17.200 a certain confidence. And he's kept current, 00:19:17.319 --> 00:19:20.359 moving into podcasts too. Co -hosting music exists, 00:19:20.640 --> 00:19:23.099 appearing on Storybound. It just shows he adapts. 00:19:23.099 --> 00:19:25.220 His voice, his way of thinking, it works across 00:19:25.220 --> 00:19:27.799 platforms. He finds ways to keep dissecting culture, 00:19:27.980 --> 00:19:31.059 whatever the format is. Hashtag tag outro. So 00:19:31.059 --> 00:19:32.920 when you pull it all together, Chuck Klosterman 00:19:32.920 --> 00:19:34.920 occupies this really unique space, doesn't he? 00:19:34.940 --> 00:19:36.779 He's got this deep grounding in the Midwest, 00:19:37.019 --> 00:19:40.440 you know, Windmere, North Dakota. that outsider 00:19:40.440 --> 00:19:42.759 perspective. But he's also completely fluent 00:19:42.759 --> 00:19:45.859 in the most inside baseball aspects of national 00:19:45.859 --> 00:19:49.900 media, sports theory, low culture, high philosophy. 00:19:50.140 --> 00:19:53.259 It's a weird mix. It really is. And his career 00:19:53.259 --> 00:19:55.420 is just this masterclass in synthesis, I think. 00:19:55.759 --> 00:19:57.740 It proves that sometimes the sharpest cultural 00:19:57.740 --> 00:19:59.839 critics are the ones who've kept one foot outside 00:19:59.839 --> 00:20:02.079 the thing they're analyzing. That distance is 00:20:02.079 --> 00:20:04.480 key. Right. That skepticism born from isolation. 00:20:05.069 --> 00:20:07.589 And just to add that last bit of context from 00:20:07.589 --> 00:20:10.170 the sources, he's married to journalist Melissa 00:20:10.170 --> 00:20:14.579 Maris since 2009, has two kids. So maintains 00:20:14.579 --> 00:20:17.480 a private life somewhat separate from the media 00:20:17.480 --> 00:20:20.039 world he dissects. Which probably helps maintain 00:20:20.039 --> 00:20:22.079 that perspective. So what's the big takeaway 00:20:22.079 --> 00:20:24.319 here for you, the listener? Klosterman isn't 00:20:24.319 --> 00:20:26.240 just some guy who wrote cleverly about rock bands 00:20:26.240 --> 00:20:28.839 or basketball. No, he's much more. He's a synthesizer, 00:20:28.839 --> 00:20:31.119 right? Using pop culture, sometimes the sillier 00:20:31.119 --> 00:20:33.440 the better, as a way to ask these really fundamental 00:20:33.440 --> 00:20:35.619 questions. Yeah, questions about identity, what 00:20:35.619 --> 00:20:37.960 makes something last, how we decide who the bad 00:20:37.960 --> 00:20:40.740 guys are, how reliable our own perceptions even 00:20:40.740 --> 00:20:43.640 are. He makes us think about why. we value the 00:20:43.640 --> 00:20:45.880 things we value which brings us perfectly to 00:20:45.880 --> 00:20:47.720 that final thought for you to chew on drawing 00:20:47.720 --> 00:20:51.359 straight from but what if we're wrong okay so 00:20:51.359 --> 00:20:55.559 think about right now our current moment what 00:20:55.559 --> 00:20:59.480 deeply held belief what cultural certainty that 00:20:59.480 --> 00:21:01.700 feels absolutely solid and permanent today could 00:21:01.700 --> 00:21:03.700 be about anything technology celebrity music 00:21:03.700 --> 00:21:06.519 politics what current thing do you think people 00:21:07.389 --> 00:21:10.130 50 or 100 years from now, we'll look back on 00:21:10.130 --> 00:21:13.690 and find completely, demonstrably, maybe even 00:21:13.690 --> 00:21:17.309 hilariously wrong. Yeah. What widely accepted 00:21:17.309 --> 00:21:20.029 truth of 2024 is going to be the equivalent of, 00:21:20.130 --> 00:21:22.049 I don't know, thinking leisure suits were peak 00:21:22.049 --> 00:21:25.809 fashion? What's the Fargo Rock City of right 00:21:25.809 --> 00:21:27.670 now? The thing we take so seriously that will 00:21:27.670 --> 00:21:29.950 eventually seem like this weird temporary cultural 00:21:29.950 --> 00:21:32.529 blip. That blindness to our own moment's absurdities. 00:21:32.529 --> 00:21:34.130 That's what Klosterman is always trying to get 00:21:34.130 --> 00:21:35.829 us to see. And usually the thing you're most 00:21:35.829 --> 00:21:38.130 sure about. That's probably the place to start 00:21:38.130 --> 00:21:40.049 questioning. Always is. All right. That's been 00:21:40.049 --> 00:21:42.289 the deep dive on Chuck Klosterman. Go forth and 00:21:42.289 --> 00:21:43.710 question everything.