Chuck Klosterman’s new book: first impressions
August 18th, 2008 by Justin Richards in Books
Chuck Klosterman is a very popular writer who, in this reader’s opinion, is not crappy (e.g. Dan Brown) or gimmicky (Chuck Palahniuk) or sickeningly obnoxious (Jonathan Safran Foer). That makes him unique in the world of contemporary letters.
Mostly, he’s famous for turning pop culture inside out in order to show his readers how truly bizarre it is. You wouldn’t expect this to transfer well into a novel. But at the essence of what he does, even in books like Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs and Chuck Klosterman IV, is a doggedly pursued curiousness about human feelings and relationships. People like him because he articulates major things that they felt but didn’t understand, that they would have thought inarticulable. And he does so in a remarkably conversational way. His writing is smart, but it’s not trying to prove it.
In this way, his first novel delivers. Since I got my hands on an advance copy of Downtown Owl last night, I’ve been jumping into various chapters of the novel and reading on until the next. It’s relentlessly interesting, even when read this way.
Using a “What she said:/What she meant:” device, he exposes the logical framework under a flirtatious conversation. In another chapter, when a man begins to realize he’s been ruined by a massive con, he gets a feeling in his stomach like “when you reach your hand back to get your wallet and suddenly realize it’s not there. “
Chuck Klosterman fans know the feeling you get when reading his writing, like when you have a psychoanalytic breakthrough. And in this book, the payoff is near-constant. That may cause us to forgive him any flaws as a novelist.
But hey, not everyone who reads his books will take a critical eye to them. Many readers of this novel may very well be non-readers. That’s because Chuck Klosterman is the perfect crossover writer. He’s popular without being any of the nasty things listed above, but he’s also well-liked among elitist literati folks, despite not being confusing, cloying or ironic.
Downtown Owl comes out Sept. 16. If you like Chuck Klosterman, it won’t disappoint. If you’ve never heard of him, you might want to check it out. He’s very accessible.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Justin, I know part of you loves Jonathan Safran Foer. Don’t deny it. That part of you that sings in the shower, or calls a bluff on a pot you know you can’t win, just for the sake of calling bluffs. Admit it Justin.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
“He articulates major things they felt but didn’t understand, that they would have thought inarticulable. And he does so in a remarkably conversational way. His writing is smart, but it’s not trying to prove it.”
Although “inarticuable” is, ironically enough, not a word, you just described the best kind of writing in a nutshell.
I think Chuck is great, but to say he’s not ironic? Uh, what pages are you reading?
Curious, how did you land an advanced copy?
August 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Shame on me for relying on the spell checker to tell me what was a word. I guess “ineffable” just didn’t feel like something a good person would write in a blog.
I maintain that he’s not such an ironic writer. Although he often comments on low culture, he does so with the earnest intent of telling you why this is just as important as anything else. He does use sarcastic humor a lot, though, I’ll give you that. I guess I mean that he’s not ironic overall.
And I wish I could say that they sent me an advance copy because I’m a very important member of the news media and my critical opinion is important to the people at Scribner, but in reality I know someone who works at Barnes & Noble.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Jonathan Safran Foer has written two of the three books (i’ll keep the third to myself for personal reasons) that have brought me to tears. ‘everything is illuminated’ changed my life. i’m curious what you find “sickeningly obnoxious” about him?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Reading “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” was like sitting down with plateful of brownies and continuing to eat them long past the point where they’re satisfying. They’ve just become cloying, hard to choke down even, but for some inexplicable reason you keep putting them in your mouth.
I have more specific and less sensational thoughts about that book, but I wouldn’t put it better than this review which I liked:
http://www.nypress.com/18/15/news&columns/harrysiegel.cfm
August 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Here’s an example of something that happened constantly in ELAIC. Foer wouldn’t want to come out and say directly that the mother kept going off and crying while they were cleaning out the father’s storage. That would have been too sentimental, I guess, like any amateur novelist.
What separates an extra smart writer like Foer is that he has the kid keep saying that his mom went to the bathroom a lot. This is like trying to hide a hickey by putting a big ugly scarf over it that keeps falling down anyway. Why would the kid repeatedly tell us about his mom going to the bathroom? I’d rather you just show me the hickey and not assault my senses with your self-consciousness, which, in Foer’s case, you wear like a badge of pride.
There are better examples of this but it’s been more than a year since I read the book. Anyway, maybe “Everything is Illuminated” was a lot better. I didn’t read that one.