Chuck's analogy that culture is a deck of cards used to build cultural products that we stopped adding to at some point in the later 90's/early 2000's feels so true. I've had SiriusXM since 2006 (back then it was just Sirius) but it's shocking how many of the same stations sound almost the same now in 2022 as they did back then. Maybe hip-hop has done better in terms of evolving but pop hasn't and definitely not rock.
I am listening to this podcast and Klosterman is attempting to make an argument that the 2000 election was consequential, acting like people were nuts back in the day to thinking Bush and Gore were not that different. Is this real? Does anyone else think this?!?!
I thought all liberals thought Bush W is a swell guy now. I think it is clear that we have had basically a uniparty rule from 1988 through 2016 with the two bushes, clinton and Obama. All pro-corporation, pro-military complex, eager to demolish the middle class with “free-trade.”
George W basically nominated a liberal judge in john roberts.
Bush also had the highest approval ratings of any president for the period after 9/11.
The only reason we are whipped up now about politics is that it is necessary to distract the populace while blackrock and vanguard turn 99% of us into peasants and serfs.
Just finally got around to listening to this interview. I read The Nineties, and I really enjoyed it, and I enjoyed this interview.
However, just after the 34 minute mark, during the discussion of post-modernism, you say that David Foster Wallace "wrote a book about how all of the great math geniuses went crazy. They all went crazy or committed suicide, as he [DFW] lamentably did, because they didn't know that their feet were going to hit the floor when they got out of bed in the morning. And apparently to make a great discovery you need to be of that mindset."
You're referring to Everything and More, and DFW basically argued exactly the opposite of what you remember him saying. Here are some relevant bits:
"The cases of great mathematicians with mental illness have enormous resonance for modern pop writers and filmmakers. This has to do mostly with the writers’/directors’ own prejudices and receptivities, which in turn are functions of what you could call our era’s particular archetypal template. It goes without saying that these templates change over time. The Mentally Ill Mathematician seems now in some ways to be what the Knight Errant, Mortified Saint, Tortured Artist, and Mad Scientist have been for other eras: sort of our Prometheus, the one who goes to forbidden places and returns with gifts we all can use but he alone pays for. That’s probably a bit overblown, at least in most cases.1 Cantor fits the template better than most. And the reasons for this are a lot more interesting than whatever his problems and symptoms were.2"
"1. IYI [If You’re Interested] Although so is the other, antipodal, stereotype of mathematicians as nerdy little bowtied fissiparous creatures. In today’s archetypology, the two stereotypes seem to play off each other in important ways.
2. In modern medical terms, it’s fairly clear that G. F. L. P. Cantor suffered from manic-depressive illness at a time when nobody knew what this was, and that his polar cycles were aggravated by professional stresses and disappointments, of which Cantor had more than his share. This is, of course, makes for less interesting flap copy than Genius Driven Mad By Attempts To Grapple With ∞. The truth, though, is that Cantor’s work and its context are so totally interesting and beautiful that there’s no need for breathless Prometheusizing of the poor guy’s life. The real irony is that the view of ∞ as some forbidden zone or road to insanity—which view was very old and powerful and haunted math for 2000+ years—is precisely what Cantor’s own work overturned. Saying that ∞ drove Cantor mad is sort of like mourning St. George’s loss to the dragon: it’s not only wrong but insulting."
I'd love to know what older and younger generations think of my fellow Gen Xers at this moment in history (assuming they think about us at all). I wonder if those perceptions square with how we see ourselves and whether we stayed within the attitudinal guardrails the demographers stamped us with.
Personally, I still see myself as someone who is cynical by default, distrustful of authority but grudgingly accepting of its power over my life, philosophically liberal but ideologically promiscuous, grimly determined, and secretly optimistic. I wonder if those are common themes.
Chuck's analogy that culture is a deck of cards used to build cultural products that we stopped adding to at some point in the later 90's/early 2000's feels so true. I've had SiriusXM since 2006 (back then it was just Sirius) but it's shocking how many of the same stations sound almost the same now in 2022 as they did back then. Maybe hip-hop has done better in terms of evolving but pop hasn't and definitely not rock.
I am listening to this podcast and Klosterman is attempting to make an argument that the 2000 election was consequential, acting like people were nuts back in the day to thinking Bush and Gore were not that different. Is this real? Does anyone else think this?!?!
I thought all liberals thought Bush W is a swell guy now. I think it is clear that we have had basically a uniparty rule from 1988 through 2016 with the two bushes, clinton and Obama. All pro-corporation, pro-military complex, eager to demolish the middle class with “free-trade.”
George W basically nominated a liberal judge in john roberts.
Bush also had the highest approval ratings of any president for the period after 9/11.
The only reason we are whipped up now about politics is that it is necessary to distract the populace while blackrock and vanguard turn 99% of us into peasants and serfs.
Just finally got around to listening to this interview. I read The Nineties, and I really enjoyed it, and I enjoyed this interview.
However, just after the 34 minute mark, during the discussion of post-modernism, you say that David Foster Wallace "wrote a book about how all of the great math geniuses went crazy. They all went crazy or committed suicide, as he [DFW] lamentably did, because they didn't know that their feet were going to hit the floor when they got out of bed in the morning. And apparently to make a great discovery you need to be of that mindset."
You're referring to Everything and More, and DFW basically argued exactly the opposite of what you remember him saying. Here are some relevant bits:
"The cases of great mathematicians with mental illness have enormous resonance for modern pop writers and filmmakers. This has to do mostly with the writers’/directors’ own prejudices and receptivities, which in turn are functions of what you could call our era’s particular archetypal template. It goes without saying that these templates change over time. The Mentally Ill Mathematician seems now in some ways to be what the Knight Errant, Mortified Saint, Tortured Artist, and Mad Scientist have been for other eras: sort of our Prometheus, the one who goes to forbidden places and returns with gifts we all can use but he alone pays for. That’s probably a bit overblown, at least in most cases.1 Cantor fits the template better than most. And the reasons for this are a lot more interesting than whatever his problems and symptoms were.2"
"1. IYI [If You’re Interested] Although so is the other, antipodal, stereotype of mathematicians as nerdy little bowtied fissiparous creatures. In today’s archetypology, the two stereotypes seem to play off each other in important ways.
2. In modern medical terms, it’s fairly clear that G. F. L. P. Cantor suffered from manic-depressive illness at a time when nobody knew what this was, and that his polar cycles were aggravated by professional stresses and disappointments, of which Cantor had more than his share. This is, of course, makes for less interesting flap copy than Genius Driven Mad By Attempts To Grapple With ∞. The truth, though, is that Cantor’s work and its context are so totally interesting and beautiful that there’s no need for breathless Prometheusizing of the poor guy’s life. The real irony is that the view of ∞ as some forbidden zone or road to insanity—which view was very old and powerful and haunted math for 2000+ years—is precisely what Cantor’s own work overturned. Saying that ∞ drove Cantor mad is sort of like mourning St. George’s loss to the dragon: it’s not only wrong but insulting."
These bits and plenty of surrounding context (including the stuff about not knowing if your feet will hit the floor when you get out of bed) can be read here: https://www.conjunctions.com/online/article/david-foster-wallace-09-18-2003
Such a good interview! Ethan, you could totally parlay this into a great article with Mark Fisher as a central character. Totally a must listen pod.
Jesus- now i am listening to you fucking up the narrative on George HW Bush. Perot made Clinton President. Without Perot, HW wins easily. Fuck man.
I'd love to know what older and younger generations think of my fellow Gen Xers at this moment in history (assuming they think about us at all). I wonder if those perceptions square with how we see ourselves and whether we stayed within the attitudinal guardrails the demographers stamped us with.
Personally, I still see myself as someone who is cynical by default, distrustful of authority but grudgingly accepting of its power over my life, philosophically liberal but ideologically promiscuous, grimly determined, and secretly optimistic. I wonder if those are common themes.