Dear Chuck,
I first encountered your work three years ago as an incoming freshman required to read Fargo Rock City for Stanford’s Three Books Program. I admittedly skimmed the book, as the first 20 pages were filled with heavy metal references that simply did not engage me.
Yet, this book was different. Your vague assignment on rockstar deaths enabled you to present a narrative that reflected on your relationships as well as a critique of American culture. I honestly did not expect a commentary on love, or the concept of “winning” and “losing” while pursuing it, but I enjoyed it. While reading, I found myself chuckling at how much you admired “Crazy in Love,” wishing I had an impromptu discussion on books and dreams with a waitress like Mary Beth, and agreeing with how superficial Los Angeles is via your screenplay.
Also, the numerous bold claims and personal anecdotes you included could have easily gotten you in trouble with a) the law or b) your former love interests. I am referring to the cocaine snorting, DeeDee exposure anecdote, the 9/11 Kid A claims, etc.
Considering it could risky it was to include these, how did you gain confidence in your style of writing? What do you think your audience gains from your flashbacks that you weave into your writing?
Best,
Joy
P.S.
Sorry about Quincy ;(
I can’t speak on behalf of where Chuck gained his confidence and his writing style, but it seems to still be in development. I thoroughly enjoyed this novel, the fun anecdotes it presents, and the hilarious rock and roll references. This book contained a lot more personal information about Chuck than I originally expected. The pretense of an epic rock n roll road trip seems to turn into an exploration of Chuck’s mind which I will argue is a metaphor for what travel is supposed to represent in this text. Klosterman takes on this journey driving all over to contiguous united states and at each location of famous rockstar demise, Chuck seems more introspective and reflective than interested in where he is visiting. He learns more about himself that first expected on a trip specifically designed to explore stories about famous dead musicians.
ReplyDeleteChuck has some interesting things to say about the notion of being a traveler vs being a tourist. He discusses how within the world of pop culture people will allow themselves to be convinced that they’re sharing a reality that doesn’t actually exist. He states how many people will get caught up in all the iconic nonsense that they cannot think for themselves or care genuinely about things. To me this relates to the idea of being a traveler vs being a tourist. I see a traveler as someone who carries an open mind and is eager to learn about the world whereas a tourist already has in mind what they’ve come to do and see, taking the imagination and surprise out of travel. Some argue that there is no difference between these two terms and that to locals we are all tourists. I think this is something worthy of discussion perhaps in relation to Chuck’s idea of the slow rider vs the free rider.
Lastly, a travel debate sparked by the reading could detail the effects of globalization. Chuck discusses the south for sometime and how the people do not seem open to new ideals. They like who they are and wouldn’t want to change.
Hi Chuck,
ReplyDeleteAs Cheyenne, TJ, and Joy mentioned, I really appreciated the way you express your thoughts and ideas throughout your book. Though I don't agree with all of them--I find people's personal 9/11 memories fascinating, for example--I admire your bluntness, and the way in which you observe the world around you. Sometimes, I would read a sentence, and instantly be caught off guard because it seemed just so true, like you were putting my own thoughts and observations into words, though I might never had articulated such things. From ideas about celebrities and why we care about their lives to regular (though not necessarily morbid) thoughts about death, I saw a lot of truth in what you said, and appreciated the fact that you said things that others might choose not to, including the illegal and personal anecdotes that Joy points out.
Aside from that, though, I loved your blunt observations about places. I laughed at the idea that "in New York, people are unhappy n purpose, because unhappiness makes them seem more complex." Your characterizations of places were fascinating to me, like unspoken truths that you finally gave voice to. You also called Manhattan a "beautiful, sour, sarcastic place," which I find a lovely, romantic, and accurate way to describe it. This makes me wonder, though, how different places in the country are characterized. You call Los Angeles a "bozo-saturated hellhole," and though I agree, I find it interesting that different cities have such different personalities. To be fair, New York and Los Angeles are thousands of miles apart; but even Boston and New York have different personalities, and they're just a few short hours apart. Do different cities attract certain types of people, or do the people define the city? Do romantic notions of a city influence the way people see it?
Cultural and social norms are something to consider when traveling, and though I normally think of such differences when it comes to international travel--like Simone De Beauvoir, for example--I like the way your book highlighted cultural and social differences throughout the United States, where such differences might be less obvious or simply ignored.
Thanks for writing about your journey! I loved reading about it. Good luck with wherever the road may take you.
Best,
Devon