So, I attended the much-anticipated (from my perspective, at least) Chuck Klosterman talk as a part of the Bartlett Lecture Series at the University of Alaska. Many kudos to the administrators of the Bartlett Lectures, named for Senator E. L. Bartlett (learn more). It appeared to be a good turnout of interested students and casual onlookers.
I was, overall, pleased to hear Chuck’s talk. His reputation in music criticism circles is pretty far-reaching, so my ignorance and general disinterest didn’t help; “Chinese Democracy” is, first, a song by Guns N’Roses, and, only second, a hoped-for political outcome.
What most caught my attention about Chuck was the great pleasure he finds doing stand-up before a crowd. He’s an author (of course), but his detached joy at entertaining others reminded me more of Andrew Dice Clay and less of, you know, David Brooks. It is evident that Chuck has, and exercises liberally, the gift of gab (“I detect, like me, you’re endowed with the gift of gab,” Ulysses Everett McGill). After about 20 minutes or so, I began to bob-and-weave with his ‘routine,’ but, prior to this, I was heartily disappointed. I had come with every intention of following his train of thought closely, examining his critique of popular culture, evaluating its merits, and so on, and so on. I had expected to receive intellectual conclusions but, it turns out, I first had to learn to ‘get the jokes.’
I think what this really means is that Chuck’s specialty is simply describing popular culture in a humorous, experiential way. What I had hoped for, and what had initially peaked my interest in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs (and, to a degree, Killing Yourself to Life), was a thoughtful critique of what is good and what is bad about popular culture. One of the questioners asked about the rise of ‘Philistine’ music acts like The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus, hoping to hear Chuck bemoan their destructive influence on better music. Instead, he described how these artists came to be, and how other artists will still find their audience. Chuck was almost exclusively descriptive. Indeed, all evening I heard very little criticism, and a lot of observation.
And his observations are voluminous! Chuck hops from one cultural artifact to the next, like a turbocharged sausage maker, sucking in mashed organs, grinding it up, and spitting it into tightly wound porcine-incased packets. Off to the market they go before we have a chance to critique his observations, asking how they came to be and why they’re relevant and if they are right or wrong. Seemingly, there will be no re-shaping of the sausages with Chuck; they are already sealed and smoked . . . and more are coming!
I asked Chuck what he thought about the tragically-titled “New Calvinism” movement noted by Time Magazine and hyped through The Resurgence. I had assumed his interest in Evangelical happenings based upon comments he made in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs (232ff) about Kirk Cameron, the Left Behind series, etc. Chuck was aware of “New Calvinism,” of course; I think Chuck reads a lot, and remembers a lot! He observed “Born Again” Evangelicalism as a collection of people with a message of eternal life and earthly contentedness, and a desire (or admonition) to share this message with other people. Essentially, he described Evangelicals as (a) people with a belief, (b) for which they are very confident to share. Based on this, Chuck said nothing critical (positive or negative) about their beliefs as such, and said only a trifle about their desire to share their message (i.e. they are probably fueling much of what is happening in terms of internet growth). That’s all. Nothing more.
I have been pondering most of the day that, if your job is to write about popular culture, and you do so mainly for an American audience, wouldn’t it make sense to be rather “up-to-date” concerning the Christian scene? In all actuality, I think that my question may have been the stupidest question of the evening for Chuck. I think that I may have just unwittingly exhibited a bit naivete by expecting a “movement” within the Evangelical world to even register on Chuck’s pop-culture meter. It would seem that Christianity no longer represents even a sliver of popular culture in America. I knew this, of course (come on, I read David Wells!), but sometimes you know something, before you really know something?!
I would sincerely love to read Chuck’s observations about the Evangelical church and Protestantism in general. As far as my literature-dollars are concerned, I would happily purchase a book about Chuck’s visits to Protestant churches across the nation. Given one service each in a Dutch Reformed Church, an African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Brownsville Assembly of God (Pensacola), Chuck could have a heyday! But, alas, on the Spectrum of Cultural Indicators in America today, Evangelicalism slots well below the new Guns N’Roses song (or album, or whatever) about China.
Posted on 31 March, 2009
0