But What If We're Wrong? Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past

Nope. No. Life's too short for books that piss me off - TO THE DID-NOT-FINISH DUNGEON WITH THEE.

Okay, first, I thought this book was a totally different thing: I picked this up when I was on a “the oil's gonna run out, we're all gonna die, Dark Ages are comin'!!!!!” apocalypse bender, and was looking for similarly dire Nostradamus-type end times nonfic. This book is, instead, about how we're all so blinded by our contemporary context that we can't know what will survive of our (current) civilization, and how our (current) civilization will be interpreted in ~500 years time. Consider “fine literature”, for example!!

Which is all fine and good and, sure, I agree. Crazy, right! The future, eh? Who knows! Like that hilarious and genius moment in Star Trek IV, when Kirk mentions his favorite 20th century authors (“Ah,” Spock says, “the giants.”). But I guess any future prognostication by someone inevitably reveals that person's core beliefs about society, politics, and human nature, and let's just say I found Klosterman's core beliefs to be, ahem, GROUNDS FOR THE DUNGEON.

Let me, like Abelard, list my misfortunes and why I stopped:
- Klosterman narrates the intro to the audiobook, and finishes it with, “and now - because I like the sound of British women talking - so-and-so, a woman from England, will narrate the rest of the book.” Gag.
- Let's talk about literature! Klosterman notes that the literary criticism zeitgeist these days is embodied in Junot Diaz's belief that, in the future, the Great Authors of our period will NOT be white cis hetero dudes from middle class upbringings yadda yadda. i.e. Klosterman notes that the lit zeitgeist is left-leaning and socially progressive. More news at 11. Klosterman notes that some NYT and Guardian or other “best of” book lists have a PERFECT 50/50 split between male and female authors and doesn't that just undermine the list, ya know? Like, obbbviously they were just ARTIFICIALLY trying to have a statistically representative group of male/female authors, psshhh what nonsense. He's not trying to be offensive or anything (he assures us) and surely the unfairness of affirmative action is less than the unfairness of the patriarchy, but ya know, WHO KNOWS who will be the future's considerations of the 20th century literary giants, because surely it's not 50/50 split, it might be 51/49! For example, maybe it'll be George Saunders? Maybe Jonathan Franzen or Thomas Pynchon or OH WOW I DON'T APPARENTLY KNOW OF ANY FEMALE AUTHORS.

...By this point, we were on thin ice and I was like, ya know, why do I gotta waste my time with a book that makes me feel shitty? Like, I don't always want to have to pick up sword and shield and have to defend the POSSIBILITY that a uterus does not obstruct talent or intelligence... Yes, even the bullshit “devil's advocate” “let's just hypothesize” stuff that some dudes do, where they're like, “I'm not saying I'm sexist but, gosh, political correctness really stifles debate!” The debate about my intelligence, you mean? The one where - if you “lose” - you lost a debate, but - if I “lose” - I lost my right to equality and a fair playing field? As Sandor Clegane would say.

Sigh. Anyway. So, my hackles were now at a fever pitch. And then Klosterman mentions that “Kafka-esque” is used as a synonym for “dream-like fiction” and I was like, NO NO, Kafka-esque is a synonym for modernist, anti-human bureaucracies HAVE YOU EVEN READ ANY OF HIS SHIT. And I threw my earbuds across the room and remembered my rights of a reader and that Audible gives refunds and SO LONG, SUCKERS.