The Idiot Board Readers Corner - General Discussion

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

Scootah brought up a good point via rep, that Tucker belittles everyone, not just women. That's fair. However, because he writes so much about sex, and has sex with so many women, it's only natural that people are going to reflect his narcissism through that prism. It's still a valid distinction to make.

Re: Sedaris vs. Max

Your Stephanie Meyer point is a non-starter. Nobody really thinks she's a good writer; they just think she writes books they can consume and enjoy. McDonald's sells billions of burgers, but would never make a Zagat's guide. Sedaris, on the other hand, has both massive commercial and critical success.

This isn't an accident. How many comedy snobs do you know that respect Dane Cook?

Your criticism that David thinks he's very clever is valid; he does seem to have a high opinion of his wit, and if you don't think he's funny, it can be grating. However, structurally, Sedaris is better than Max. That's no knock on Max, I just think that the way Sedaris structures his vignettes is pitch perfect. He's also a better technical writer: his turns of phrase are wittier, his vocabulary is sharper, his syntax is more fluid. He's a more introspective and self-critical person, the same quality that make Allen and David near-universally lauded; it also means that his stories aren't all essentially masturbatory.

That's a good thing in a writer. Tucker constantly belittles the other people in his stories, to the point where everybody except he and his friends is a prop.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

The Third Policeman by Flann O'Brien

On the back of my copy of The Third Policeman by Flann O’Brien it says that it is a brilliant comic novel about the nature of time, death, and existence. While it provided an interesting and short read, it ended up neither comic nor brilliant. This review has spoilers, but so does the foreword of the book, so screw it.

Maybe in 1939 when this book was written having a character that was dead throughout the majority of the book was original and awesome. But I’ve seen The Sixth Sense, and my mind can only be blown by that sort of twist once or twice before it loses shock value. Perhaps this book was written with the intention of provoking deep contemplations of tip-toeing the line of reality and other wacky philosophical ideas, but to me it just seems like it was written for the purpose of attempting to mind-fuck you. Any book that sets out shooting for the moon with that sort of goal is inevitably going to fall short.

This is the kind of book that probably requires multiple readings to fully digest and enjoy, but one read-through was torturous enough. There were a few spots that were a tad funny, but most attempts at humor just came off as the author trying to show how random and absurd he can be. I’m not surprised a lot of people found this funny. Absurdity for the sake of absurdity has its place in our culture and that’s why Family Guy is so popular. However, this book is not funny. A lot of people would claim this book is funny just so they do not seem below the material or like they didn’t get it, but there is nothing to get.

There are some good parts to this book, namely the author’s descriptive ability. His overall voice and prose are lacking (other than when the Joe character interacts with the narrator), the characters are mediocre and underdeveloped, but there are some scenes that are described so well that it makes the book salvageable. In the end the book did give me something profound to think about. It made me think about what I expect to get from a book. I don’t ask that the book changes my life or makes me laugh or even that every sentence is beautifully crafted. I merely want to be entertained, and not have to struggle through each page. At the end I should have the feeling of wanting to read more of the author’s work, not the exhausted feeling of accomplishment after doing a CrossFit workout. If the book does change my world view and make me a better person, good, that’s the beauty of reading.

Anyways, I would recommend the book to a friend because the payoff at the end is almost worth it and it has a great captivating opening sentence, which just about makes up for me not giving a shit throughout the rest of it.

(I'm currently 250 pages of 600 into Ken Kesey's "Sometimes a Great Notion" and it's fucking spectacular thus far.)

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

But just to clarify, you would absolutely stab KungFuMike a dozen times in his sleep, right?

I actually don't agree he is either of those two things. What I will say is that Tucker was/is opportunistic; he identified a possible niche, and worked reasonably hard to take advantage of it.

Serious props to him; I have always been impressed how far Tucker got with the skills (decent, but nothing special) he had; two funny books and a flawed but funny movie. I don't give a shit how well either did; he put his money where his mouth is, and produced work I like beyond a few stand-alone stories on a website.

That's a lot further than most Internet celebrities get. (Look at Maddox, who is funnier in many ways, or someone like Seanbaby)

Possibly, but it doesn't hurt my enjoyment of his writings. And I think it's impossible not to develop that mindset with the females he has slept with. Even the supposedly "normal" ones, like the virgins whose e-mails he published at the back of the book, are fundamentally fucked up idiots.

I know that's true of most women and men at large, but I feel like his sample of females are a standard deviation below the general populace in both. Even HotNurse strikes me as dumb through Tucker's own description.

Are the women who slavishly approach him for mindless sex with a celebrity any better?

Anyways, this has all been a bunch of rambling about an author, not his work, but it's fun to do after having read AFF.

Edit-

And I could give equally good examples for why "critical success" is a bunch of irrelevant bullshit in determining true quality as well. ("Crash", anyone?)

Using either as an argument is stupid, and in both cases, you're giving up your own opinion and point of view (or part of it) for what someone else is telling you to believe.

You admit yourself that David has a very high opinion of himself, yet his works aren't masturbatory, but Tucker's are? Look, both guys are narcissists, and that's okay. It's even okay that it creeps into both of their writing, to an extent. But I find Sedaris' pseudo-intellectual and often hilariously misguided BS far more persistently annoying than anything in Tucker's work.

A few times, Tucker gets overly giddy with himself, like with that Harlem RV story, and it drags the story down. But most of the time, he keeps the jokes and narrative flowing, while Sedaris often goes on long, empty spiels about his beliefs and thoughts, none of which are either original or entertaining.

At least Max understands what his audience wants in terms of entertainment, and gives it to them. Sedaris appeals to pretentious hipsters (hence the critical "success"), but doesn't have the jokes or stories to compensate.

As for technical writing...I don't know. Neither is particularly good, but in this latest book, I was impressed with how fast Tucker got to a punchline, and his legitimately good similies and analogies. I have never been impressed with Sedaris in terms of being concise or making funny comparisons.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

You lose track after 8 or so.

Oh, he's clearly smart and well read. Nobody who's being objective can begrudge him that; schools aren't everything, but going from to UChicago to Duke is pretty impressive. If identifying a niche and exploiting it isn't shrewd, what it?

He certainly bet on himself. He gets props for that; I personally would have taken a deal for the script if I'd never made a movie before. His grind is pretty impressive.

It hurts my enjoyment, primarily because he writes about himself. It just makes his protagonist that much more loathsome, and me much less likely to root for him. On the other hand, the other people in his stories are largely spineless and/or stupid.

That's entirely his fault. Look at his judgment scale for women, and tell me that's not pure objectification. Sexism in, sexism out.

If slutty girls want to approach him for sex, he should have at it. It's the way he speaks about women at large that's kinda troublesome. Also, the women in the movie were absolute caricatures; unless you're going to fuck one of the main characters, you don't get a semblance of a personality. You're either a shrew, a slut or an idiot.

Yeah, I don't know him from Adam, I'm just analyzing the persona he puts forth. It's fun to judge people though!

Bad example. The academy and some reviewers liked it, but (almost) EVERYBODY loves Sedaris. I personally don't care for Casablanca, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that my opinion is weird.

I mean, this is all subjective, I was just establishing that according to widely-held standards of talent, Sedaris is in class by himself in terms of memoirs.

Yes, there's a huge difference. Sedaris's writing might be a bit pretentious, but the stories are relatable. Tucker's plots are literally about how awesome he is. I'm fine with pretentious writing if you can back it up (cough, Cormac McCarthy, cough), but Tucker's book revolves around his own greatness.

Which I disagree with.

I mean, lets not get carried away here, Sedaris is garden-variety narcissitic writer. Tucker is on another level in those terms.

I don't find Tucker's jokes funny, to be honest. They're not very sharp, and they're mean. Not a good combination.

I will say that in AFF, at the party, SlingBlade was an absolute dick but very clever.

Ok, this is ridiculous. Sedaris knows exactly what his audience wants. That's why he's on a run of 6 consecutive bestsellers, 5 of which are essentially the same book.

Sedaris is a very good technical writer. That's why he comes off as pretentious. I'll give Tucker credit for zipping from punchline to punchline, it's just a shame that they all suck to much.

Sedaris isn't concise at all, and that's what I like about him. He teases every bit of humor and charm out of a situation, and doesn't feel the need to blare his points out immediately. My sense of humor tends towards the dry and erudite; Tucker's doesn't.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

I don't consider Tucker smart because of specific "unsmart" things he has done. Schools don't mean shit. I went to a very prestigious one too, and have known kids from community college more intelligent than many of my classmates and probably myself.

Does that mean you dislike Nabokov's work, too? He writes from the point of view of a "loathsome" narrator. In fact, one much worse than Tucker in any of his stories. To me, it seems like a very short-sighted way to view literature.

Where are you getting this impression from? It's not the conclusion I came to at all. In many instances, it's how Tucker perceives these people, but they're neither spineless nor stupid.

Fine, but that means the vast majority of men and women are sexist by your definition.

So were the men.

Funny you mention Casablanca, because the film is mediocre/bad, and yet, highly praised. We had a huge discussion here where I point out all the flaws, cliches, and stupidity in the movie, and the only response I got was "BUT BUT KIMASTER....LOTS OF PEOPLE REALLY LOVE IT! IT'S HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT!"

No one was actually debating the merits of the film at all. And I understood the film's appeal after reading Umberto Eco, but that still does not make it a good film.

Similarly, with Sedaris, I think his work is mostly shit. I'm sure your rave about "EVERYBODY" loving him is pure exaggeration, just like there are plenty of people who in fact dislike Casablanca.

And in effect, you're trading in your own perspective and point of view for that of "critics". I think that makes a consumer powerless and totally destroys his/her enjoyment of art, (why even read books any more?) but that's just me.

And I'm saying "widely-held standards" are irrelevant trash. Think with your own mind, based on your own prior information and experience, not what some pretentious hipster tells you to believe.

Sometimes my own opinion correlates with that of some faceless, nameless group, and other times it doesn't. But why let other people decide what you like?

The point is, whether it's lesser or greater, I find Sedaris' brand of narcissism to be more annoying, and hurt his writing in a bigger way. Instead of being honest and humble about certain topics, he pontificates in a very stupid and dull manner.

I could forgive this too, if Sedaris were either unique/intelligent with his arguments, or exceptionally funny, but he is neither.

Again, I wonder how you ever signed up on the message board, before you knew about the interesting posters, if you hated Max's writing so much.

More irrelevant nonsense sales figures instead of actual arguments. You want me to quote how badly Stephanie Meyer and "Twilight" has outsold Sedaris, again?

And I never said Sedaris doesn't know what his audience wants, but his audience is mostly hipster douches. When it comes to writing, I have very different tastes than that group, and thus, don't enjoy the work. And on the subject of being able to relate to the protagonist, while my life and experiences are far closer to a Sedaris than Max, I appreciate and am more similar to the headspace of the latter over the former.

To be honest though, you have answered my question. If you take Max's actions very seriously and personally, and judge him as a narrator (again, this would make a great author like Nabokov practically unreadable for you), I can see why you would like Sedaris more.

Uh, no? All of my favorite writers (Steinbeck, Kundera, Murukami, Conrad) are a hundred times better technically than Sedaris is, and none ever come across as pretentious.

Pretentiousness, at least for me, means presenting something simple/banal as something profound and meaningful. Sedaris does that all the time. Tucker does it very rarely; most of the time, he admits his stories are dumb drunken shit.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

Please, oh please let's keep comparing Tucker Max to a half-educated homosexual that lives in France with a man named Hugh.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

That's not why I consider him smart. It was just objective evidence that suggests intelligence; IQ is an iffy tool, but no standardized test correlates with it better than the LSAT. I hate to break it to you, too, but both you and Tucker are probably in the top 5% of intelligence in this country. Unless you're being terribly elitist, that has to be considered smart, even if there are hundreds of thousands of smarter people out there.

Not necessarily, but a loathsome narrator is a bad starting point. Loathsome protagonist + Loathsome antagonists + Mediocre-to-bad jokes + Mediocre Technical Writing = Meh book for me.

Or to put it more simply: If Tucker could write like Nabokov, I'd have a much better opinion of his books.

The people at the party he went to with the Special Force dudes in the first book. The "nerds" at the campout who couldn't handle a drunken idiot with a bullhorn. Virtually any woman in his stories.

Sexism is pervasive. But how many people actually write shit like this?

Yes, I get that it's a joke. But when you constantly joke that women have less dignity or human worth because they're fat, at what point does it go from ha ha to "this guy has pretty serious fucking issues?"

Isn't Casablanca a great counterpoint to the charge that I just follow critical opinion? Despite it being critically acclaimed, I'm on record as not liking it! Because I don't just like things that I'm supposed to. I also found it boring, but I'm not a film critic or anything. I also found Groundhog's Day boring.

But if we're trying to discuss what are good films/books somewhat objectively, critical and commercial popularity are a good starting point. I don't like Sedaris because he's popular. I like him because he's a charming and fluid writer, and he makes me laugh. The fact that he's popular and widely praised simply suggests that there might be something to my personal assessment.

This is the crux of the disagreement, isn't it? I totally agree that if you don't find Sedaris charming or funny, his writing is going to suck. I'm just saying that David Sedaris is objectively funnier than Tucker Max.

I didn't sign up immediately, I poked around for a bit. I read lots of things online I disagree with; I regularly read both radical men's rights blogs and radical feminist blogs, and I virulently disagree with both of them. Because I'm the sort of person who enjoys being outraged from time to time without actually having to do much of anything, I like to read a wide variety of perspectives. So I poked around the messageboards, and found to my surprise, that a lot of people were either a.) funny or b.) smart. Which is, in fact, a pretty rare feat on intrawebz forumz.

I was just pointing out that Sedaris knows what his audience wants about as well as anyone. And then he delivers it.

Again, an unlikeable narrator is fine if the writing/plot is good enough.

Also, this bears mentioning: Tucker is writing personal memoirs. Nabokov wrote (mainly) fiction.

I'll agree that those writers are in a different sort of class than Sedaris (except Kundera, whom I've never read and won't comment on). But you could argue that all of them do exactly what you accuse Sedaris of: Boy, Steinbeck tries to make something as simple/banal as ranch workers into something profound and meaningful.

I don't really get this comment. What's wrong with the name Hugh? Should Tucker only be compared to heterosexuals or people with college degrees? Didn't Maddox drop out of college? I'm confused.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

I'm curious as to how you arrived at this determination. Sedaris is a regular contributor to both NPR and The New Yorker, two media outlets that, at best, have a very limited hipster following. But then again, this whole Max/Sedaris comparison is utterly absurd.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

Dude, "education" is not the same thing as "intelligence". I'm well-educated, but it doesn't relate to my intelligence, and the same applies to Tucker. They're linked qualities, but simply going to an elite school doesn't make one a genius by osmosis.

And I disagree. Why is it so necessary to like the narrator? As long as one can relate to some of his feelings (and with Tucker, you absolutely can), that's enough, right?

That's your interpretation. Mine is that while some of the "nerds" were indeed impotent, cowardly losers, some of them were clearly intelligent and capable enough to call campus security instead of getting in a 3 versus 10 fight (or however many people were with Tucker).

Did you read the entire definition? In the very first sentence, it states "girl with a terrible personality.". Doesn't sound like such a horribly sexist joke now, does it?

It's not a counterpoint, since you first said "yeah, I didn't like it, but it still deserves high esteem because a bunch of dumbass critics who would sell their own mothers for a sandwich say I SHOULD like it!"

And I'm saying this should be neither confirmation or a reason to reconsider your opinion. The actual arguments about the merit of a work is all that matters.

Humor is one thing that even I don't consider "objective"! You can't explain why one thing is funny and another isn't. It's just a feel. It's purely subjective.

However, I think Max is an overall better writer than Sedaris, and that shouldn't be a huge shock, considering his education is so far superior to that of Sedaris, who couldn't even finish college. (Yes, that's a joke, but I'm using your own arguments)

Tell me, what is "simple and banal" about the true emotions and thoughts of a human being?

But Sedaris never once writes about these things, so I don't understand your comparison at all. He writes short essays glorifying his typically yuppy lifestyle and views. Show me where he writes something emotionally penetrating about a human being.

Okay, I should have added "pretentious, politically correct yuppies" to "hipster douches" as his audience, although the former give birth to the latter. Fair point.

Although I like "The New Yorker" personally, and a few things on NPR, those two groups form the bulk of their audience.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

I know. But I've listened to your arguments! I've listened to Tucker's arguments! You're not just resumes; I'm assuming your intelligence based on the things you've/he's said. His Mensa-level IQ is simply further evidence.

?

It's not neccessary, but it certainly helps in identifying with him and caring what happens. It also helps in my not being utterly disdainful and annoyed at everything that happens. I don't find Tucker at all charming or funny, and he finds himself endlessly charming and funny. That dissonance creates distaste. It's pretty basic.

Ah, but that's never acknowledged, is it? You're making assumptions that aren't in the book. I'm dealing with the characters as they're presented on the page, and if they're not on the side of Tucker, they're not fleshed out or treated as characters.

Yes, it does. Double emphasized because this point can't be stressed strongly enough here. Notice that a big part of the reason he calls a woman a wildebeast lies with her weight and attractivness. Tucker (and a lot of people like him) continually judge women as nothing more than landing places for dick. Cursory nods to women he respects don't erase the fact that he routinely says dehumanizing things about women who don't conform to his standard of beauty. That's sexism, and it's deep-rooted. We can have a feminism 101 argument on a different thread though.

Of course it's a counterpoint. My point is that I don't like things just because people say I should like them. However, I recognize that my opinion on certain matters isn't formed based on a particularly strong background (in this case film), and I might not be the best judge. Good film critics are good for a reason; I am nowhere near a good film critic.

Lots of humor is objective. Sure there are subjective elements, but there are things which make a joke or a piece objectively funny.

An element of surprise (jokes aren't as funny when you can guess the punchline)
An element of discovery (jokes aren't as funny when they're entirely straightforward)
An element of familiarity (jokes are funnier when they're told from our perspective)
An element of truth (jokes are funnier when they appeal to our preconceived notions)

Of course, there's more to humor than that, but all of those things can be measured objectively. I do it all the time.

You should read Squirrel Meets Chipmunk, which isn't like that at all. Or any of his stories about his early life, which movingly and tellingly elucidate what it's like to be a young gay guy. Or his stuff about hitchhiking, which is about as far from yuppie as you can get.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being politically correct per se (and now we're veering off wildly). It's more about the motivation behind it; if you're being politically correct to sound better to your yuppie friends while not giving a fuck, then that's contemptible. But if you actually try to treat people they way they want to be treated, including trying not to offend them for no reason other than you think it's funny, well I think that's admirable.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

You've just described Humbert Humbert in "Lolita" and Professor Kinbote in "Pale Fire"!

Yet, you would agree those two works were masterpieces, right? A contradiction, no?

That's true of many authors and the way they present their work. Not everyone needs to be a "fleshed-out character" to begin with.

And it's the same sexism most men and women are guilty of. Tucker's is a bit more extreme, but not by much. He just expresses it more openly.

Why the hell do you need a "strong background in film" to have a valid view on the subject? Why are you discounting your own perspective in favor of some faceless group? That's insane!

We're not talking about algebraic topology or electrical engineering here; movies are not beyond the comprehension and understanding of a person of average intelligence! "Good film critics" are a misnomer, since most of the "professional" ones are "awful film critics".

Problem is, you can have a joke with all four qualities, and it sucks. And you can have a joke with none of them, and it's hysterical.

I haven't read those specific stories, but it's not like a light switch that you can turn on or off. Maybe I will give them a shot, though.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

...

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

Patrick Rothfuss sequel to The Name of the Wind comes out today. If you haven't read TNotW you should do so, and soon. This one is called The Wise Man's Fear and I cannot express how excited I am about it.

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

This morning I finished The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss. It is the sequel to The Name of the Wind which came out a few years back. It is the second one of a trilogy of books titled The Kingkiller Chronicles.

Spoiler for details

Spoiler

Along the same lines of TNotW, Rothfuss doesn't disappoint with the sequel. In a Tolkein-esque story told by Kvoth, now an innkeeper, once a legend in his own time. You learn of Kvothe's years at the university, his training under the Adem, and his growing from boyhood to manhood by way of the mysterious Felurian.

Flat out, I fucking loved the book. It sucked me in and I couldn't put the thing down. From the love that Kvothe has for Denna, the loyalty he shows to his few friends, and the actual search he takes finding the name of the Wind, it just keeps getting better. Once he actually does begin to call the Wind, it becomes this epic event. It's fucking awesome.
It is stinkin heartbreaking seeing Kvothe as an innkeeper though, especially toward the end of the novel, and it's the emotional tug that gets me. The fact that I am so involved in the story, all of the characters, and the whole world Rothfuss presents.

I absolutely recommend that you go buy this book as well as TNotW

9/10

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

I would like to second this. I just re-read Name of the Wind and will be starting Wise Man's Fear tonight. It was an excellent book, best fantasy debut in a decade. The fact Wise Man's Fear has been out for a week and a half and already has a 4th printing should tell you something.

This is the jacket from "The Name of the Wind"
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/content/books.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/content/books.asp</a>

If you've never read much fantasy before, this should be even better for you. One of the main complaints I've heard people say is that it's too much like other fantasy stories they have read. It is, to an extent, but far better written than any of them.

And how do you not like a guy wanting to buy Firefly?

<a class="postlink" href="http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-nathan-fillion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2011/02 ... n-fillion/</a>

 

Re: The Idiot Board Book Club

Just read

Blockade Billy by Stephen King

An old man tells a baseball story from the 1950's about legendary young catcher William "Blockade Billy" Blakely, whose very existence and accomplishments have been stricken from the major league record books. The reason for this, and we know it's dark and tragic, forms the driving mystery of the novella.

What I really love about the story is the misdirection.

The whole time you're reading it, you think that reason is somehow connected to

Spoiler

the supernatural

, and King makes numerous hints in this direction. And yet, when it's eventually revealed, it's completely unconnected, while still being a very good, reasonable ending.

Good stuff; it's only 80 short pages long, and worth the half hour it takes to read.