I post this diatribe without comment, only to note that it may have merit but I wouldn't know it as I don't regularly read a) rock criticism or b) what new hip established writers have to say. I'm just trying to stir the pot a bit, get a little rough n' tumble going.
7.08.2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've been reading Nick Hornby's Songbook, which takes a real beating in that City Paper article. I really like it. It's not music criticism so much as "reflections related to music." But it's an enjoyable read.
The "middle-brow populism" that the CP seems so intent to criticize here is something I find refreshing after wading through overwrought Pitchfork-style reviews. It's like certain reviewers need to make pop music more complicated than it is to justify the fact that they -- highbrow people, of course -- dig it.
The review in the City Paper -- not just of music, but of books and movies and plays -- are so annoyingly pretentious I stopped looking at them altogether about 2 years ago.
None of which, of course, has anything to do with Eggers, who's still going to get a dodgeball to the head one of these days.
"Aside from the narcissistic prose, these authors share with Eggers a lack of desire to engage with any culture outside their own alt-pop, college-rock, new-folk, Time-Life-classics orbit."
I liked that sentence. I've tried to hate Dave Eggers, but when I finally gave him a chance, I found his writing to be damn good. But that doesn't mean I can't hate the thousands of Eggers imitators, about 20-30 of whom lurk around Iowa City, annoying me with their groupie mentality, their condescension, and their total lack of anything worth saying.
I guess I'm not really responding to the article either, but I liked that quote I isolated. Too many of the Eggers/Mcsweeney's clique have a bit of an elitist chip on their shoulder, as if their identification with that subculture makes them any more important than any other band of nerds.
Post a Comment