It does make sense, but I think I make sense as well, and here's how. You write for a public. That public is interested in your story in part hoping it's a good story, well told (in which capacity it succeeds, one of the reasons I keep reading) and in part for other reasons. Among those reasons is an effort to figure…

"Innit?" Haha! Hilarious. Try hard enough and some of that Guy Ritchie cool (speaking of stuff from 1999) might just rub off on you, Fat Dude. I'm also glad your arguments pass the strenuous test of your own criticism. Bravo!

If this isn't an effort at generational self-definition, then it isn't anything at all. It can be a winking, nodding, self-deprecating effort at generational self-definition— in keeping with the generation and a half that's gone by with no interest other than not looking as lame and self-serious as its baby boomer…

And
Here we are already back at the beginning, Godfather II style refracted through your basic generational self-definer/rock critic hypocrisy. In the first piece, Hyden tells us all about how this isn't going to be a normal (read: Baby Boomerish) generational/musical chronicle, that he's not going to indulge in any…

And
Here we are already back at the beginning, Godfather II style refracted through your basic generational self-definer/rock critic hypocrisy. In the first piece, Hyden tells us all about how this isn't going to be a normal (read: Baby Boomerish) generational/musical chronicle, that he's not going to indulge in any…

I mean
My question is this: let's take it as read that Card is a closeted gay man (I'd be greatly surprised if he wasn't; look at his descriptions of male-female romance next to things he actually gives a shit about, and have a look at his blog if you can stomach it). Presumably, the difficulties of being a closeted…

Allow me to rephrase: "If you intend this to be history, cite your sources regularly and reliably according to a system and don't assume 'standard public knowledge' of stuff you've already acknowledged wasn't universally paid attention to, on the radio or anywhere else."

Also
If you intend this to be history, cite your sources. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just what's done. Plus I'm curious.

Try all you like
But the distinction between how the Baby Boomers built up their generational myth, and how you're building yours, is much much bigger in your head than it is to anyone else.

Come on
This movie is basically fun and made no money. For shame, Robinson! Also, humorless? What about that creepy-ass little kid? That creepy-ass little kid was funny as hell!

Even
If you buy the concept of tv being subversive, which I generally don't, the NBC Office is not. At least the BBC one made no bones about office work being a form of hell, not something that's going to be redeemed by romance or toleration or any other amelioration.

Oakes is cool. I had Foner in a consortium class, and I have trouble imagine anyone using him to wipe anything, but I could be wrong. Sharp motherfucker when he feels like it, Foner, and a decent guy. Hasn't let popular success get to his head, like Wilentz, though I have to say I don't see where another book about…

You ask me
The brain eater who takes prominent American thinkers took Wilentz after "Chants Democratic." "The Rise of American Democracy" and "Age of Reagan" are both pop-historical shit.