July 30, 2005
Will the Real David Brooks Please Stand Up?
What's happened to David Brooks? I mean that seriously -- no snark. What's gone wrong there? The other day I picked up BoBos in Paradise at a used bookstore and it's great. Funny and light-hearted and incisive in a way that really rings true, at least for me and my crowd. It's got great one-liners ("At that point, it had not yet become unfashionable to get sick and die") and chapter-long meditations, like the opening riff on professional weddings, that are actually intellectually provocative.
And then...what? His last column was on the difficulty of taking kids on airplanes. Not the laws of it, not the sociology of it, just the fact that kids misbehave and parents are at a loss. Way to cover new ground, David! His political columns skim hackery a few times before sinking into party-line talking points.
This guy was good. He was funny and personable and insightful. What happened? And where do we find another one?
July 30, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will the Real David Brooks Please Stand Up?:
Dude, I'm right there with you. I used to jump right to his columns in The Atlantic, and now I think that I loathe him above all other hacks. I mean your Bill Kristols and such have always been hacks, but Brooks was once human and has willingly cast away his soul, a humiliation we must watch in the NYT with sad regularity.
Posted by: justin | Jul 30, 2005 1:45:18 PM
You're easily amused.
Posted by: Jim Madison's Dog | Jul 30, 2005 2:35:58 PM
What happened is a slower example of what is more immediately evident with you bloggers.
With no offense, 700 words twice a week, mandatory, makes for dull topics and even duller thinking.
Posted by: Nash | Jul 30, 2005 2:38:57 PM
The Bush Administration and the responsibility of defending it happened. Bobos was written before Bush v. Gore.
Posted by: SamAm | Jul 30, 2005 9:10:40 PM
Bobos reminded me of nothing more than an entry in a name-dropping contest and it took Brooks down considerably in my estimation. He earnestly wrote an entire book, and advanced an entire career, based on the proposition that he himself makes up a social class of sociological importance. There is absolutely no one that acts or talks the way that he represents in that book. I lived in NYC and DC during the time before and after this book was published, and there is just no evidence for the anecdotes he quite frankly pulls from his ass. Maybe it's a funny book, though I would dispute that too, but ultimately it's insulting to think that he's got his finger on something, because he doesn't. (Up something, maybe....)
Posted by: diddy | Aug 1, 2005 11:24:40 AM
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 16, 2007 11:03:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.