Is How it's Said More Important than What is Said?

I don't know how I felt about this article. It was extremly interesting for sure but it seems to me that everything Chuck Klosterman writes about tries to be at least that, extremely interesting. What makes his style extremely interesting is that he poses the questions that everyone else subconsciously wonders but either is too shy, to inarticulate, or too arrogant to ask or even to consider asking. Maybe that's being harsh but as I tried to digest what Chuck was saying, I started thinking more and more about how and even why he writes especially in the manner that he does. Any journalist can ask a question but Klosterman asks the right questions. I'm not sure I can explain what the "right" questions are other then what I already mentioned that the most people don't think to or just don't ask the questions that he does. As I thought of that in the context of the two readings of his that were assigned, personally, I thought that only someone who knew he wanted answers, knew exactly what he wanted answers about, and though I find Klosterman more than a bit cocky about his own musings, he is more curious than conceited about getting answers from anyone who is willing to talk to him. I feel that whoever has the ability to support himself or herself under Klosterman's approach of the Spanish Inquisition is already a great and deep thinker just like Chuck which is why most people are intrigued enough to read his work. Whether you like his opinions (or style) or not, almost everyone wants to find out what ridiculous questions he has ready for his interviewing prey. It makes him lucidly enigmatic. People know he won't beat around the bush and usually people like straightforwardness. Like Errol Morris' list of interviewees on First Person, Chuck usually finds these larger than life people to talk to. It's a dynamic concept mostly because he can get those people to talk to him. That works to his advantage.