We will discuss Chuck Klosterman’s I Wear the Black Hat: Grappling with Villains at our meeting on Wednesday, October 29 at 4:15p.m. in the GAHS library. Please post questions, comments, concerns, criticism, and the like on this blog prior to, during, or after our meeting (before November 1st if you want grade-replacement credit). All questions and responses should indicate an active reading of the text and function to move the conversation forward. (Note: surface-level or obvious questions and responses will not count as participation for grade replacement.)
Those of you unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts may participate in the discussion below by posting a discussion question and offering a detailed response, or by responding to two questions already posted. The note above applies here as well, so heed it!
In the book, “I Wear the Black Hat”, Chuck Klosterman talks about the “veil of ignorance” thought experiment by John Rawls. Klosterman argues that people don’t want to apply the experiment to morality because we don’t want to believe that good and evil are “things we decide”. We want to believe that morality is something “decided by someone else,” and I agree. Nonetheless, there are factors that shape our ethics and morals like our environment, parents, and friends, but I think we’re avoiding the inevitable truth that they are, in the end, decided by ourselves. No two people are going to share the same background, parents, and friends and therefore, no one will share the same morals. These differing morals result in our lack of a concise, universal definition of what evil/a villain is.
Will we ever reach a time where there will be an omnipresent definition of evil?
Most of this book is examples and scenarios that strengthen Klosterman’s argument that villains are the people “who know the most and care the least.” From Goetz to “cultural architects” he considers villains to be the people who know and do not care. Each example or counter example he gives is unique and thought provoking. Though, some examples are more for older generations than others. While others our especially for a younger generation. (However I do believe his target audience is adults over the age of 30 because he addresses the reader as if we remember Bill Clinton’s time in office.) The point I am trying to make is how similar this book was to The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver. They both had a point they were trying to make and made the point in several ways chapter after chapter. However, I will say that Klosterman was able to keep my attention better in more boring topics than Silver. For those who read both books: Which author did a better job at proving their point? Also, which book did you think was more enjoyable to read? If your answers were different, do you think that the strength of an argument and reader enjoyability have to be trade-offs?
Klosterman’s writing style is unique. To clarify, I think Klosterman’s different writing style changed the dynamic of the entire book. Something I have not noticed frequently in books I have read that Klosterman did is reference the fact that he is writing the book, and he addressed issues, desires, qualms, etc. he had in writing the book. It was not largely obvious for most of the book, but it did become obvious in the first section of the essay “Hitler is in the Book.” The title alone suggests a knowledge of his writing the book – something that writers don’t often address, as ironic as it seems. In this entire section, he talks about his ambivalence about including Hitler in the book – a relevant decision-making process, and an interesting one for the reader to consider. However, when I was reading the book, these casual inserts about his writing process somewhat turned me off, as if these additions were unnecessary for me to read and that they really only served to reduce his professionalism. And even though I recognized his conversational tone from the beginning, these inserts made the book, at times, seem like a journal of his thoughts. Was this distracting from the main argument? The main question to consider is: was Klosterman’s casual writing style the most effective way to convey his purpose?
Although I found the concepts of I Wear the Black Hat: Grappling with Villains to be intriguing and at points humorous, I wasn’t a fan of the structure. For me, some chapters felt inconsistent, and were a bit confusing to understand. For example, in the chapter about the Eagles, I felt that Klosterman’s definition of a villain “knowing too much and caring too little” was too broad and should have been more specific. I also thought that the novel was focused around taking a group of individuals who society deemed as “villains” which in doing so picked controversial figures that maybe certain people might not associate to as being bad or being good. However, there were parts of the novel such as the Ali vs. Frazier rivalry which comments about race that brought a close look about something that modern audiences like me don’t know much about instead of talking about figures like Bill Clinton. Also, growing up with a younger brother I have learned more about superhero figures than wanted. Thus, in the chapter about Batman and Bernhard Goetz I felt like Klosterman was reaching too far and comparing something he didn’t know much about. Specifically, he argues that people would view Batman a certain way of he killed somebody. But, from as far as I know, Batman would not kill someone for no reason? To me, I think his strongest argument deals with the fact that people tend to label others because they remind us of the bad in ourselves. This was one of the most powerful parts for me because it really got me thinking about who I am friends with and why I am friends with them and not others. Am I evil for not having the same opinions as someone else and not wanting to be with them because of it?
Personally I believe that the Batman comparison was solid and intriguing. I felt like he knew what he was talking about and did an excellent job at explaining. Batman is the perfect comparison figure because he has existed for so long. When relating villainy to Batman all generations know who Batman is and what he does. I was bored when he wrote about all the bands he once hated. These bands I had never really heard of besides the more popular ones like Pink Floyd and U2. On the other hand, we all grew up on Batman, making him the ultimate comparison. I am not a Batman expert but I think Klosterman knew what he was talking about and successfully compared Batman to his definition of Villainy.
I completely agree, I had mixed feelings about this book, the concept of the book was very interesting yet so different of how this book goes against everything we know of super heros and villians. Klosterman really challenges that concept. I did react the same way with how “I Wear the Black Hat” shows a deeper meaning of how everyone can have an alter ego, how it showed even Batman who is supposed to be a super hero and save people, acts in such evil ways, in which I was not expecting at all. This book was confusing yet eye opening.
I began to question authority (those who decide what’s appropriate and acceptable and what is not), a little more than I already do, rather than evil in the middle pages of the book. On page 100 it talks about political correctness and the extreme sensitization the younger generations have come to be accustomed to. In this, there is no more “I”, instead “we”, when conversing in public about some random debatable topic. The philosophical question that Klosterman asks is, “If someone is personally offended by a specific act, does that alone qualify the act as collectively offensive?” That question has still been in my head since I’ve read it and I don’t see myself forming an answer to that question anytime soon.
I completely agree with you comments about how younger generations have become so sensitized to evil. It makes it hard to determine what is exactly classified as evil. Klosterman’s question about what is considered evil was intriguing. I believe that if someone is personally offended by a specific act, it doesn’t alone qualify the act as cohesively offensive. It’s impossible to always make everyone happy and agree upon moral standards.
This is an very interesting question, and while this collective stance on debatable issues is a somewhat subtle truth, it largely affects our beliefs about these issues. I, too, struggle to seek an answer to this question. I would like to believe that no, one person’s offense taken by an act should not qualify a cohesive hatred towards that act. But the transcribed reality that Klosterman highlights of the 90’s in the vicinity of the referenced page points to yes – that there were collective sentiments that drove people to act a certain way. For example, he claims that at this time there was “a lot of low level anxiety whenever people argued in public. Every casual conversation suddenly had the potential to get someone fired. … A piece of art could be classified as sexist simply because it ignored the concept of sexism” (98). While it would be close-minded to view Klosterman’s assertions as universal truths, it is an intriguing perception of that reality. And this perception prompts me to want to believe that there is a degree of collective belief. What is perceived as the ‘right thing to do’ as a whole can create a movement. It is the reason why group dynamics are so influential in history. If one person has a belief, and a few others can catch on to this belief, they will enlist more followers. And as this following grows in size and is contrasted with an opposing groups, both groups become more radical in their beliefs (a psychology concept called ‘group polarization’), which I believe is relevant to consider in the answer to this question.
Throughout this book there have been numerous conflicts. These conflicts are symbolized by the stump in Joe’s yard. This stump drove Joe crazy. Every time he saw it it made him cringe. It wasn’t until the second day that Shane came to the house that Joe and Shane were able to remove the stump together. This shows that together they could surpass obstacles and that they should have used this strategy to overcome the obstacles they faced throughout the book. This idea is summarized by the quote, “A bundle of twigs in stronger than one branch.”
That was one of my favorite quotes, because I could really relate to that quote. 1. because i really think this quote is true, and that scene even proves it when Joe and Shane work together to remove that stump and other events they faced together all they had to work was work as a team and surpassed all of them. 2. i myself have experienced that this is true is many situations in a sport if no one is working together you’re not going to win.
Is all sin equal?
In the book, I Wear The Black Hat, the author discusses the true essence of evil. I believe along with him, that there are different “shades” of evil. Someone who molests children is bad, but are they any worse than Hannibal, who brutally terrorizes his victims and wears their skins for pleasure? No. No matter how heinous one crime seems, another act is and always will be just as bad in someone else’s mind.
Each crime has a different level of evil in it. The reason for this is if someone kills another out of jealousy it is a heinous crime but when someone steals food for survival it is a desperate act that anyone would do. This is proven by our legal system. There are different sentences for crimes because each crime has individual affects. If someone commits murder they will receive a longer sentence than someone who steals food.
But isn’t a crime still a crime? No matter what, some harmful action was displayed and no matter what, there is still some type of consequence.
Each act of evil is still wrong, and it gets really sticky when trying to decide how evil a specific crime is. I agree with Klosterman’s view that there are varying shades of evil because every individual has different opinions on what they consider to be evil. Every crime is still some shade of evil.
I understand his point where there are varying shades of evil, but I don’t agree that your punishment for a crime should be based solely off of the level of evil in it. I think that’s the problem with our judicial system today; people determing levels of evil within crimes. When you begin to clasify those types of things, you may come to the point where something that is ‘very evil’ may not even be evil in that point of society because throughout time, our viewpoints, morals, and thought processes change (for the good, or bad).
But who gives our legal system the power to define the severity of a crime? How do they decide the severity of one crime over others? The weight of a crime can be perceived differently by each individual.
I agree with Mason Stover on this topic. A crime is still a crime. Just because stealing food for survival is something that anyone would do, it doesn’t make it any less of a crime.
I can only answer this question for myself, because I believe that each response depends on the individual’s unique definition of evil. In my opinion, the concept of being strictly “evil” does not exist–everybody is complex, and contains both good and bad qualities. But, I believe that actions, or sins, are not equal. I believe that the severity of your sins depends on the consequences that follow them.
Don’t judge a book by its cover is a quote that is relevant to this novel. Chuck Klosterman as a youngster was seen as a goody-two-shoes, but as time progressed he later turned into the definition of evil. He actually wasn’t making the wrong choices but according to some people he was. People should watch who they call their friends. Someone one told me, “I’d rather have four quarters than a hundred pennies.” This quote means I rather have fewer friends that are reliable as opposed to more friends who you can’t trust. The more people that you cannot trust are just making more candidates for your pallbearers.
I don’t exactly agree that he turned into the definition of evil. When he was younger, he seemed as if he was very quick to triangulate something as being bad, superficial, or anything that wasn’t accepted by the society as whole. As he grew older, he transformed into a person that was better able to formulate his own opinions about things such as music or superheroes. Like you said, he made those decisions because of what people around him thought and believed. I personally understand the last part with the quote, it can be applied to so many parts of our everyday world, parts like the people we associate with.