OT: David Brooks/NYTimes essay on being "Cool"

[fuzzalow]

OK, beyond what might seem an incongruity for the topic of "cool" to be broached by a person of standing as our esteemed Mr. Brooks, what he writes is reasonable food for thought.

How Cool Works in America Today (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/opinion/how-cool-works-in-america-today.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region)

I agree with his basic construct proposed here which I took as "cool" being the culmination of a lotta things in a person, unique to that person and yet still existing within subtle boundaries of behavior even if there coexists a radical grounding of ideas underneath. There are numerous points made in the easy so that is just my summary on it, read it yourself and see if you might come to a different conclusion.

I hadda laugh at Brooks' knock on the vacuous hipster mentality as from the essay:I started to look around to see if there might be another contemporary ethos that has replaced the cool ethos. You could say the hipster ethos you find in, say, Brooklyn qualifies. But that strikes me as less of a cultural movement and more of a consumer aesthetic.I guess being cool is never having to say that you are - if you are then you is.

[OtayBW]

I preferred his editorial of 4 days ago...but I digress.

[Clean39T]

"Consumer aesthetic" is the perfect description for pretty much everything in Portlandia as well..

But I'd agree - a very undude article.

[redir]

I find it interesting that the term 'cool' has stuck around through so many generations. When was cool was NOT a consumer aesthetic?

[daker13]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea of considering anything David Brooks writes as 'food for thought.'

This is a guy who beats America over the head with his ideas on moral character, then dumps his wife to marry a research assistant 27 years his junior. And who routinely criticizes hipster/millennial/American consumerism, while having a wedding registry that is about as concerned with the higher things as Tony Soprano's living room (worth a web search, it leaked a few months ago and is quite funny).

Sorry if I'm being a d*ck, but I find it outrageous that the NYT fires reporters while employing these kinds of fatuous nitwits on their editorial page.

[e-RICHIE]

DB and I don't have to be BFFs but he did win me over with Lord of the Memes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/opinion/08brooks.html).

[benb]

I don't get his conflation of cool with consumerism.

There are different kinds of cool. To a junior high schooler it might be about having the cool shoes or the cool clothes but to adults I don't think it rings true.

If you try to be "cool" through consumerism you risk being a poseur... think about it from a cycling perspective.

No one thinks the people he mentions in the article were cool because of the products they used/bought.. they had charisma and their own style and were virtuosos at something. They might not have been super concerned with social justice or being "woke" but they didn't need to, they did their own thing and brought people happiness.

A cyclist can be cool without the latest products.. it'd be about skill, souplesse, experiences & attitude, etc.. rather than having the latest frame and the carbon wheels and the Rapha wardrobe. You can have all the gear and certainly be a Fred anyway. The guy you meet who has rode across the country or dropped out of work for a year to concentrate on racing is going to have a big head start on being a "cool" cyclist IMO.

I guess that's just me though.. there is always that guy in the parking lot before a race/ride who is a little out of shape but won't shut up about his high zoot gear. He's not cool to me. But he might be cool to someone else who is just like him. Guess it's all perspective.

David Brooks doesn't strike me as terribly cool FWIW. Doesn't have much to do with his politics.

[colker]

To be cool is to be tragic... that´s how i would resume his (very well written) article.
Cool is about how you react to life´s basic injustice: Luck.
The cool person knows that fate, destiny, luck or the Gods.. laugh at our desperate attempts to make sense and logic out of this thing called life. While everyone adopts collective values and wisdom, he does not believe them true. His view won´t prevail. He won´t win in the end... but the way he feels, the way he moves around shows no one is really winning.

Capitalism makes anything into product and turned tragedy into fashion. It can sell BOgart´s drinking or Jimmy Dean´s red jacket. But you can´t buy what tragic really means.

[cachagua]

"Capitalism turns tragedy into fashion"... very nicely put!

That whole post. Excellent.

[unterhausen]

did he get the idea for this essay from a cab driver at the applebee's salad bar?

Black twitter tells me that Brooks just killed "woke-ness"

[Jgrooms]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea of considering anything David Brooks writes as 'food for thought.'



This is a guy who beats America over the head with his ideas on moral character, then dumps his wife to marry a research assistant 27 years his junior. And who routinely criticizes hipster/millennial/American consumerism, while having a wedding registry that is about as concerned with the higher things as Tony Soprano's living room (worth a web search, it leaked a few months ago and is quite funny).



Sorry if I'm being a d*ck, but I find it outrageous that the NYT fires reporters while employing these kinds of fatuous nitwits on their editorial page.



For someone who doesn't understand his audience you know much re Mr Brooks? Some points:

Getting a new partner hardly disqualifies one to question America's 'moral character' or hold any public office for that matter. If it did, it'd be crickets out there. Of course a consistent lack of fidelity used to disqualify one from the highest office. In the future it may be a prerequisite?

Hardly the first or only one to make a living bashing millennials. The old lamenting the young is as old as well:

They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.
(Aristotle)

And reporters are held to a different standard than the scribes of the op ed. This fundamental fact seems lost in this day and age.

I may not always agree w DBs, but he makes you think. Which is the point of op ed. If this 'assaults' one's worldview, just turn the page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[e-RICHIE]

And reporters are held to a different standard than the scribes of the op ed. This fundamental fact seems lost in this day and age. Many who read the papers don't know this, that there is that difference in roles.

I may not always agree w DBs, but he makes you think. Which is the point of op ed. If this 'assaults' one's worldview, just turn the page.

Indeed.

[fuzzalow]

I dunno. What Mr. Brooks does in his personal life is none of my business. I care only about his ideas. And whether I agree with his ideas, opinions or whatever is irrelevant if it gets me to think about or formulate my own thoughts and ideas on any given topic.

As per Brooks' article, I disagree with his statement that "Cool was politically detached..." I think Camus or Bob Dylan as paradigms of cool were hardly politically detached. But I might agree that from them as being from a different age with a greater openness and affinity for intellectualism than I think is prevalent in the here and now. I see a much greater acceptance of tribalism and ignorance today which fuels and metastasizes a divided and divisive society.

Just look at where we are now. Just look at what we have done to ourselves. As said by Benjamin Franklin during the time of our nation's birth: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.".

[colker]

I dunno. What Mr. Brooks does in his personal life is none of my business. I care only about his ideas. And whether I agree with his ideas, opinions or whatever is irrelevant if it gets me to think about or formulate my own thoughts and ideas on any given topic.

As per Brooks' article, I disagree with his statement that "Cool was politically detached..." I think Camus or Bob Dylan as paradigms of cool were hardly politically detached. But I might agree that from them as being from a different age with a greater openness and affinity for intellectualism than I think is prevalent in the here and now. I see a much greater acceptance of tribalism and ignorance today which fuels and metastasizes a divided and divisive society.

Just look at where we are now. Just look at what we have done to ourselves. As said by Benjamin Franklin during the time of our nation's birth: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.".

I gess he means "highly individualistic" w/ the politically detached quote. Cool was about being outside the power dispute and therefore not pleasing the crowd. If you are into politics you have to raise sympathy; you need to comunicate. Dylan quickly made clear he was out of that game and became enigmatic.

[Clean39T]

Haven't listened to this yet, but probably will:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-becoming-a-better-person

I enjoy Sam's non-political work (his WakingUp book, his book on Free Will, interviews with Joseph Goldstein, etc.), but only now and then venture into his engagement on the controversial stuff that would get this thread locked if I mentioned it. Not sure where this one falls on that spectrum since I haven't listened to it...

[colker]

Haven't listened to this yet, but probably will:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-becoming-a-better-person

I enjoy Sam's non-political work (his WakingUp book, his book on Free Will, interviews with Joseph Goldstein, etc.), but only now and then venture into his engagement on the controversial stuff that would get this thread locked if I mentioned it. Not sure where this one falls on that spectrum since I haven't listened to it...

I am just listening to the opening on the podcast and Sam is talking about PC censorship on academic circles. We are living troubled dangerous times. It´s the same vapid shallow reasoning behind consummerism of coolness and hip is being thrown at intellectual debate.

[FlashUNC]

Good to see David Brooks still writing columns about random words he just learned.

Probably the last guy you want explaining cool to you is David Brooks.

[fiamme red]

From the article: "If you grew up in the 20th century, there’s a decent chance you wanted to be like Miles Davis, Billie Holiday, Humphrey Bogart, Albert Camus, Audrey Hepburn, James Dean or Jimi Hendrix. In their own ways, these people defined cool."

I grew up in the 20th century and never wanted to be like any of these. If he wrote, "If you grew up in the fifties or sixties and aspired to be an existentialist philosopher, jazz or rock musician, or actor, there's a decent chance, etc." his statement would be a little more accurate.

It had been years since I read David Brooks's column, and judging from this article, if I never read another one I'm not going to be missing much.

[paredown]

I thought the 'cool' piece was OK--certainly the point about consumerism is true. I was reading a piece about Bob Marley--his estate is now the 6th largest dead guy merchandise empire--and that made me very sad...

[fuzzalow]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea of considering anything David Brooks writes as 'food for thought.'

David Brooks doesn't strike me as terribly cool FWIW. Doesn't have much to do with his politics.

Probably the last guy you want explaining cool to you is David Brooks.

It had been years since I read David Brooks's column, and judging from this article, if I never read another one I'm not going to be missing much.

Hey fellas, what can I tell ya? I don't know anything about why you feel this way other than you feel this way. Fine with me but I read all sorts of OpEds primarily from NYTimes and WSJ and I might disagree with some of the opinions but I don't view it as personal. Frankly the only weird columns come from Trump apologists that make their way into the WSJ occasionally but that's OK too because seeing that thought process on paper is its own thing altogether.

I see all forms of thoughts and ideas as currency. Their denominations will of course vary based on how I think I value them from my own thought process but in whatever myriad way I can get at those ideas, I get richer in the process because those inputs improve my own mosaic.

I am not defending David Brooks. I am saying use him and any others you can find to help you see a bigger world.

[colker]

Hey fellas, what can I tell ya? I don't know anything about why you feel this way other than you feel this way. Fine with me but I read all sorts of OpEds primarily from NYTimes and WSJ and I might disagree with some of the opinions but I don't view it as personal. Frankly the only weird columns come from Trump apologists that make their way into the WSJ occasionally but that's OK too because seeing that thought process on paper is its own thing altogether.

I see all forms of thoughts and ideas as currency. Their denominations will of course vary based on how I think I value them from my own thought process but in whatever myriad way I can get at those ideas, I get richer in the process because those inputs improve my own mosaic.

I am not defending David Brooks. I am saying use him and any others you can find to help you see a bigger world.

The substance x medium on his piece is a well thought observation. Not an absolute just like no observation can be generalized but as a state of affairs is pretty acurate.
I wish he could extend his logic and reach the place where we could talk about the increase in cheap morality.

[benb]

I generally like the articles.. just saying he comes across as kind of nerdy.. the opposite of the american idea of cool.

[doomridesout]

The article was pretty decent for David Brooks but I still feel compelled to post this .gif:
https://19818-presscdn-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/b6a/90/7e5df59558215a4d3df10cb8583faf44.jpg

[colker]

The article was pretty decent for David Brooks but I still feel compelled to post this

Why should cool be restricted to kids?

[daker13]

For someone who doesn't understand his audience you know much re Mr Brooks? Some points:

Getting a new partner hardly disqualifies one to question America's 'moral character' or hold any public office for that matter. If it did, it'd be crickets out there. Of course a consistent lack of fidelity used to disqualify one from the highest office. In the future it may be a prerequisite?

Hardly the first or only one to make a living bashing millennials. The old lamenting the young is as old as well:

They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.
(Aristotle)

And reporters are held to a different standard than the scribes of the op ed. This fundamental fact seems lost in this day and age.

I may not always agree w DBs, but he makes you think. Which is the point of op ed. If this 'assaults' one's worldview, just turn the page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I understand that reporters and columnists (or what you call 'scribes of the op ed') have different roles at a newspaper. My point was simply that David Brooks is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is worth drawing attention to, imho. What he writes is basically pop sociology. If you find it insightful, good for you.

[Elefantino]

If you have to have cool explained to you, you are not cool. If you have to explain cool to someone, you are not cool.

Essentially, it's like Fight Club. The first rule of cool is don't talk about cool.

[colker]

If you have to have cool explained to you, you are not cool. If you have to explain cool to someone, you are not cool.

Essentially, it's like Fight Club. The first rule of cool is don't talk about cool.

Are you saying you are cool?

[goonster]

1. Real coolness is a lot like a good joke. You can dissect it, but to do that you have to kill it.

2. Coolness is not like Wokeness at all, because the former is primarily an aesthetic sensibility while the latter is political awareness.

3. The level of discourse that David Brooks operates on is pretty high, but if we accept him as a trader in the currency of ideas, then it is also a legit position to consistently refuse his wares on grounds of inferior quality. Yes, "he makes you think," but if what he makes you think 99.9% of the time is "this guy is wrong, and kind of lazy" then there is always other stuff to read.

4. I was listening to Erykah Badu long before David Brooks was aware of her, and that makes me cooler and woker than him.

[goonster]

Are you saying you are cool?

Because he is, he's not allowed to say.

did he get the idea for this essay from a cab driver at the applebee's salad bar?

Wrong NYT columnist. That's Thomas Friedman.

[Elefantino]

Are you saying you are cool?
I talked (or, rather typed) about cool.

Therefore, according to the rules, no, I am not cool.

[colker]

I talked (or, rather typed) about cool.

Therefore, according to the rules, no, I am not cool.

:beer:

hehehe

[54ny77]

The vast majority of us, riding around on bicycles in skin tight lycra with crotch padding and a goofy looking styrofoam thing on our heads, are not cool.

Mario Cippolini, however, is cool.

:banana:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/italy-former-italian-cycling-sprinter-mario-cipollini-competes-with-picture-id55838604

[fiamme red]

One more comment about this article. Brooks writes: "Jazz influenced the film noir directors, and then carried cool over to France, where it was embraced by existentialists like Camus."

Not having read Dinerstein's book, I don't if Brooks is here giving an accurate abstract of his argument. But I don't agree with this at all. I've seen more than a few Hollywood "noirs" from the 40's and '50's, and I can't think of one that had a jazz soundtrack (unless perhaps you count The Man With the Golden Arm as noir, and Elmer Bernstein's score as jazz). The first true "noir" that I can think of with a jazz soundtrack was not from Hollywood but France, Malle's Elevator to the Gallows from 1958. The idea of "cool" did influence the French New Wave directors like Godard (e.g., Belmondo imitating Bogart in Breathless or Michel Piccoli imitating Dean Martin in Contempt), who were much more self-conscious than the Hollywood noir directors were.

I'm not sure how Camus embraced "cool." His work is not influenced by jazz or Hollywood film noir.

To quote Goonster, my reaction to the column is that "this guy is wrong, and kind of lazy."

[colker]

One more comment about this article. Brooks writes: "Jazz influenced the film noir directors, and then carried cool over to France, where it was embraced by existentialists like Camus."

Not having read Dinerstein's book, I don't if Brooks is here giving an accurate abstract of his argument. But I don't agree with this at all. I've seen more than a few Hollywood "noirs" from the 40's and '50's, and I can't think of one that had a jazz soundtrack (unless perhaps you count The Man With the Golden Arm as noir, and Elmer Bernstein's score as jazz). The first true "noir" that I can think of with a jazz soundtrack was not from Hollywood but France, Malle's Elevator to the Gallows from 1958. The idea of "cool" did influence the French New Wave directors like Godard (e.g., Belmondo imitating Bogart in Breathless or Michel Piccoli imitating Dean Martin in Contempt), who were much more self-conscious than the Hollywood noir directors were.

I'm not sure how Camus embraced "cool." His work is not influenced by jazz or Hollywood film noir.

To quote Goonster, my reaction to the column is that "this guy is wrong, and kind of lazy."


Agree on the imprecision of his facts.

[pdmtong]

Only Chili Palmer is "cool"

...the rest of us? poseurs....

[fuzzalow]

Debating the minutiae of cool. Antithetical. Doing that kinda misses the point of what it is, doesn't it?

[akelman]

Debating the minutiae of cool. Antithetical. Doing that kinda misses the point of what it is, doesn't it?

You posted a link to an op-ed that does exactly that!

(A friend of mine once said that David Brooks is a stupid man pretending to be a smart man pretending to be a stupid man, and I think that's just about as accurate a description as you can possibly find, though it doesn't touch on the fact that he's also become a monument to empty moralizing.)

[akelman]

Wrong NYT columnist. That's Thomas Friedman.

Actually, Tom Friedman is the taxi cabs. David Brooks is the (nonexistent) Applebee's salad bar. They're both ridiculous in their own special ways!

[fuzzalow]

You posted a link to an op-ed that does exactly that!

HaHa! I wasn't referring to Mr. Brooks' essay, I was referring to the responses that disagreed and debunked his essay in focusing on minutiae.

I understood the essay as an OpEd and not a product towards academia. It presented a point of view with some degree of backing suitable to his argument and permissible in the context of word limits imposed to a newspaper column. It started a conversation. That is all.

(A friend of mine once said that David Brooks is a stupid man pretending to be a smart man pretending to be a stupid man, and I think that's just about as accurate a description as you can possibly find, though it doesn't touch on the fact that he's also become a monument to empty moralizing.)

Hey, what are ya gonna do? His job is to write but your job doesn't involve reading him.

As far as judgements on stupid or not: There's always somebody smarter and you'll only get into trouble when you think that somebody is you.

[unterhausen]

Actually, Tom Friedman is the taxi cabs. David Brooks is the (nonexistent) Applebee's salad bar. They're both ridiculous in their own special ways!

well, Mr. Brooks is probably upset that he didn't think of the taxi cab shtick first. He really has one job, propaganda, and he does it reasonably well. It's not being right about anything, unfortunately. Just the opposite.

[guido]

Given that his normal gig of making republicans look reasonable is rather untenable in the current climate, he has moved on to other topics he know nothing about. A crank without portfolio is a rather sad thing...

[OtayBW]

^ I've never been a D. Brooks fan, but his recent editorials have been much more clear - or, let's just say 'reasonable in the current climate' - than some of his earlier work.

[Cloozoe]

David Brooks on cool is like Eddie Arcaro on tall, G W Bush on eloquence or Dan Martin on biceps.

[Repack Rider]

David Brooks on cool is like Eddie Arcaro on tall, G W Bush on eloquence or Dan Martin on biceps.

This.

[unterhausen]

the role Brooks plays requires him to be right occasionally. "Reasonable Republican"

[guido]

the role Brooks plays requires him to be right occasionally. "Reasonable Republican"

A broken clock is right twice a day...

[Cloozoe]

... "Reasonable Republican"

Oxymoron

[gasman]

Oxymoron

Please no politics !