But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past

Chuck Klosterman's newest book "But What if We're Wrong" is awesome. Its out there but it continues a trend I find with him where reading his writing is almost like finding a better articulated and more edited version of some of my deep meandering thoughts. but maybe even more so in this book because of the topic. Guess i'm admitting i too am out there ;) The general question he asks is this: What will future generations see when they view this generation? What books will be studied from our century (as he puts it, who is going to be our century's kafka)? What about music; what will really define "rock n roll", or the even less defined genre of "Rock"? And as the title suggests: what if we're wrong about what we think is defining our generation? It seems we think history repeats itself, but then how could we ever predict how different today is compared to even 50 yrs ago? When he starts to delve into the sciences, he tackles the idea of paradigm shifts (taken from Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and the question of what can we expect next. This is where its almost freakish how similar this section gets with what i discuss in some of my honors classes (i.e. can we make predictions? Will we see the atom? Will we see the proton? Will we see the strings?) Highly recommending this book to all, sciencey or non sciency peeps. There are interviews with some amazing people: rockstar scientisits Neal De Grass Tyson, Brian Greene, director Robert Linklater, talking heads founder David Byrne, authors Jonathan Lethem and Junot Diaz and more. There are some classic Klosterman off the wall theories about pop culture (probably my favorite part is his coming to the conclusion that the tv show Roseanne may be what future generations will study when looking at the definitive 20th century television programming) and how the future might view it, there is some conspiracy theories, a lot of well crafted "let's pretend" scenarios, and most importantly there is a lot of epistemological questions that at the end of the day make for the difference between living without. To the negative reviewers: much of what you say is that you felt that it rambled, lost its way, provided no strong foundation for the arguments.... Unfortunately, epistemology is often characterized by that. Even Klosterman discusses this in the book: as he puts it the difference between a physicist and a philosopher is the difference between what and why? (one cares about what is the cause, the other about the meaning behind it) Thank you Chuck for putting in the time with this one. Seems you spent quite sometime interviewing, researching, and you put together a great read. Maybe not the definitive book of this generation (hahaha, sorry) but still an excellent book.

Don’t take this in a wrong way, I have read everything Chuck Klosterman has ever written. At his best Klosterman is magic with words and wit. He excels at Rock music he understands it, he gets it, and his insight into that art form is 2nd to none. He also understands sports and his take on football in this book was per usual interesting. My background is in science and Klosterman dives headlong into that field. The chapters on gravity and the evolving field of quantum physics felt mildly forced and impersonal. The chapter on dinosaurs felt more personal and that evolving field has changed in my lifetime as well. The book goes off the rails once the writer enters the world of politics and American history. This is maybe a perceived forte but why? It felt like an off the cuff personal, but not researched take on a world he is not that well connected to. If he is connected to American politics or American historians I did not get where it all came from, That being said, anything Klosterman either knows really well like Rock or anything he has highly researched is well written. I plead to Chuck Klosterman to get back to your roots, write a big book on Rock, a really big book on Rock.

This short, thought-provoking book ranges widely from politics to music to physics but always returns to the main question of 'what if we are wrong'. There are countless cases in history of widely-held beliefs about culture, philosophy and even the nature of the world being overturned almost overnight. Artists unknown in their time are celebrated today as unsung geniuses while the giants of those ages are forgotten. Which raises the question, what do we think, believe or know today that will be proven false tomorrow? It's a good question and there isn't necessarily an answer in here but that's fine because it does make us think. I first learned of this book when one chapter was reprinted in a magazine. It asked the question 300 years from now, when rock and roll is as historical and irrelevant as, say, opera, who will historians hold up as the example of rock, who will be remembered? Now ask the same question about television. Or any other aspect of our lives. Are the Grammy, Emmy and Oscar winners really the most important works of art in the world today? If not, what is? Klosterman also asks the equally challenging question, what if we're right? Yes people once believed the world was flat and were proven wrong. But that sort of scientific revolution has become rarer as we've shared more information and established methods, so what if this is it? What if our understanding of the world is it, and there are no more revolutions? Again he doesn't have answers but there's a lot to chew on here. Klosterman's style is very friendly, he sprinkles in self-deprecating humor and personal anecdotes throughout which keeps this book from being too heavy. I found it a perfect read for a long plane trip. I recommend it.

listen, i am not ever one to judge a book based on it’s a appearance, but it does kind of suck when i clicked the “buy new” option and clearly got a used copy instead, which i could’ve spent $16 less on. I am excited to read this regardless but i was also excited to open a fresh, clean, unused book to add to my collection. Instead i got the opposite with stains, dents, dog eared pages and other signs of use.

At this point, I must have read everything in book form that Klosterman has put out in book form. I got turned onto him when I was in college, and my buddies gave me a book, and Klosterman was like the cool older brother you never had, throwing together essays that made you think and made you want to be the kind of guy Klosterman was. Except maybe not as ginger. He’s grown up and I with him. I followed him through his novels – even though I forgot that I had read one of them until I was looking at the list of books in the front of this book and I was like, “Yeah, I read that”. I’ve now read two of the latest books, the one about bad guys and now this one. The current thing Chuck is doing is taking a whole conceit and stretching it out to a book length. I’m not sure if it works for a whole book. What made Klosterman’s earlier essays work was that the idea wasn’t worn out in the essay; it was the jumping off point for the kind of dorm room chatter that passes for male bonding. “But What if We’re Wrong” jumps off from a point to try to imagine what the current world will look like to the future. It’s one of those things that sound simple but has profound implications but it never really comes up. It’s because as a culture we are certain of ourselves; we always have been certain of ourselves. One of my favorite things in a book is when a character talks about the modern world, and then I recognize that that world is much less in advance than mine – so the idea that characters who uses horses for locomotion is risible. We are in a constant state of change, and what we have for comparison is the past, so there is a constant and ever-changing modernity that focuses on one day only. Today. Therefore, I think this works as a thought experiment, but the funny thing is that the book is almost certain to be 99% wrong. Most books are, but this one is just more conscious of the fact.

I enjoyed this book tremendously. Granted, part of the reason is that the topic Mr. Klosterman covers in it is one that I’ve spent some time turning over in my own mind through the years. Essentially, he is elucidating the difficulty in understanding what the world is going to be like in the future and how that future world will understand us. We tend to try to base our conclusions on how we understand the world today but, as history shows, the world tends to unfold in very unpredictable ways, making our predictions pretty much useless. (Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s fun to try.) As a scientist, I tend to cringe with the arrogant certainty some people in the field tend to defend scientific knowledge. I have long wondered how scientists (if they’re still called that) of the twenty-sixth century will view us. Will it be with the same kind of derision that many view those of today view the sixteenth century? Surely they felt as certain about their understanding of the world as we do about ours. Though I have great respect for science and how it’s helped us create our world, I also think that the worldview of the future is likely to be so different from ours that we can’t even fathom it. Mr. Klosterman meditates on these subjects with the help of Neil de Grasse Tyson and Brian Greene and their varying points of view illustrate the difficulties quite nicely. Another interesting question for the writer is: which authors will still be read in a few hundred years? Or, which TV shows will be watched? Or, which musicians will still be listened to? Mr. Klosterman tackles all of these subjects well but I was struck by his approach to the music (since I’ve thought about this less than the literary question). I never considered it specifically but, as much as rock ‘n’ roll has seemed a universal musical language for me that must last forever, it’s just as likely to be the marching band music of the future. (For example, hip-hop is much more the default musical language for my children.) And the entirety of marching band music is captured by the name John Philip Sousa. (Or reggae—Bob Marley.) Which name will define rock ‘n’ roll in 2416? Elvis? Bob Dylan? The Beatles? Mr. Klosterman discusses these and what each would mean for future scholars’ understanding of rock ‘n’ roll. (Note: it will be very different from our understanding.) He also makes a good case for the Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, or Journey. Mr. Klosterman may be pushing the limits here with his “one name” theory. Classical music still has plenty of names associated with it, for example. Still, his point is well taken. Overall, this book is excellent food for thought. After this book and his last, I Wear the Black Hat, I’m beginning to think that Mr. Klosterman and I think a lot alike. I don’t know what that say about me, exactly, but I do know that it means I’ve really enjoyed these books and recommend them highly.

I picked up this book at the Amazon store at University Village one day last fall. I hadn't a clue what it was about, I just liked the title and the idea that a writer can be such a skeptic. The stories, which maybe read more like magazine articles, blog posts, or almost-essays than what I think they are intended to be: essays, and are about a lot of different subjects (music, TV, science, history, sports), each one with something that calls our typical thinking about it into question. After reading it through the first time, I handed it off to my also-skeptical teenage son, who chose it to give to one of his robotics team mentors. Having forgotten much of the book's minutiae, which I suppose means it wasn't that memorable, I recently read it again. Here are some things I liked about it (in no particular order): Skepticism! The idea that some things, Moby Dick for example, are overwhelmingly thought of by most as excellent, although they really may not be. I loved the Amazon review the author includes about Moby Dick. I tend to hate books that the general public loves and love the books they hate, so I appreciate this idea. He also mentions Tenth of December, a short story collection by Saunders, I tried to read it twice and gave up. Just saying. Seemingly crazy at the time predictions that came true. The idea that far into the future, our beliefs about something (say gravity) may turn out to be entirely wrong. The Dark Net That we all might be part of a computer simulation. A discussion of arguments in favor (or not) of voting Reality (or not) TV The fact that football may become extinct (not that I mind football, the idea just seems very unlikely) In summary, I liked this book because it made me look at several ideas, concepts, and subjects differently, but I didn't love it, maybe because the essays didn't feel quite like what I'm used to...which should probably have made me like them even more. See, even what I believe doesn't always make sense.

We accept that the future will somehow be familiar enough to recognize in some tangible way. When we imagine the future (unless we are professional science fiction writers) we habitually construct it to look like either a shinier version of today, or a more dystopian version of today. But as the enormously witty Klosterman explains, history doesn't work that way. By looking at how the past viewed the present, we can see how wrong we are likely to be about the future - and his, perhaps, better understand what we're doing now. Occasionally goofy, but always worthwhile. Highly recommended.

Good book. It really makes you think about the significance of what you think is important in your life. Versus, what will actually be long lasting importance in the future. Helps you to appreciate the random and rare.

great read recommend it to anyone who wants to be confused

The author use a question mark. The answer is an exclamation point: yes, we are wrong. absolutely a recommended reading

Sometimes brilliant but mostly boring. Perhaps the book would be better if shorter. I didn't like when pages stuffed of funny remarks.

In a world where we tend to consume things that reinforce our viewpoint it’s interesting to read something that comes from a perspective other than “I am always right” - even taking the title as a piece of philosophy for every day living could be a useful approach. But I could be wrong.