if the future is confusion, then i'm already there

I need things explained to me. Thank you.

* * * * *

Because my eyes can be packed with sand sometimes -- which has the effect of making me a bit thick -- and because I'll never be a hipster (what is kale, anyway?), I was a bit lost as to the point of the Douglas Coupland article in The Globe and Mail this weekend (A radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years). I *think* it was supposed to be funny. Or mildly funny. Was it supposed to be funny? I honestly don't know. Could someone tell me, please? I'm serious.

The accompanying artwork was an awful start: it was like a sample collage from Photoshop 2.0. And then the text was all over the place. Some points were strong and self-explanatory ("You may well burn out out on the effort of being an individual" -- yep, already there), some were reasonable and expected ("People will stop caring how they appear to others" -- *well* ahead of the curve on that one) and some were humorous in a corduroy-jacket kind of way ("IKEA will become an ever-more-spiritual sanctuary" -- uhm ... sure, ha ha). But the rest was either baffling ("The built world will continue looking more and more like Microsoft packaging"), derivative -- in this case from Radiohead, who referenced that cat tied to a stick about a million years ago -- ("You'll spend a lot of your time feeling like a dog leashed to a pole outside the grocery store -- separation anxiety will become your permanent state"), or just plain dumb ("North America can easily fragment quickly as did the Eastern Bloc in 1989"). There was a glossary as well, explaining things like 'Guck Wonder' (?) but I didn't have much heart for it.

The Globe is *really* going for broke these days: all full-colour pictures and ultra-brite stock and brand new, brand name columnists (Jeanne Becker, anyone?) and hell, more power to them, I hope they make it. Run rabbit run. But I also hope they keep some of the old Globe's sense of quality control in the process (on an up note, Katrina Onstad's article about the death throes of American Apparel was as smart and sharp as anything).


  1. wow. just wow. and yes, some of those *achievements* i already sport. especially the one about caring how one looks...
    the illustration is dreadful.
    ah, the morning shot of happiness is always here at red-handed!
    thanks for being you!

  2. Looks very nice. excelent photo!

  3. I think it was just an advertisement of sorts for Coupland's original thinking, even if it's all bleak. I was charmed at first but then the cumulative weight got to me and I took refuge in the Style section. Yes! Leopard's still in.

    I abhor the Globe's sketch avatars. Fromage! Jeanne Becker's makes her look 29.

  4. I get pretty ratty with our 'hip' columnists too. Does anyone know if they're flammable?

  5. 46)
    There is no more
    difference between
    professional writers and a people with access to the internet.

  6. Susan: tnx, you're very sweet.

    Dedicated: you are a robot.

    Megan: the Style section is the newspaper equivalent of an open window.

    Leni: tnx.

    Lulu: HA! (But seriously: yes, they do burn rather well.)

    Jeannette: that would be me. And you. And that guy who likes to dress up like Peter Pan.

  7. I'm not surprised you didn't have the heart to read the glossary. Was it Auden who said that whenever he read anything he thought: 'who's telling me this and why are they telling me it?'? As I read (thanks for the link) I began to think: 'who's telling me this and why does he exist?'


Post a Comment

Popular Posts