Like crypto, the Kardashians are interesting and important because hundreds of millions of other people care about them and believe falsehoods about them.
Lewis often writes about such topics -- things that are popularly misunderstood, swindlers, etc.
I think your dislike of crypto will make the end result more interesting to you, because Lewis is good at bridging that gap for people.
My girlfriend watches Kardashians and I don't think she believes in falsehoods about the Kardashians. Nor do most people besides maybe the young teenage audience. This is a big misconception in society.
The whole idea of celebrities/reality shows/TV news/etc is that the audience thinks they are dumb and feels superior to them (see most Twitter outrage cycles like the current big one)... but when challenged they don't care since it's a "guilty pleasure".
They know it's vapid and dumb. People seek escape and fun.
Saying people watch them merely because they are being fooled is a bad take and often used in politics. It's basically dressed up satire that feeds into base desires. It's also an opportunity to hear things said that are socially taboo otherwise if the person is to be taken seriously.
The fact some segment buys into it (they would be buying into something equally dumb otherwise) doesn't mean the bulk of the audience does.
This is a little bit of a tangent. The specific case of the Kardashians is unimportant to the overall point, which is that there are reasons to be interested in things that we perceive as frivolous or vapid. When hundreds of millions of people are interested in something, it's almost never frivolous or vapid when you learn more about it.
> I don't think she believes in falsehoods about the Kardashians.
I can't comment on your girlfriend. You're obviously correct about her. That doesn't mean she's a typical fan or typical media consumer.
The things most people don't realize about them are:
- they're intelligent, talented, and capable people;
- absolutely nothing on their shows is any more real than what happens on a scripted TV show, and Keeping Up with the Kardashians is literally scripted;
- they don't personally make many of the decisions about their brands (what they post on Instagram or Twitter, what products their brands release, etc.)
> They know it's vapid and dumb. People seek escape and fun.
I agree. I don't think most fans of reality shows think the shows are important or admire the people on them. That's partly my point: like crypto, we may look down on all the people involved without realizing that there is a lot more than meets the eye.
> Saying people watch them merely because they are being fooled is a bad take and often used in politics.
Authors can't survive on hopes and dreams. Things like this are in the zeitgeist whether we agree or endorse it or not, and it'll probably sell. It's an author you like, so why not turn a few pages in the book store and see if you might broaden your horizons if anything just to enjoy more of an author you support?
Maybe a mainstream book debunking crypto would be a valuable contribution. In the past week many people have said "Why didn't anyone warn me about FTX?" There have been tons of warnings of course, but they came from places like Dirty Bubble Media that don't exactly have the Hollywood cachet of Michael Lewis. Maybe this time the message will get through.
(Or maybe it will be like War Dogs, pitching SBF as a lovable and quirky guy who somehow ended up on the wrong side of the law.)
Something tells me Michael Lewis is being paid to write the exact opposite of what you expect. They wouldn't let a non-believer to "embed" into their operation.
> But at the risk of coming across arrogant, I don’t care for crypto or anything related to its celebrity frontmen.
> Perhaps he’ll reconsider and write about something else entirely.
Idk why people insist on authors only writing stories that they want to read.
FTX is a monumental disaster and the story behind it desperately needs to be told precisely because it's such a big part of our culture. Based on Lewis' history with The Big Short, etc. he's perfectly positioned to write that account.
It's been so wild how many people I've met over the last 4-5 years who made the exact same kinds of comments about crypto that the bankers were saying about housing finance back in 2006.
It's false. It's written as if Goldman Sachs traders were innocent angels preyed on by evil HFT firms, which is backwards. HFTs improve your prices as a retail investor too; they don't steal your money.
It always has been. Flash Boys was totally off the mark, as was Liar's Poker. Reportedly this book was intended to be a puff piece on SBF and his exchange. I'm a little upset that the whole fiasco collapsed before it could reveal Michael Lewis as the charlatan that he is.
The cringe-iest thing about this is the attempt to spin Lewis' role in this as a spectator for the collapse, when the fact that he was "embedded" there for 6 months indicates that he was preparing a story to boost this whole fiasco. That's passingly corroborated by the ludicrous Sequoia piece about SBF, which noted Lewis' presence. Well, that and the whole "Star Wars" thing.
Is Lewis's MO to pump up the people he writes about?
It's been a long time since I've read Flash Boys.
If he had sat on negative info it probably could have sold more books if he published some articles beforehand (controversy > puff pieces business wise). That's how that WSJ journo made his career off that Theranos book via posting negative stories well before the book was released. Although he was a WSJ journalist first, not a pop-finance author.
That was certainly his M.O. in Flash Boys (IEX), Moneyball (Beane), The Big Short (Eisman and Burry), and The Blind Side (Sean Tuohy).
But, look: just wait and see what develops from this, and see if it acknowledges Lewis' role in building up SBF's profile, even after he announced to the world that he was literally in the Ponzi business.
Carreyou had won two Pulitzers before he started reporting on Theranos. He was a successful professional. His reporting was so notable it became part of the story of Theranos. His first story on Theranos was published 3 years before the book. I'm pretty sure the book only exists because of the quality of the reporting. The reporting was not in service of the book.
That's doubly true, because without the reporting, it's possible Theranos would still be around, or would have been quietly acquired. People forget how integral Carryrou was to the whole story.
Still it's probably more likely Lewis cared more about documenting another unique business success story than really understanding his subject matter. Which is far more likely than him purposefully ignoring a negative angle (not that I think you're suggesting otherwise, but the Sequia bit might be taken that way).
Liar’s Poker wasn’t exactly a glowing review and drew on first hand experience. I think deep embed doesn’t necessarily mean puff. Getting in with Gladwell isn’t a great sign but particularly now that the outcome is established I’d have been open to the idea of it being a good book.
I feel like Gladwell is saved by keeping most of his analysis confined to bland, abstract, business-friendly topics, while Lewis does something much more akin to traditional reporting. They are both frequently and flagrantly wrong, but Lewis's wrongness is more consequential. Also, Gladwell is a better writer.
I was unable to finish "Tipping Point" as it was, in my view, a failed kindergarten-level attempt to explain Chaos, which was done so superbly in 'Chaos: Making a New Science' by James Gleick.
I have a standing rule that anybody who mentions "Igon Value" to me gets a 3x3 matrix eigenvalue problem to solve, because I rather strongly suspect that most people (not you) who bring "igon value" up are trying to claim credit on the basis of little more than knowing how to spell the word. If I ever meet Pinker, bet your life that I'm going to bring up Gladwell to him. :)
But yes: I don't have any faith in Gladwell's reporting. I just think he's a supremely effective writer, and that's interesting to me. He is, like, the Yngwie Malmsteen of his profession, maybe.
If you're a reporter and a really good storyteller, which he definitely is, your reporting drive better be really, really good. At my most cynical, I would say that Gladwell writes non-fiction because it suits his style and makes for better stories, but that might be going too far.
The comparison feels just a bit off - like, Malmsteen's popularity rounds to zero, even in the world of 80's shredders aficionados. Gladwell has multiple best-sellers that are popular to general audiences. I think maybe a better comp would be someone like Reb Beach? Player with known technical chops but in a somewhat generally popular band that was not appreciated by guitar-store superheroes . . .
Course, maybe not using an obscure hair-band reference would be better.
The comparison is weirdly inspiring. I think just about the greatest thing ever would a biopic about the life of Malcolm Gladwell, somehow in the vein of both the fictional Weird: The Al Yankovic Story AND Julie and Julia, comparing and contrasting Malcolm Gladwell and Yngwie Malmsteen. (I have seen neither of these films)
Like, what's the Gladwell equivalent of Yngwie as a youth getting kicked out of a band for trying to kill Graham Bonnet? Make something up. I bet it involves assaulting an editor! What's the fictional equivalent of Yngwie deciding he should sing? I bet it involves Gladwell deciding he doesn't need to talk to anyone who understands mathematics. Or maybe you could break the fourth wall and have Yngwie decide he is fully capable of playing Gladwell in the film, since how hard it can it possibly be, and he's already halfway there since they both have stupid hair.
If you are going to look for excellent storytellers, I suggest Jerzy Kosiński, whose Painted Bird is a autobiography, that is pretty much known to be false, (but true in some sense) and probably not written by him. His books are far more interesting than anything Gladwell wrote.
Gladwell once said "If you don't like my writing, don't read it" (not sure if this quote is exact) or equivalent. I'm likely to go one better and recommend that friends don't read it as well.
If you are looking for compelling not-true but claimed-to-be-true, also consider Carlos Castañeda.
His track record isn't particularly great on the idea of "embedding" != puff piece. Flash Boys was a puff piece for IEX, Moneyball for Beane, The Big Short for several hedge funds, and the list goes on.
He seems to pick up a skewed and biased perspective from people who don't have the full picture, and just run with it as though it is the full picture.
Are we sure the star wars comparison corroborates it? From my reading of that quote it was calling SBF Luke Skywalker - which may even suggest that Michael Lewis doesn't think he is evil. Binance is the empire here, no?
As someone who has read one of his books, I strongly doubt that Lewis didn't look at the whole crypto-sphere critically.
Remember, a lot of these guys are huge narcissists. They will reveal their darkest secrets to a famous journalist, because a bit of fame overpowers their most basic survival instincts. It's like when Trump had Bob Woodward embedded in the White House.
If it's anything like "flash boys" it will likely completely miss the point and beg for regulations to save his buddies in traditional finance who are being obsoleted by technology. That was, after all, the point of IEX.
Lots of critical takes here - this book will be a yuge bestseller and the movie a nerdy blockbuster on par with The Big Short or WeCrashed - which was a book by my friend Eliot Brown!
56 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadBut at the risk of coming across arrogant, I don’t care for crypto or anything related to its celebrity frontmen.
Crypto, it’s obsession, and entire culture, in my mind, is like “Keeping up with the Kardashians” meets tech culture.
The article says Michael Lewis hasn’t written a word of the book yet. Perhaps he’ll reconsider and write about something else entirely.
Lewis often writes about such topics -- things that are popularly misunderstood, swindlers, etc.
I think your dislike of crypto will make the end result more interesting to you, because Lewis is good at bridging that gap for people.
The whole idea of celebrities/reality shows/TV news/etc is that the audience thinks they are dumb and feels superior to them (see most Twitter outrage cycles like the current big one)... but when challenged they don't care since it's a "guilty pleasure".
They know it's vapid and dumb. People seek escape and fun.
Saying people watch them merely because they are being fooled is a bad take and often used in politics. It's basically dressed up satire that feeds into base desires. It's also an opportunity to hear things said that are socially taboo otherwise if the person is to be taken seriously.
The fact some segment buys into it (they would be buying into something equally dumb otherwise) doesn't mean the bulk of the audience does.
> I don't think she believes in falsehoods about the Kardashians.
I can't comment on your girlfriend. You're obviously correct about her. That doesn't mean she's a typical fan or typical media consumer.
The things most people don't realize about them are:
- they're intelligent, talented, and capable people;
- absolutely nothing on their shows is any more real than what happens on a scripted TV show, and Keeping Up with the Kardashians is literally scripted;
- they don't personally make many of the decisions about their brands (what they post on Instagram or Twitter, what products their brands release, etc.)
> They know it's vapid and dumb. People seek escape and fun.
I agree. I don't think most fans of reality shows think the shows are important or admire the people on them. That's partly my point: like crypto, we may look down on all the people involved without realizing that there is a lot more than meets the eye.
> Saying people watch them merely because they are being fooled is a bad take and often used in politics.
I agree.
(Or maybe it will be like War Dogs, pitching SBF as a lovable and quirky guy who somehow ended up on the wrong side of the law.)
> Perhaps he’ll reconsider and write about something else entirely.
Idk why people insist on authors only writing stories that they want to read. FTX is a monumental disaster and the story behind it desperately needs to be told precisely because it's such a big part of our culture. Based on Lewis' history with The Big Short, etc. he's perfectly positioned to write that account.
It's been so wild how many people I've met over the last 4-5 years who made the exact same kinds of comments about crypto that the bankers were saying about housing finance back in 2006.
“Flash Boys Not So Fast” is a comprehensive takedown.
https://smile.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Insiders-Perspective-Hig...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Artists_Agency
It's been a long time since I've read Flash Boys.
If he had sat on negative info it probably could have sold more books if he published some articles beforehand (controversy > puff pieces business wise). That's how that WSJ journo made his career off that Theranos book via posting negative stories well before the book was released. Although he was a WSJ journalist first, not a pop-finance author.
But, look: just wait and see what develops from this, and see if it acknowledges Lewis' role in building up SBF's profile, even after he announced to the world that he was literally in the Ponzi business.
Is it safe to say that the Gladwell bar is low and the Lewis bar is lower?
They are both fantastic story tellers.
Sadly, these stories more of than not seem to be creatively spun fiction (to be polite) more than anything else.
That plus his howler about "Igon Value."
A good storyteller, yes, but that is the limit.
But yes: I don't have any faith in Gladwell's reporting. I just think he's a supremely effective writer, and that's interesting to me. He is, like, the Yngwie Malmsteen of his profession, maybe.
There is a comparison I would have never expected.
Course, maybe not using an obscure hair-band reference would be better.
Like, what's the Gladwell equivalent of Yngwie as a youth getting kicked out of a band for trying to kill Graham Bonnet? Make something up. I bet it involves assaulting an editor! What's the fictional equivalent of Yngwie deciding he should sing? I bet it involves Gladwell deciding he doesn't need to talk to anyone who understands mathematics. Or maybe you could break the fourth wall and have Yngwie decide he is fully capable of playing Gladwell in the film, since how hard it can it possibly be, and he's already halfway there since they both have stupid hair.
You had me at "decide to sing" = "doesn't need to talk to anyone who understands mathematics".
I admire a person so deranged they think Yngwie breaking the fourth wall is a "maybe".
If you are going to look for excellent storytellers, I suggest Jerzy Kosiński, whose Painted Bird is a autobiography, that is pretty much known to be false, (but true in some sense) and probably not written by him. His books are far more interesting than anything Gladwell wrote.
Gladwell once said "If you don't like my writing, don't read it" (not sure if this quote is exact) or equivalent. I'm likely to go one better and recommend that friends don't read it as well.
If you are looking for compelling not-true but claimed-to-be-true, also consider Carlos Castañeda.
He seems to pick up a skewed and biased perspective from people who don't have the full picture, and just run with it as though it is the full picture.
Remember, a lot of these guys are huge narcissists. They will reveal their darkest secrets to a famous journalist, because a bit of fame overpowers their most basic survival instincts. It's like when Trump had Bob Woodward embedded in the White House.