Adore the spirit of this. So many pieces are dated and some way more than others. Ultimately it makes me miss the optimism of the nineties before so many queer gorgeous artistic dreams got ground completely under by the frightening illegal boot of greed and war. ❤️🩹❤️🔥❤️🩹
Once upon a time, the Barnes and Noble in my neighborhood had a nice used book section, perfect for cheap asses such as myself. (then B&N went and rebuilt down the road, and will no longer sell used crap. I hate them now.)
This book was in a pile of $1 books... I saw David Foster Wallace had an essay in it, so I jumped on it. (yep, literally)
DFW writes an essay on AIDS, and how perhaps, it is good for us to put a little thought into who/why we fornicate. I was all raised eyebrows at the start, but I loved what he had to say. Seriously, that man could write about anything and make it interesting. His essay alone was worth buying the book. (In full disclosure, I love him. I am biased.)
Some of the other essays were good. I really enjoyed the "college is for suckers" essay, which makes several very good points on why college is often for suckers. Hey, all I have is a crappy associate degree, but I make decent money, love my work and have no college debt... it make me feel better about my lack of edukahshun.
Also enjoyable was David Egger's essay titled, "I've never fucked Anybody", which takes a look at the versatile "f" word and how it's not appropriate for the sex/coitus/relations/love making that he's done. (the word "fuck" seems to violent for him, "make love" way too cheesy.)
On the lame/don't care list were essays on Kurt Loder, a global makeover, and men wearing nail polish.
I wasn’t feeling this early on, so I started skimming. I abandoned ship and damn near threw the thing when it compared the prisoner selection at Auschwitz to the college applicant selection process.
From the folks who now bring you Mcsweeney's. My favorite magazine of all time and a cause for celebration. I loved every issue I was fortunate enough to read (even if you had to wait 3-8 weeks between issues). Read on for a better description of what you've missed:
This collection of essays from the late, lamented Might magazine deserves a place on any post-boomer's bookshelf. Shiny Adidas Tracksuits bristles with interesting thoughts and novel turns of phrase; most pieces are short (fewer than five pages), and all are well written and precisely observed.
Referring to Might's editorial principles, the editors write: "One rule was that every issue of Might had to have a lot of swearing in it, ideally in the headlines. Another rule was that, even though we had about a month or two to put each issue together, the magazine had to go to press with somewhere between thirty and forty egregious spelling and grammatical errors. But the one rule that really got us into trouble, the one that basically doomed us from the start, was this one: We would not publish anything we didn't care about.... In observing this rule, the one that said we had to like the things we printed, we were precluded from publishing the sorts of things that might have kept the magazine afloat: namely articles about celebrities, clothes, electronics, makeup, cars, video games, beer, nightlife generally, and beer." Instead, the writers in Shiny Adidas Tracksuits and the Death of Camp describe quirky personal quests, examine pop-culture doodads, and spout crackpot theories. The book, like the magazine, somehow avoids the creeping contagion of irony and remains absolutely fresh, vigorous, and friendly.
Apart from David Foster Wallace, most contributors aren't national commodities (which is sort of the point), but they deserve to be, and deserve your attention. This book is a fitting epitaph to a sparkler of a magazine.
Various writers are included in this book, which takes its contents from the failed “Might” magazine of the 1990s. Some of the essays show their age, creaking and dated, as they take potshots at people or trends that are no longer au courant or relevant. Others manage sporadic moments of wit. Then there are those which truly shine, showing both their author’s probing intelligence and his or her refusal to pander to the reader. A few, such as the titular essay, swing so wide of the mark it’s hard to imagine that they ever could have aroused anything other derision or bafflement in their audience.
The trouble with “Might” wasn’t that it failed to include things like advertisements for shiny cars, fashionable clothing or even perfume inserts that are found in many magazines. “Might” basically included anything the authors thought interesting, sort of in the way that bored car travelers might point out a meadow full of sheep or a woman walking a dog that’s had its fur dyed purple to match her outfit. Because of that, any interest it generated in its readers was almost equally fleeting. But there are items of brilliance here, even if the book illustrates why the original magazine was such a transient attempt at random journalism.
I've had this book on my "to purchase" list for years, and I was so excited to finally get a copy. What a disappointment! To be fair, a lot of it had to do with timeliness....I'm sure many of these essays were better when they were initially published and were relevant. but even those that didn't deal with no-longer-so-current events just felt flat, and very much like the authors were trying too hard. "Might" appears to have been of the school of the late, lamented "Spy" and the current and enjoyable "Radar", but with less focus on celebrity. Many of the authors just seemed smug, and the essays unfocused. Blah. Dave Eggers and company, I expected better!
i am guessing most people were like me in picking this up for the dfw and eggers pieces. the two actually wrote about almost the same thing here: the loss of meaning in sex, a topic that seems like an obvious enough choice for both of them, as both of them are concerned about reclaiming earnestness and morals and all that good stuff in the age of irony and counter culture. the eggers piece was surprisingly enough the better of the two -- dfw fans are not missing anything by not owning this one.
as for the rest of the book, i can't really say as i have the time nor interest, based on the few that i skimmed through already.
Hilarious, absurd, thought-provoking, stupid, funny, smart. All of these adjectives apply to the essays in this book, though not all adjectives apply to all essays. The stupid essays are a very small minority. I highly recommend this book. While one might reasonably criticize it on the grounds of cleverness for its own sake, most of the essays didn't strike me that way - there's a kind of gentle good humor that you don't get when authors are too taken with their own cleverness.
these essays are short. very short. but funny and at least mildly thought provoking. (like who knew there are only three cities in the entire country named with the full name of a person? i didn't know there was one, actually.) foster wallace, eggers, and h. pollock are just some of the short-lived might mag crew featured between the covers.
This book is a collection of essays from "Might" magazine. The entertainment value of each article ranges from pretty darn good, down to painful to complete. Most of them seem to be written from the perspective of introspective pseudo-intellectual hipster -- but don't let that dissuade you: the over-analysis of ironic and hip topics contains some bits that will make you laugh.
This caught my eyes in a thrift shop for $1. A great brilliant interesting and funny collection of essays by excellent writers. I'm enjoying very much.