But What If We're Wrong?

But What If We're Wrong?

Thinking About the Present as If It Were the Past

Downloadable Audiobook - 2016 | Unabridged
Average Rating:
Rate this:
New York Times bestselling author Chuck Klosterman asks questions that are profound in their simplicity: How certain are we about our understanding of gravity? How certain are we about our understanding of time? What will be the defining memory of rock music, five hundred years from today? How seriously should we view the content of our dreams? How seriously should we view the content of television? Are all sports destined for extinction? Is it possible that the greatest artist of our era is currently unknown (or--weirder still--widely known, but entirely disrespected)? Is it possible that we "overrate" democracy? And perhaps most disturbing, is it possible that we've reached the end of knowledge?

Klosterman visualizes the contemporary world as it will appear to those who'll perceive it as the distant past. Kinetically slingshotting through a broad spectrum of objective and subjective problems, But What If We're Wrong? is built on interviews with a variety of creative thinkers--George Saunders, David Byrne, Jonathan Lethem, Kathryn Schulz, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Junot Díaz, Amanda Petrusich, Ryan Adams, Nick Bostrom, Dan Carlin, and Richard Linklater, among others--interwoven with the type of high-wire humor and nontraditional analysis only Klosterman would dare to attempt. It's a seemingly impossible achievement: a book about the things we cannot know, explained as if we did. It's about how we live now, once "now" has become "then."

From the Hardcover edition.
Publisher: New York : Books on Tape, p2016
Edition: Unabridged
ISBN: 9780451484901
Characteristics: 1 online resource (1 sound file: 10 hrs., 7 mins.) : digital
Additional Contributors: Hardingham, Fiona


From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment

Sep 13, 2016

This is the weakest of Klosterman's books I've read. I'm not sure what the point of the book is after reading it. It seemed meaningless in retrospect, but is interesting while reading it. The book sounded like someone stoned telling me a theory. I liked the pop culture stuff mentioned in his book, like he usually has in his essay books. It is so Chuck to mention that he never misses the McLaughlin Group, and it is weird things like that I enjoy hearing his voice, but the book doesn't live up to his others.

Sep 05, 2016

The book is something of intellectual T-ball. He sets up an easy target and takes a swing at it.

What music is going to be recognized in the future? What movies are important? Will the NFL be less violent or less mportant? Will there be any more important science discoveries? Will the world be the same as today? Will we think the same as today? Who is the worst and best presidents?

Since virtually all of the topic relate to matters of opinion, there is little doubt that opinions, (his straw men) are going to change. The world will be different that it is now, because our thinking will be different. Our information will be more complete and more accurate.

To suggest our thinking and consensuses are going to change is a matter that doesn't require discussion. It would be egotistical to suggest that we know it all now. It shouldn't take a long book to realize or prove that.

Thus to me, the book was unimportant. It tried to prove what we already know. 'As Homer would say duhhhhh.


Add Age Suitability

There are no ages for this title yet.


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.


Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.


Add a Quote

There are no quotes for this title yet.

Explore Further


Subject Headings


Find it at PLYMC

To Top