Does anyone still read these? Well, if not, theres only 5 or 6 left, so they'll be over soon. Theres been some inconsistency in the posting I realize, and hopefully that'll change soon. I definitely will be posting some writing this weekend, of my own original stuff, not another question. Maybe I'll write something new, or find something to talk about. Anyhow, heres another one of Klosterman's questions.
17. You are sitting in an empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking Bacardi with a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told. “He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with no past.”
Which of these two people do you trust less?
17. Well, theres three people here besides myself. And how metaphorical are we talking this past thing here? Because if the fourth man had no past, then he wouldn't really exist, so the two men are the second and third guy. And what kind of pasts are we talking here? The soft-spoken acquaintance might be a nutcase who speaks in tongues. This is probably much harder than I'm making it but I'll continue. What do I have to trust these guys for anyway? Not stealing my drink? Do I have to make friends with them or something? Why does this acquaintance have to be so cryptic????
OK I'll just focus on the past/no past thing. I would trust the man with the past less. Assuming his past is something to fear, then we have already established him to be a bad guy. He is a scary dude whether his intentions were good or not. However, the man with no past has nothing to lose and could probably use a buddy as well as someone to be loyal to.
I think I would trust the man with no past less. Mainly because, I'm sure he does have a past, but if he wants to keep it a secret so much that nobody has an idea of what he's done, it's gotta be pretty bad. And at least the guy with the past could be someone who could always tell you stories.
ReplyDeleteNow. I'm reading yours.
The man with no past is obviously the most trustworthy, for a simple reason. A man with no past would be a newborn baby. Everyone knows newborn babies are more trustworthy, and less frightening then a man with a past. Although that baby might be a little boring, and annoying, I'd definitely take it's ignorance to be a good quality.
ReplyDelete