[ozzythecat]

Gah! I’m a big fan of Michael Lewis. I feel he could write a book about nothing and still make it a page turner.

But 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.

[aliqot]

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?

[thr0wawayf00]

> 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.

[smt88]

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.

[dmix]

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.

[smt88]

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.

I agree.

[dmix]

Can't say I disagree with anything you posted. I may have over-analyzed your one sentence.

[throwaway5959]

Have to agree. I feel like there’s more to be written about pseudo-scams like Edward Jones.

[wmf]

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.)

[coliveira]

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.

[wmf]

He's "being paid" (not by SBF) to write anything that will sell. I don't think that gives us any clues which way he's leaning.