I first interviewed Christian Lander when few knew his name: the L.A. Times was breaking the "who's behind the blog-sensation 'Stuff White People Like'" story the same day as me. But it was an interesting vantage point at the cusp of a media explosion; a few weeks and a million blogs later Christian would have a huge book deal, and be subsequently cut-off from further media exposure. The book would be rushed to print, and despite throngs of critics predicting a quick crash-and-burn, would go on to list as one of the smartest publishing "gambles" of the year. All of that, from blog-to-bestseller, happened in less than a year ('08).

Now in 2009, I thought I'd check in and see if Christian's postpartum depressed or riding high or just trucking along or what. So here we go:

The Assimilated Negro (TAN): So you've posted, like, a handful of times in the new year. Quite a contrast to your torrid pace to start the blog. What are we thinking: burn out? too busy? end of the SWPL road? f the small internet people? something else?

Christian Lander (CL): Part of it is definitely a burn out. I try to make sure that the posts and the topics are still accurate and funny, I have no interest in updating just for the sake of updating. I also just finished the Page-a-Day Calendar which is actually a lot more work than it sounds like and leads to an enormous burnout on talking about white people.

TAN: So I see the tour ended a month or two ago: Much success? How many stops did you make? Good consistent turnout?

CL: There were actually three tours- Summer 2008, Fall 2008, Winter 2009. I've lost track of how many cities were there, but I feel like I hit almost every big city in America except for New York (who knows why). Every stop had an amazing turnout and it stayed consistent the whole way through.

TAN: There was some backlash at the time of the deal, but I do feel SWPL has sustained as a go-to reference for white liberal types. Thoughts on your bid for permanent relevance?

CL: It would be great if it sticks, but I never in a million years expected it to become as popular as it has. So if it completely fades away, that's just fine with me.

TAN: any networking with your offshoots (stuff blacks/asians like ... etc.) any word on if any of those blogs turned to books?

CL: I have nothing to do with the off-shoots, Stuff Midwesterners Like was published and Stuff Christian's Like is also going into publication soon.

TAN: What's been a bigger deal for you: getting the money or developing the platform?

CL: It's been absolutely amazing to have developed the platform. I still can't get over the popularity and it's been so much fun. Not to sound too pretentious but it's been a lifelong dream to have a book on the New York Times Best Seller list, to have achieved that is just incredible and it still blows my mind.

TAN: Are you earning out your deal? Is that a concern? You hear stories about books being successes but the size of the deal becoming an albatross.

CL: The book is doing very well.

TAN: What's one thing you have learned from the experience, that you could not have anticipated?

CL: Hard to say, I don't think I had any expectations going into this so I'm not sure what has been a surprise. I think I just never anticipated how big it eventually became and it's still strange how often I meet someone and when they find out that I wrote the blog/book, they are impressed. That's still pretty weird.

TAN: Other projects, future plans etc?

CL: The book has been optioned by Imagine Entertainment to become a TV show and I'm working on that along with a few other TV projects that I'm really hoping will pan out. But immediately next is a talk show this summer with Microsoft and Crispin, Porter Bogusky. It's going to be on-line, so it won't be the biggest thing in the world, but it's going to be a lot of fun.

Thanks, Christian.

Stuff White People Like still available at an Amazon near you.

[Ed. note: I've been enjoying T.A.N.'s stuff so much on Saturday afternoons that I decided to move him up to a primetime slot on Fridays where he'll post a couple things each week.]

Everyone should have a go-to quote to come off like a learned smarty-pants. Mine is from Nietzsche who said, "the only proof of strength is excess of strength". I love it because in our current link-don't-tell culture it speaks to how proof of brilliance needs to be hyperlinkably obvious. For Woody, Eddie, and Michael this was never an issue. No one ever calls into question their obvious excess of talent. But yet, reading the news and reviews from the past week or so, and it seems being a genius doesn't seem to hold the same water it used to. At the least, critics and journalists appear to be challenging the statute of limitations on genius privileges like never before:

Eddie Murphy: This post was seeded by Brooks Barnes in the NY Times (who also was involved with NYT coverage of MJ) wondering how/why Eddie Murphy still had so much Hollywood clout, despite being the butt of more jokes than he makes these days. In the sidebar they list his top 5 box office grosses, totaling up to $780 million. If you throw in Coming to America and a couple of his middling performers like, say, Boomerang and Harlem Nights, you're approaching a billion dollars in box office bank before you even get to ten movies. Murphy is the #2 man all time at the box office, right behind Tom Hanks and ahead of names like Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise. So, what's the question again? Asking Hollywood why they keep going to Eddie Murphy is like asking why the Yankees keep putting ARod in the cleanup spot (despite inconsistent production).

Make no mistake, it's not all bankability with Eddie (worth noting: the above tallies don't even include Shrek 1, 2, 3 paper; talk about "still spending money from '88"); the man is a true and living legend. You could probably make a decent argument that SNL is a franchise as much due to Murphy as Lorne Michaels. His approach to race-humor set the template for every non-Cosby comic alive today. He's a pillar of comedy, cinema, and racism. And, you know, he could even dabble with music a little bit.

But what has genius brought Eddie? Every review nowadays shits on him for wearing fat-suits. His old comedy specials are increasingly noted less for comedy and more for their rampant misogyny and homophobia (which he has apologized for). And the "Relationships" section of his Wiki entry is chubby from controversy; including phrases like "DNA testing" and "transvestite prostitute". That's enough drama to make a man want to make a movie in a fat-suit just to get away from it all. Or at least have some homicidal hot-flashes.


Woody Allen: For Woody, I can probably say even less. Or anything. Talk about prolific excess: Plays, books, movies, no one of today's generation remembers his career as a stand up, but yeah, that too. His brand of literary humor has influenced legions. He's responsible for the Jewish nebbish male ethnic archetype. The man is a pillar of comedy, cinema, and racism. And, you know, he could even dabble with the music a little bit!

And what has genius brought Woody? Here he's probably thinking he's the man because a script he wrote in the 70s still has enough legs to be made into a movie some thirty years later. It doesn't work and all of a sudden some critics might use it to erase his whole oeuvre from the Hard Drive of Cultural Import. Of course, he too has been married multiple times. And the "Relationships" section of his Wikipedia entry reads like some sordid psycho-sexual Freudian dream sequence gone awry and remixed by Danger Mouse and David Lynch. Don't geniuses just get the hot chick and live happily ever after?

In Woody's case you at least have the premise for it all being worth it to shoot Penelope Cruz and ScarJo lustily making out with Javier Bardem. But at his age all of that likely falls under the rubric of "indigestion". And can't you see Woody breaking the 4th wall and asking what a comic legend of his stature has to do to just be left alone to his work.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.


Michael Jackson: God bless his soul. This was originally conceived as strictly an Eddie and Woody comedy pairing, but much of the narrative is the same: Indisputable genius: check! A robust "Relationships" wikipedia section: check! A pillar of comedy, video, and racist implications: check! (re. comedy: Jackson jokes are now a genre unto themselves, no?). And, it turns out, he could dabble with the music a little bit.

Last but not least, a growing throng of critics stomping on his fading-but-timeless legacy was the man in Michael's mirror before his unfortunate cardiac arrest yesterday. But doesn't the genius required to sell a love-ballad-to-a-rat as a hit single last forever?

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.


Nick Denton in an AdAge interview recently spoke of Gawker's audience having a significant percentage of content producers; in many ways it's like a comic working a room with a lot of other comedians in it. So maybe this is the best place to ask: if a legacy of genius only matters but so much, what's the point? Do we aspire to emulate the artist-genius anymore? Does a hot Twitter-feed qualify as such in the 0-9?

I guess all that's left is to fatten up our respective "Relationships" sections. The only proof of sex is excess of sex, or somesuch.

image:via