Ratings8
Average rating4.5
»Das postfaktische Zeitalter ist kein unerklärliches und verrücktes neues Phänomen. Im Gegenteil: Was wir jetzt sehen, ist nur die Spitze des Eisberges«, schreibt Kurt Andersen in seinem aufsehenerregenden Buch Fantasyland. Der Hang zum Magischen und Fantastischen, so der preisgekrönte Kulturjournalist, ist tief in die kollektive DNA der Amerikaner eingeschrieben. Er entstand, als europäische Siedler erstmals den Boden der »Neuen Welt« betraten, im Gepäck vor allem eins: ausgeprägten Individualismus und Lebensträume und Fantasien von epischem Ausmaß. Mitreißend und eloquent erzählt Andersen vom großen amerikanischen Experiment – und warum es so spektakulär scheiterte. Wer verstehen will, wie die Grenze zwischen Realität und Illusion derart verrutschen und ein Mann wie Donald Trump es ins Weiße Haus schaffen konnte, muss dieses Buch lesen.
Featured Prompt
2,677 booksWhen you think back on every book you've ever read, what are some of your favorites? These can be from any time of your life – books that resonated with you as a kid, ones that shaped your personal...
Reviews with the most likes.
This book has two major premises: (1) American irrationality is as old as the republic itself, older. It's as American as apple pie. (2) Right wing and Christian ascendency and imperviousness to facts share a common origin with left wing hippie culture of the 1960s, i.e. create your own reality. However you weigh the accuracy of the arguments, this book is a delight to read in both its accessibility and its inspiration.
A really fascinating – if a bit cynical – review of American history mapped along hoaxes, scams, (false) conspiracy theories, religion, cults, and other false beliefs in an attempt to describe and explain our current cultural and political state.
I think he makes a bit too much of some points – his denigration of libertarianism, video games, LARPing, Disney, Las Vegas, etc. – but the overall thrust of his thesis is quite thought-provoking. And I do appreciate that he attempts to balance his commentary slightly to avoid coming off as TOTALLY motivated in his reasoning.