It has always been my belief that people are remembered for the sum of their accomplishments but defined by their singular failure.

It's far easier to write why something is terrible than why it's good. If you're reviewing a film and you decide "This is a movie I don't like," basically you can take every element of the film and find the obvious flaw, or argue that it seems ridiculous, or like a parody of itself, or that it's not as good as something similar that was done in a previous film. What's hard to do is describe why you like something. Because ultimately, the reason things move people is very amorphous. You can be cerebral about things you hate, but most of the things you like tend to be very emotive.

Nine Inch Nails were the best and most popular industrial band of all time; as a consequence, industrial purists usually assert that Nine Inch Nails aren't an industrial band at all (this is a counterintuitive phenomenon that tends to occur with purists from all subcultures, musical or otherwise).

Booze is the greatest of all equalizers. Rich drunks and poor drunks both pass out the same way.

When I think about the future, I'm not necessarily arguing it's going to be better or worse. I'm just saying it's going to be different.

Real people are actively trying to live like fake people, so real people are no less fake. Every comparison becomes impractical. This is why the impractical has become totally acceptable; impracticality almost seems cool.

Outcasts may grow up to be novelists and filmmakers and computer tycoons, but they will never be the athletic ruling class.