I really don't like Hyden. That Sandler piece, and the piece on Japandroids before it, have no analysis behind them. He just makes bold conclusions and then backs them up with bold statements or comparisons that don't really make any sense if you stop and think about them for a minute, and all within a piece that never seems to have any structure. It's like "A...because B....but C....and D....and F, then G....oh B....yea...E."
Like, he titles his column "Adam Sandler's Inexorable March Toward Truth" and notes that comment Sandler made. Then he says he figured out what Sander's "truth" is. And what is it? Well, first we have to understand how Hyden has experienced Sandler. Then we get some plot summaries/Hyden's opinions of two Sandler movies that are supposed to be "analysis" that supports his argument. And that argument? That Sandler is getting older, so his characters are getting older too. Oh, and Jack Nicholson got old too, so Adam Sandler is his generation's Jack Nicholson (or something).
It's a fucking mess.
Then, with the Japandroids piece, he starts off talking about some of the best rock films ever made, by some of rock's biggest artists. Then he never talks about rock fiml again, and starts making these completely bombastic statements, comparing their latest album to The Who, Springsteen (I guess because they talk about being young and in a bar at one point). Then he compares them to Radiohead, a band that has nothing in common at all with The Who or Springsteen. Oh, and Guns and Roses and The Replacements, it's like them too! Then he goes back to "Thunder Road", referring to it as a "drinking song", calling it a "call to arms", and a "dream of future good times ahead" which is, like, completely not the point of the song.
Then he talks about The Beach Boys, but then abruptly goes back to the Japandroids to finish.
He writes like the worst kind of Hunter S. Thompson fanboy. Absolutely no structure.
