Theroux's deliberatley inflammatory--unsound--method of being manly

Theroux's technique is to be provactive. To embody chutzpah. His adriot, if long winded, precis is inserted to contrast his conclusion's observation on how the writer's "real life" is attached to their sex. Beekeeper? Peace corp? Arguing with missionaries (which is a little too A-hole for my taste), Too friendly?  It's subversive. It's slovenly and not at all effective--his argument is just trying too hard to assert his drawn out neurotiscm on an issue that is labyrthine e.g. "I had thought of sports as wasteful and humiliating, and the idea of manliness as a bore" or "It is normal in America for a man to be dismissive or even somewhat apolgetic about being a writer" (The problem is that it could he exclusively his sole complaint or it's all just moot). I disagree with him. Sports trigger a host of problems but who'se to say that the problem's affecting the future fugitives isn't a pre existing condition; that sports may simply just exacerbate the compulsion of outlaw behavior. His critisism on the manliness of writers fixates on a couple of particularly famous writers (Hemingway, Mailer, Didion) which would make his argument more effective if writers were to be limited to half a dozen or so people in a isolated century. He pretty much eschews that one of the first novels was about a deluded old man who believed in fantasies and failed to live up to his artificial predescessors. There's nothing manly about a comedy. There are more writers. His argument is kinda limp but it raises interesting quandries.