The things is, I agree partly with you latter comment, not that it is thinly veiled anti-intellectuallism (and what the fuck is that?…are you saying that you are seeing right through to the real Shields?), but the enigma of why this book has generated such a pre-pub buzz. I, too, disagree, or at least see value in the traditional novel.

What I meant about Sean’s comment relates to the fact that Shields wrote this book over two years ago, the book had an original release date of summer 2009, and has been excerpted in a lot of lit mags. A multitude has attacked him with every argument that can be concocted, he’s defended in turn, the attacks evolve, he embeds, and I would say he is becoming further entrenched. He’s not backing down. He’s considered and responded therein.

Two years ago David asked me if I was interested in the book, and I started following the controversy, beginning with the Willow Springs excerpt. In the fall of 2009 I got the first proof, wrote a review, placed it, and then Shields contacted me and said that proof #2 came out w/citations, and thus I read one more time. I ended meeting with him a couple times (we live two miles apart), and we’ve gone back and forth extensively. He’s humble and uncertain about life, but he knows what he likes, and he’s written about this in his book, and people can accept it or not.

One of my biggest disagreements with him, though, is how he sees ‘pain/tragedy/horror’ as a source of art, yet he is not so interested in the underlying questions of how to stop pain/tragedy/horror. His Chapter C – Books for People Who Find Television Too Slow really struck a nerve. The original book (Cambodia: A Book for People Who Find Television Too Slow) is one of the best at both being exquisitely written and genuinely concerned with social and political problems. It is a shame that it is not more widely known. By chance, I got to meet Brian Fawcett, the author, when I was in Toronto for a music conference. (He lives in the area across from Detroit that was made famous by Bowling for Columbine, and he met Michael Moore during filming). Fawcett has done well in Canada, and a later book on clearcut forestry practices, Virtual Clearcut, won the best nonfiction prize given and $20,000. Another good read. He’s a writer that should be known more outside Canada.

Anyways, Shields made statements in Reality Hunger about Brian Fawcett’s book that were superficially but directionally correct (concerning Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and media). This bothered me greatly – Cambodia, to Shields, did not deserve attention except as a fountain of pain to strike us with awe. When I asked Shields (in a different interview) his thoughts, he had a great answer…something like, “Of course my statement is overkill, Fawcett’s much more the political creature…the Khmer Rouge cutting you into six pieces of flesh…is far more insidious than media…”

Fawcett published my book review of RH on his website, Dooney’s Cafe, it should still be on the home page: http://www.dooneyscafe.com/

(My wife is behind me busting my balls incessantly. Earlier I wrote “I’d like to repharse”, and she’s now incorparating that into her vocab. “Caleb, would you please repharse this…would you please repharse that…you really repharsed that well”)

The things is, I agree partly with you latter comment, not that it is thinly veiled anti-intellectuallism (and what the fuck is that?…are you saying that you are seeing right through to the real Shields?), but the enigma of why this book has generated such a pre-pub buzz. I, too, disagree, or at least see value in the traditional novel.

What I meant about Sean’s comment relates to the fact that Shields wrote this book over two years ago, the book had an original release date of summer 2009, and has been excerpted in a lot of lit mags. A multitude has attacked him with every argument that can be concocted, he’s defended in turn, the attacks evolve, he embeds, and I would say he is becoming further entrenched. He’s not backing down. He’s considered and responded therein.

Two years ago David asked me if I was interested in the book, and I started following the controversy, beginning with the Willow Springs excerpt. In the fall of 2009 I got the first proof, wrote a review, placed it, and then Shields contacted me and said that proof #2 came out w/citations, and thus I read one more time. I ended meeting with him a couple times (we live two miles apart), and we’ve gone back and forth extensively. He’s humble and uncertain about life, but he knows what he likes, and he’s written about this in his book, and people can accept it or not.

One of my biggest disagreements with him, though, is how he sees ‘pain/tragedy/horror’ as a source of art, yet he is not so interested in the underlying questions of how to stop pain/tragedy/horror. His Chapter C – Books for People Who Find Television Too Slow really struck a nerve. The original book (Cambodia: A Book for People Who Find Television Too Slow) is one of the best at both being exquisitely written and genuinely concerned with social and political problems. It is a shame that it is not more widely known. By chance, I got to meet Brian Fawcett, the author, when I was in Toronto for a music conference. (He lives in the area across from Detroit that was made famous by Bowling for Columbine, and he met Michael Moore during filming). Fawcett has done well in Canada, and a later book on clearcut forestry practices, Virtual Clearcut, won the best nonfiction prize given and $20,000. Another good read. He’s a writer that should be known more outside Canada.

Anyways, Shields made statements in Reality Hunger about Brian Fawcett’s book that were superficially but directionally correct (concerning Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and media). This bothered me greatly – Cambodia, to Shields, did not deserve attention except as a fountain of pain to strike us with awe. When I asked Shields (in a different interview) his thoughts, he had a great answer…something like, “Of course my statement is overkill, Fawcett’s much more the political creature…the Khmer Rouge cutting you into six pieces of flesh…is far more insidious than media…”

Fawcett published my book review of RH on his website, Dooney’s Cafe, it should still be on the home page: http://www.dooneyscafe.com/

(My wife is behind me busting my balls incessantly. Earlier I wrote “I’d like to repharse”, and she’s now incorparating that into her vocab. “Caleb, would you please repharse this…would you please repharse that…you really repharsed that well”)

What do you mean? I can’t parse this, or something. How are all of his points “pre-considered?”

I do not consider what Shields is doing to be all that good, or productive. In my opinion it is thinly veiled anti-intellectualism, and I really don’t understand why so many people are so fascinating by it. . . . ?