Comments on: STORIES by Scott McClanahan http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/ the internet literature magazine blog of the future Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: HTMLGIANT / Two Parts Rancor, One Part Joy http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-59112 HTMLGIANT / Two Parts Rancor, One Part Joy Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:21:38 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-59112 [...] from the book, “The Couple,” which I think is exemplary and swell. And back last June, pr enthused about the original, Stories. And Scott’s own site is here. Tags: Kevin Wilson, Scott McClanahan, the CAMEL method, tony [...] [...] from the book, “The Couple,” which I think is exemplary and swell. And back last June, pr enthused about the original, Stories. And Scott’s own site is here. Tags: Kevin Wilson, Scott McClanahan, the CAMEL method, tony [...]

]]> By: nicolle elizabeth http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-23935 nicolle elizabeth Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:34:06 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-23935 here i want to put this here i just got the book, Scott. i've been thinking about the bologna sandwich story all summer but the one thats really killing me is the arm losing in a factory one its incredible the way everybody around him is crying and screaming and he's like, floating in slow motion, sitting, smoking. i'm stoked to read the rest of it tomorrow and then tell everybody up here they have to get their own copy n here i want to put this here i just got the book, Scott.
i’ve been thinking about the bologna sandwich story all summer but the one thats really killing me is the arm losing in a factory one its incredible the way everybody around him is crying and screaming and he’s like, floating in slow motion, sitting, smoking.
i’m stoked to read the rest of it tomorrow and then tell everybody up here they have to get their own copy
n

]]> By: nicolle elizabeth http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-108321 nicolle elizabeth Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:34:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-108321 here i want to put this here i just got the book, Scott. i've been thinking about the bologna sandwich story all summer but the one thats really killing me is the arm losing in a factory one its incredible the way everybody around him is crying and screaming and he's like, floating in slow motion, sitting, smoking. i'm stoked to read the rest of it tomorrow and then tell everybody up here they have to get their own copy n here i want to put this here i just got the book, Scott.
i’ve been thinking about the bologna sandwich story all summer but the one thats really killing me is the arm losing in a factory one its incredible the way everybody around him is crying and screaming and he’s like, floating in slow motion, sitting, smoking.
i’m stoked to read the rest of it tomorrow and then tell everybody up here they have to get their own copy
n

]]> By: pr http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-17419 pr Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:57:43 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-17419 Nice, Keith. Nice, Keith.

]]> By: pr http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-17308 pr Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:56:58 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-17308 I think you said it all in that you admit that you haven't read the book. I did. I wrote about it. It's a good book. I think you said it all in that you admit that you haven’t read the book. I did. I wrote about it. It’s a good book.

]]> By: pr http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-108320 pr Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:56:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-108320 I think you said it all in that you admit that you haven't read the book. I did. I wrote about it. It's a good book. I think you said it all in that you admit that you haven’t read the book. I did. I wrote about it. It’s a good book.

]]> By: keith n b http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-17177 keith n b Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:55:51 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-17177 that's a real interesting distinction. on the one hand you have the perspective that a person creates value, creates beauty in the act of seeing something as beautiful, which would typically be associated with an existentialist standpoint. on the other hand, you have the perspective that a person has the capacity to recognize value and beauty, but are often too preoccupied with a very limited set of concerns and goals, the concerns of the biological organism, that essentially act as blinders; and this perspective is most reminiscent of various mystical traditions east and west, e.g. william blakes's 'doors of perception' (and huxley after him) and buddhism's 'one taste'. i am inclined to both. as such i could say 1) both are true, and be content with the paradox, or 2) there is no paradox because neither necessarily and logically excludes the other and both are capable of coexisting in the same framework. and the open-endedness of 2) might lead to further interpretations and clarifications. but i am tempted to say 3) if one accepts the premise of the dual nature of all things manifest (which is a huge premise indeed), then as a finite being one has the capacity to witness value and beauty when one is able to perceive independently of, or at least not completely predetermined by, the preferences hardwired into our organism; and yet as the formless witness or radiance, which is only known through its manifestations, we are capable of participating in the existing value and beauty, and capable of initiating particular expressions of such instances that may nonetheless be washed over and crushed by the ever expansive flux in which we are but one particular manifestation of the whole. of course this formulation has its weaknesses along with other premises smuggled into it, such as the nature of value and the organism. but i can't see how both perspectives, articulated by chris and pr, aren't true. that’s a real interesting distinction. on the one hand you have the perspective that a person creates value, creates beauty in the act of seeing something as beautiful, which would typically be associated with an existentialist standpoint. on the other hand, you have the perspective that a person has the capacity to recognize value and beauty, but are often too preoccupied with a very limited set of concerns and goals, the concerns of the biological organism, that essentially act as blinders; and this perspective is most reminiscent of various mystical traditions east and west, e.g. william blakes’s ‘doors of perception’ (and huxley after him) and buddhism’s ‘one taste’.

i am inclined to both. as such i could say 1) both are true, and be content with the paradox, or 2) there is no paradox because neither necessarily and logically excludes the other and both are capable of coexisting in the same framework. and the open-endedness of 2) might lead to further interpretations and clarifications. but i am tempted to say 3) if one accepts the premise of the dual nature of all things manifest (which is a huge premise indeed), then as a finite being one has the capacity to witness value and beauty when one is able to perceive independently of, or at least not completely predetermined by, the preferences hardwired into our organism; and yet as the formless witness or radiance, which is only known through its manifestations, we are capable of participating in the existing value and beauty, and capable of initiating particular expressions of such instances that may nonetheless be washed over and crushed by the ever expansive flux in which we are but one particular manifestation of the whole. of course this formulation has its weaknesses along with other premises smuggled into it, such as the nature of value and the organism. but i can’t see how both perspectives, articulated by chris and pr, aren’t true.

]]> By: keith n b http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-108319 keith n b Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:55:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-108319 that's a real interesting distinction. on the one hand you have the perspective that a person creates value, creates beauty in the act of seeing something as beautiful, which would typically be associated with an existentialist standpoint. on the other hand, you have the perspective that a person has the capacity to recognize value and beauty, but are often too preoccupied with a very limited set of concerns and goals, the concerns of the biological organism, that essentially act as blinders; and this perspective is most reminiscent of various mystical traditions east and west, e.g. william blakes's 'doors of perception' (and huxley after him) and buddhism's 'one taste'. i am inclined to both. as such i could say 1) both are true, and be content with the paradox, or 2) there is no paradox because neither necessarily and logically excludes the other and both are capable of coexisting in the same framework. and the open-endedness of 2) might lead to further interpretations and clarifications. but i am tempted to say 3) if one accepts the premise of the dual nature of all things manifest (which is a huge premise indeed), then as a finite being one has the capacity to witness value and beauty when one is able to perceive independently of, or at least not completely predetermined by, the preferences hardwired into our organism; and yet as the formless witness or radiance, which is only known through its manifestations, we are capable of participating in the existing value and beauty, and capable of initiating particular expressions of such instances that may nonetheless be washed over and crushed by the ever expansive flux in which we are but one particular manifestation of the whole. of course this formulation has its weaknesses along with other premises smuggled into it, such as the nature of value and the organism. but i can't see how both perspectives, articulated by chris and pr, aren't true. that’s a real interesting distinction. on the one hand you have the perspective that a person creates value, creates beauty in the act of seeing something as beautiful, which would typically be associated with an existentialist standpoint. on the other hand, you have the perspective that a person has the capacity to recognize value and beauty, but are often too preoccupied with a very limited set of concerns and goals, the concerns of the biological organism, that essentially act as blinders; and this perspective is most reminiscent of various mystical traditions east and west, e.g. william blakes’s ‘doors of perception’ (and huxley after him) and buddhism’s ‘one taste’.

i am inclined to both. as such i could say 1) both are true, and be content with the paradox, or 2) there is no paradox because neither necessarily and logically excludes the other and both are capable of coexisting in the same framework. and the open-endedness of 2) might lead to further interpretations and clarifications. but i am tempted to say 3) if one accepts the premise of the dual nature of all things manifest (which is a huge premise indeed), then as a finite being one has the capacity to witness value and beauty when one is able to perceive independently of, or at least not completely predetermined by, the preferences hardwired into our organism; and yet as the formless witness or radiance, which is only known through its manifestations, we are capable of participating in the existing value and beauty, and capable of initiating particular expressions of such instances that may nonetheless be washed over and crushed by the ever expansive flux in which we are but one particular manifestation of the whole. of course this formulation has its weaknesses along with other premises smuggled into it, such as the nature of value and the organism. but i can’t see how both perspectives, articulated by chris and pr, aren’t true.

]]> By: ayankus http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-17170 ayankus Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:31:18 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-17170 i'm not going to judge this particular collection as all i've read is a tiny, tiny excerpt but the main thing that bugs me about this sort of "salt of the earth" realism is that to mimic the laid bare lives of the characters, the authors usually take a bare-bones approach to the prose and, for me, the prose is what initially piques my interest about anything. realism or not, if the prose isn't doing quadruple work, my eyes start to glass over. also, these sorts of works (again, i'm not necessarily grouping mclanahan in with this sort) don't necessarily introduce anything new. rural or southern people drink a lot, live in shitty environs, maybe fuck their sisters and work in menial or manual labor. at least the work of mark richard or barry hannah not only upends your initial ideas about what the story may entail but also gives it to you in prose that takes a hacksaw to your head. i’m not going to judge this particular collection as all i’ve read is a tiny, tiny excerpt but the main thing that bugs me about this sort of “salt of the earth” realism is that to mimic the laid bare lives of the characters, the authors usually take a bare-bones approach to the prose and, for me, the prose is what initially piques my interest about anything. realism or not, if the prose isn’t doing quadruple work, my eyes start to glass over. also, these sorts of works (again, i’m not necessarily grouping mclanahan in with this sort) don’t necessarily introduce anything new. rural or southern people drink a lot, live in shitty environs, maybe fuck their sisters and work in menial or manual labor. at least the work of mark richard or barry hannah not only upends your initial ideas about what the story may entail but also gives it to you in prose that takes a hacksaw to your head.

]]> By: ayankus http://htmlgiant.com/random/stories-by-scott-mcclanahan/comment-page-1/#comment-108318 ayankus Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:31:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=9928#comment-108318 i'm not going to judge this particular collection as all i've read is a tiny, tiny excerpt but the main thing that bugs me about this sort of "salt of the earth" realism is that to mimic the laid bare lives of the characters, the authors usually take a bare-bones approach to the prose and, for me, the prose is what initially piques my interest about anything. realism or not, if the prose isn't doing quadruple work, my eyes start to glass over. also, these sorts of works (again, i'm not necessarily grouping mclanahan in with this sort) don't necessarily introduce anything new. rural or southern people drink a lot, live in shitty environs, maybe fuck their sisters and work in menial or manual labor. at least the work of mark richard or barry hannah not only upends your initial ideas about what the story may entail but also gives it to you in prose that takes a hacksaw to your head. i’m not going to judge this particular collection as all i’ve read is a tiny, tiny excerpt but the main thing that bugs me about this sort of “salt of the earth” realism is that to mimic the laid bare lives of the characters, the authors usually take a bare-bones approach to the prose and, for me, the prose is what initially piques my interest about anything. realism or not, if the prose isn’t doing quadruple work, my eyes start to glass over. also, these sorts of works (again, i’m not necessarily grouping mclanahan in with this sort) don’t necessarily introduce anything new. rural or southern people drink a lot, live in shitty environs, maybe fuck their sisters and work in menial or manual labor. at least the work of mark richard or barry hannah not only upends your initial ideas about what the story may entail but also gives it to you in prose that takes a hacksaw to your head.

]]>