Uncategorized
From the “Can You Believe This Shit?” files
I just read on MobyLives that the American Book Review has just released their Top 40 Bad Books list. To which, I can only say, Um, really? Ok, I can say a little more than that.
First of all, can a publication be crying for attention any more than this? No? Ok, good. I didn’t think so. So here’s your attention, American Book Review. Hi. Here it is. Here you go. Moving on.
Secondly, I forgive you, American Book Review. It’s ok. Sometimes I read a book and I don’t enjoy it as much as I wanted to, because every time I open a book I am looking for enjoyment. I may even call that book bad, but if I give it a second thought I soon realize that my opinion came out of a particular set of circumstances that is called my brain. And my brain is a very particular machine. It is not a literary-award-distributing-machine. It’s just a brain that likes to be entertained in the particular way that it finds entertaining. In fact, no brain is a literary-award-distributing-machine. The best book reviews are neither advertisements nor tossed rotten tomatoes. The best book reviewers show the reader what it was like to experience the book in question if you happen to be the one writing the book review. Nothing more. Nothing less.
We all know this. Certainly we all know this.
So, what is the point of collecting 40 book reviews that 40 distinguished book reviewers hate?
I am not sure. Maybe they just need a hug.
Or maybe there is more going on here under the surface? Someone? Anyone? Can a book really be categorically bad?
Tags: American Book Review, bad books
ZZZIPP THINKS IT IS LIKE A MEAN WEEK FOR PEOPLE WHO WEAR TWEED. ZZZZIPP DOESN’T HAVE TIME TO READ IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT SEEMS INTERESTING. MAYBE THE BAD BOOKS TITLE IS HYPERBOLE MEANT TO ATTRACT BLOGGERS.
ZZZIPP THINKS IT IS LIKE A MEAN WEEK FOR PEOPLE WHO WEAR TWEED. ZZZZIPP DOESN’T HAVE TIME TO READ IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT SEEMS INTERESTING. MAYBE THE BAD BOOKS TITLE IS HYPERBOLE MEANT TO ATTRACT BLOGGERS.
Revolutionary Road, The Great Gatsby and The Da Vinci Code are considered bad books in this article. I cannot take it seriously. I think they just want attention. Even bad attention is good attention or so it goes.
Revolutionary Road, The Great Gatsby and The Da Vinci Code are considered bad books in this article. I cannot take it seriously. I think they just want attention. Even bad attention is good attention or so it goes.
gatsby? hippos were boiled?
I hate these guys.
I’ll get drunk and talk shit about them to someone on the street
gatsby? hippos were boiled?
I hate these guys.
I’ll get drunk and talk shit about them to someone on the street
did you read it? they aren’t really bad reviews, more just musings on the idea of badness with selected books as fillers. i like this kind of thing alot actually. badness should be thought about. why not.
did you read it? they aren’t really bad reviews, more just musings on the idea of badness with selected books as fillers. i like this kind of thing alot actually. badness should be thought about. why not.
maybe some are more real reviews, im reading more. but still all in all kind of tongue in cheek i think. i still like it. fun!
maybe some are more real reviews, im reading more. but still all in all kind of tongue in cheek i think. i still like it. fun!
it works for the razzies, right? and i imagine some angry person, somewhere, has already put these people on a top x bad lit journals.
it works for the razzies, right? and i imagine some angry person, somewhere, has already put these people on a top x bad lit journals.
If the book is anything like the movie, the Da Vinci Code is a bad book. I know you’re a fan of it, but my God that movie was so ponderous. What happened to the Tom Hanks from Bosom Buddies or the guy from Family Ties drinking vanilla extract?
If the book is anything like the movie, the Da Vinci Code is a bad book. I know you’re a fan of it, but my God that movie was so ponderous. What happened to the Tom Hanks from Bosom Buddies or the guy from Family Ties drinking vanilla extract?
“it” being the book…I believe you’ve blogged before about liking it. not sure where you come out on the movie.
“it” being the book…I believe you’ve blogged before about liking it. not sure where you come out on the movie.
I like this, the Bad Books link. I mean the discussions of each book were fun/inform to read.
I like this, the Bad Books link. I mean the discussions of each book were fun/inform to read.
I almost just skipped the thing, on the logic that the near-incoherence of the headnote to the feature pre-emptively invalidated any possible interest I might have in these people’s opinions. As it happens, there are some interesting pieces buried throughout- respondents include Kim Herzinger (editor of the posthumous Barthelme volumes), Marjorie Perloff, and a few other people whose opinions I value. Kim’s assessment of Frankenstein as “a bad book whose badness we cannot do without” seems especially useful.
But man, what a poorly laid-out piece! It was a pain in the ass to read, there was no list as promised, and I felt like I spent half my time scrolling up and back down. I say the badness is on ABR.
I almost just skipped the thing, on the logic that the near-incoherence of the headnote to the feature pre-emptively invalidated any possible interest I might have in these people’s opinions. As it happens, there are some interesting pieces buried throughout- respondents include Kim Herzinger (editor of the posthumous Barthelme volumes), Marjorie Perloff, and a few other people whose opinions I value. Kim’s assessment of Frankenstein as “a bad book whose badness we cannot do without” seems especially useful.
But man, what a poorly laid-out piece! It was a pain in the ass to read, there was no list as promised, and I felt like I spent half my time scrolling up and back down. I say the badness is on ABR.
i liked carolyn kellohgs writeup of it; she’s funny:
‘On the one hand, these are some of America’s best-read people, so we should be able to trust their analysis. On the other hand, their analysis sometimes reads like this: “Badness enters the nonparodic historical novel when an author overtly uses historically situated people, places, and cultures as mirrors, and denies their difference.” That’s part of a critique of Toni Morrison’s “A Mercy,” E.L. Doctorow’s “The March” and Ian McEwan’s “Saturday” — whatever those three writers’ offenses, their sentences are certainly more direct and graceful.’
i liked carolyn kellohgs writeup of it; she’s funny:
‘On the one hand, these are some of America’s best-read people, so we should be able to trust their analysis. On the other hand, their analysis sometimes reads like this: “Badness enters the nonparodic historical novel when an author overtly uses historically situated people, places, and cultures as mirrors, and denies their difference.” That’s part of a critique of Toni Morrison’s “A Mercy,” E.L. Doctorow’s “The March” and Ian McEwan’s “Saturday” — whatever those three writers’ offenses, their sentences are certainly more direct and graceful.’
Thanks for the link to the piece! I didn’t realize ABR was still a going concern.
The other commenters seem to have done a good job of defending the concept and its execution, so I’ll just say I admire but disagree with Marjorie Perloff’s principled attack on Seidel (and Hofmann by extension), am relieved to see that someone else doesn’t get the Cormac McCarthy and Barbara Tuchman industries, and enjoyed wholeheartedly Kyle Schlesinger’s ambiguous note on three small press publications.
Thanks for the link to the piece! I didn’t realize ABR was still a going concern.
The other commenters seem to have done a good job of defending the concept and its execution, so I’ll just say I admire but disagree with Marjorie Perloff’s principled attack on Seidel (and Hofmann by extension), am relieved to see that someone else doesn’t get the Cormac McCarthy and Barbara Tuchman industries, and enjoyed wholeheartedly Kyle Schlesinger’s ambiguous note on three small press publications.
Ah nuts, that last clause didn’t fall in parallel. I enjoy Schlesinger’s note.
Ah nuts, that last clause didn’t fall in parallel. I enjoy Schlesinger’s note.
yes, entirely.
yes, entirely.
I like it. James Phelan says: “It’s good that ABR wants to promote the discussion of the bad—another sign that it’s once again safe to talk about better and worse when we talk about literature. There will, I’m sure, be no consensus about what constitutes badness or whether it belongs to the book, the reader, the situation of reading, all of the above, or none of the above. But that’s okay. Even bad ideas about badness can at this stage help advance the discussion. (Even if what I say here is bad, it’s good.)”
I like it. James Phelan says: “It’s good that ABR wants to promote the discussion of the bad—another sign that it’s once again safe to talk about better and worse when we talk about literature. There will, I’m sure, be no consensus about what constitutes badness or whether it belongs to the book, the reader, the situation of reading, all of the above, or none of the above. But that’s okay. Even bad ideas about badness can at this stage help advance the discussion. (Even if what I say here is bad, it’s good.)”
I was going to read that piece, but the layout is such a pain in the arse that I’m no longer interested.
I think creating a traditional “here are 40 really bad books” list would be a waste of time.
But I still don’t understand this “can books -really- be bad?” thing. Of course they can. People produce shitty work all the time, whether it be by chance, inexperience, laziness, or whatever. And really it’s not a big deal—even some of the best writers shoot an airball quite a lot of the time. It’s just the nature of work.
If I wrote a new 500-page book called TOWARD A NEW HISTORY OF TIME, and the only word within that book was the word ‘poop’ on page 258, would you really not say that book was bad?
(By “bad” I’m assuming we’re saying something like “does not achieve what it sets out to do; in fact it does not even come -close- to doing such” rather than “this book is evil” or “gee this book was not that fun”)
I was going to read that piece, but the layout is such a pain in the arse that I’m no longer interested.
I think creating a traditional “here are 40 really bad books” list would be a waste of time.
But I still don’t understand this “can books -really- be bad?” thing. Of course they can. People produce shitty work all the time, whether it be by chance, inexperience, laziness, or whatever. And really it’s not a big deal—even some of the best writers shoot an airball quite a lot of the time. It’s just the nature of work.
If I wrote a new 500-page book called TOWARD A NEW HISTORY OF TIME, and the only word within that book was the word ‘poop’ on page 258, would you really not say that book was bad?
(By “bad” I’m assuming we’re saying something like “does not achieve what it sets out to do; in fact it does not even come -close- to doing such” rather than “this book is evil” or “gee this book was not that fun”)
Makes you nostalgic for the era when professors were too stuck-up to concern themselves with anything written after 1701. Now they bring the same attitude smack up against the present-day.
Makes you nostalgic for the era when professors were too stuck-up to concern themselves with anything written after 1701. Now they bring the same attitude smack up against the present-day.
I doubt there’s a book out there that everyone could agree was bad by your definition. Your 500-pg poop-piece would find its place on plenty of shelves if you could get the right PR.
I think the “can books really be bad?” is more accurately “can books really be objectively bad, for everyone?” in the sense that everyone can agree: this book does not achieve what it sets out to do. Because no book is simple enough to have a singular purpose (even your poop example has at least three), it seems likely that some reader will connect with at least one of the book’s aims.
I do think reviewers get caught up in this badness definition and hesitate to talk about their own experience with the badness of a book out of some fear of offense to someone who did find the book achieved its aims. That hesitation is no good, so cheers to the list.
I doubt there’s a book out there that everyone could agree was bad by your definition. Your 500-pg poop-piece would find its place on plenty of shelves if you could get the right PR.
I think the “can books really be bad?” is more accurately “can books really be objectively bad, for everyone?” in the sense that everyone can agree: this book does not achieve what it sets out to do. Because no book is simple enough to have a singular purpose (even your poop example has at least three), it seems likely that some reader will connect with at least one of the book’s aims.
I do think reviewers get caught up in this badness definition and hesitate to talk about their own experience with the badness of a book out of some fear of offense to someone who did find the book achieved its aims. That hesitation is no good, so cheers to the list.
Tom Hanks made me smile this week by recommending a book I’ve been reading, Stoner, by John Williams, in Time magazine.
Tom Hanks made me smile this week by recommending a book I’ve been reading, Stoner, by John Williams, in Time magazine.
“Because no book is simple enough to have a singular purpose (even your poop example has at least three)”
Curious. What do you think are the three purposes of the poop book example?
“Because no book is simple enough to have a singular purpose (even your poop example has at least three)”
Curious. What do you think are the three purposes of the poop book example?
“I was going to read that piece, but the layout is such a pain in the arse that I’m no longer interested.”
ryan – I totally agree. I scrolled (and started shaking a little – you know how some lighting causes some people to have seizures?) and looked at the book cover pictures. I _do_ remember, however, while reading Women in Love for a class in college, thinking (_knowing_) that I was reading crap.
“I was going to read that piece, but the layout is such a pain in the arse that I’m no longer interested.”
ryan – I totally agree. I scrolled (and started shaking a little – you know how some lighting causes some people to have seizures?) and looked at the book cover pictures. I _do_ remember, however, while reading Women in Love for a class in college, thinking (_knowing_) that I was reading crap.
I usually read all the so-called “bad” books, because most of them are the best I’ve ever read.
I usually read all the so-called “bad” books, because most of them are the best I’ve ever read.
same here. i’m always more eager to read the books people hate than the ones they love.
same here. i’m always more eager to read the books people hate than the ones they love.
I enjoyed wholeheartedly your use of the phrase “a going concern.” That one’s a favorite that I don’t use nearly often enough. As I pepper it throughout my conversation over the course of the day, I will think of you, Jordan, whoever you are. Thanks. (ps- no sarcasm intended whatsoever.)
I enjoyed wholeheartedly your use of the phrase “a going concern.” That one’s a favorite that I don’t use nearly often enough. As I pepper it throughout my conversation over the course of the day, I will think of you, Jordan, whoever you are. Thanks. (ps- no sarcasm intended whatsoever.)
No sarcasm inferred. Thanks, Justin.
No sarcasm inferred. Thanks, Justin.
“One got on with / everybody, “paying guests,” / the viewer’s idea / being of some, a going, concern.” –john ashbery, “No Rest for the Weary”, a poem i first read just yesterday, at about this time.
“One got on with / everybody, “paying guests,” / the viewer’s idea / being of some, a going, concern.” –john ashbery, “No Rest for the Weary”, a poem i first read just yesterday, at about this time.
It does feel like for an article like this you only have three options.
1) List a bad but really popular book (ie The Da Vinchi Code) but whose badness has already been hashed and rehashed to death
2) List a bad book that wasn’t popular and no one will recognize
3) List a famous and celebrated book (ie The Great Gatsby) and try to sound radical saying it is actually bad.
I guess option 3) could be interesting, but it seems like a weak idea for an article.
It does feel like for an article like this you only have three options.
1) List a bad but really popular book (ie The Da Vinchi Code) but whose badness has already been hashed and rehashed to death
2) List a bad book that wasn’t popular and no one will recognize
3) List a famous and celebrated book (ie The Great Gatsby) and try to sound radical saying it is actually bad.
I guess option 3) could be interesting, but it seems like a weak idea for an article.
Totally had the same reaction about the layout. And why was it a PDF? I cannot, cannot, cannot deal with website who are lazy and post pdfs rather than laying articles out for web. LAZY.
Totally had the same reaction about the layout. And why was it a PDF? I cannot, cannot, cannot deal with website who are lazy and post pdfs rather than laying articles out for web. LAZY.
I was pretty traumatized by the layout. So terrible.
I hate Fitzgerald. I thought I was the only one.
I’ve read Dan Brown. It’s so fantastically, spectacularly bad it should be required reading.
If books can’t be categorically bad, they can’t be categorically good either. But no one would complain about a list of 40 good books. In fact, notice how nice and unbossy that sounds, compared to 40 “best.” But I guess the addition of “top” messes it up. Does “Top 40 Bad Books” mean the 40 worst? Wouldn’t that be the bottom 40?
Me, too. Also, I still don’t get all the hating on Gatsby. Maybe (okay, certainly) it’s not Fitzgerald’s best, but it’s certainly not a bad book. I’m mystified by the general hatred of Fitzgerald in a lot of writers. Makes me love him more, flaws and all.
I was pretty traumatized by the layout. So terrible.
I hate Fitzgerald. I thought I was the only one.
I’ve read Dan Brown. It’s so fantastically, spectacularly bad it should be required reading.
If books can’t be categorically bad, they can’t be categorically good either. But no one would complain about a list of 40 good books. In fact, notice how nice and unbossy that sounds, compared to 40 “best.” But I guess the addition of “top” messes it up. Does “Top 40 Bad Books” mean the 40 worst? Wouldn’t that be the bottom 40?
Me, too. Also, I still don’t get all the hating on Gatsby. Maybe (okay, certainly) it’s not Fitzgerald’s best, but it’s certainly not a bad book. I’m mystified by the general hatred of Fitzgerald in a lot of writers. Makes me love him more, flaws and all.
Nail on head. I guess if you’re trying to draw traffic, though, option 3 is pretty good. But it really should have been presented as “Here are some great books that some critics hate. Why?” Better frame for discussion.
Nail on head. I guess if you’re trying to draw traffic, though, option 3 is pretty good. But it really should have been presented as “Here are some great books that some critics hate. Why?” Better frame for discussion.
Fitzgerald doesn’t strike me as being hateable, really. My main reaction to Gatsby, and to a couple of his stories I’ve read, was, “meh”. Not bad, just “not my thing”. (But maybe I really shouldn’t say anything, because that’s all I’ve read of him.)
Fitzgerald doesn’t strike me as being hateable, really. My main reaction to Gatsby, and to a couple of his stories I’ve read, was, “meh”. Not bad, just “not my thing”. (But maybe I really shouldn’t say anything, because that’s all I’ve read of him.)
I figure 1. Add to the discussion about objective/subjective badness, 2. Add to the discussion about the purpose of art/books/print objects in general, 3. Make some scatological literary theorist’s day–seriously I know one who would write fifty pages immediately
I figure 1. Add to the discussion about objective/subjective badness, 2. Add to the discussion about the purpose of art/books/print objects in general, 3. Make some scatological literary theorist’s day–seriously I know one who would write fifty pages immediately
Yeah, this does not have the right frame at all.
Yeah, this does not have the right frame at all.
Good point.
Good point.
Read the Beautiful and Damned. That completely changed my mind about him. Tender is the Night, too.
Read the Beautiful and Damned. That completely changed my mind about him. Tender is the Night, too.
when you’re meeting someone for the first time, you have to give them three positively perceived exchanges to make up for every negative one, especially at the beginning of the conversation, otherwise they will hate you.
obv the design’s community college stuff, the titles are terrible and most of them are either too academic or too broad to really make a compelling argument for disliking a book – the academic for the bombast, the broadness for, well. surely they’re not all horrible, but on the whole: meh.
you would have to be outrageous to make this work.
when you’re meeting someone for the first time, you have to give them three positively perceived exchanges to make up for every negative one, especially at the beginning of the conversation, otherwise they will hate you.
obv the design’s community college stuff, the titles are terrible and most of them are either too academic or too broad to really make a compelling argument for disliking a book – the academic for the bombast, the broadness for, well. surely they’re not all horrible, but on the whole: meh.
you would have to be outrageous to make this work.
yikes. didn’t mean to reply to yrs, sean
yikes. didn’t mean to reply to yrs, sean
But did little J.A.’s poem also use the verb “to pepper?”
But did little J.A.’s poem also use the verb “to pepper?”
I wouldn’t hate him except that everyone else loves him. That drives me crazy. For the same reason, I kind of “hate” Austin and “love” Houston. I’ve got problems.
I didn’t like Tender Is the Night either, but I haven’t tried The B and the D.
I wouldn’t hate him except that everyone else loves him. That drives me crazy. For the same reason, I kind of “hate” Austin and “love” Houston. I’ve got problems.
I didn’t like Tender Is the Night either, but I haven’t tried The B and the D.
no, but now i’m going to look for examples of when he’s used it before!
no, but now i’m going to look for examples of when he’s used it before!
i would move to austin in a second, if it wasn’t for the heat and the being in texas.
i would move to austin in a second, if it wasn’t for the heat and the being in texas.
Dildo Cay! I understand there is also a version for children:
http://www.amazon.com/Cay-Theodore-Taylor/dp/044022912X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268333170&sr=8-1
Dildo Cay! I understand there is also a version for children:
http://www.amazon.com/Cay-Theodore-Taylor/dp/044022912X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268333170&sr=8-1
I thought it was rather interesting. The little bit on an American Tragedy seemed true. And the baad guy was kind of funny.
I thought it was rather interesting. The little bit on an American Tragedy seemed true. And the baad guy was kind of funny.
Most of the short essays in this feature do exactly what you hope from book reviews: they describe the experience the reviewer had with the book. In this particular feature, the magazine is focusing on negative experiences. Bad reading experiences are just as real and important as good reading experiences, and they probably do just as much to shape our values and tastes. It’s not necessarily ‘hating’ or some attention-grabbing stunt to think about a book you think is bad and reflect on and analyze why that’s so. Everyone should do this. It’s a big part of reading.
And besides, any feature that points out that ‘Let the Great World Spin’ is cliche-ridden, condescending, and crassly opportunistic is all right with me!
Most of the short essays in this feature do exactly what you hope from book reviews: they describe the experience the reviewer had with the book. In this particular feature, the magazine is focusing on negative experiences. Bad reading experiences are just as real and important as good reading experiences, and they probably do just as much to shape our values and tastes. It’s not necessarily ‘hating’ or some attention-grabbing stunt to think about a book you think is bad and reflect on and analyze why that’s so. Everyone should do this. It’s a big part of reading.
And besides, any feature that points out that ‘Let the Great World Spin’ is cliche-ridden, condescending, and crassly opportunistic is all right with me!
I read a few of them but not the whole damned thing. The first one I think I may have disliked the most because the reviewer thought Revolutionary Road was bad for convincing everyone that it was good…. People like Ben Marcus and Kurt Vonnegut. Oh, good thing this one careful reviewer is here to clear up that mess for us and Ben & Kurt, who clearly haven’t seen the light…
I read a few of them but not the whole damned thing. The first one I think I may have disliked the most because the reviewer thought Revolutionary Road was bad for convincing everyone that it was good…. People like Ben Marcus and Kurt Vonnegut. Oh, good thing this one careful reviewer is here to clear up that mess for us and Ben & Kurt, who clearly haven’t seen the light…
Oh, but a few of the others weren’t so bad. They rationalized why they didn’t like the book based on what was in the text itself. I think the bad ones outnumbered the good, though.
Oh, but a few of the others weren’t so bad. They rationalized why they didn’t like the book based on what was in the text itself. I think the bad ones outnumbered the good, though.
Yes! The head note is incredibly bad!
Yes! The head note is incredibly bad!
yeah, I need to read Stoner.
He made me laugh when he called Kelly Ripa “Kathy Lee” – she went off the hook on him. He buried himself deeper by asking about Regis’s daughter. Um, I saw this on the news. I don’t watch the show. I feel the urgent need to make this clear.
I occasionally stumble into reading shit, but I’m never happy about it. I have no idea why you would read the books people dislike rather than the ones they love. If they really love them—if the book touched their spirit and changed their life somehow—then I want that book in my hands immediately.
yeah, I need to read Stoner.
He made me laugh when he called Kelly Ripa “Kathy Lee” – she went off the hook on him. He buried himself deeper by asking about Regis’s daughter. Um, I saw this on the news. I don’t watch the show. I feel the urgent need to make this clear.
I occasionally stumble into reading shit, but I’m never happy about it. I have no idea why you would read the books people dislike rather than the ones they love. If they really love them—if the book touched their spirit and changed their life somehow—then I want that book in my hands immediately.
I thought that was “minor Fitzgerald.”
Damn you…Walt!
I thought that was “minor Fitzgerald.”
Damn you…Walt!
“that” refers to “Tender is the Night”
Walt is the young buck in Squid and the Whale
if i post precipitously again i will hire those guys from “The Road” to throw me in the basement and make me into a stump
“that” refers to “Tender is the Night”
Walt is the young buck in Squid and the Whale
if i post precipitously again i will hire those guys from “The Road” to throw me in the basement and make me into a stump
I think you are confusing the objectively bad with the undisputedly bad. Illustration of point: I am wearing denim jeans right now. The fact remains that I am wearing jeans, even if four people gather around me and scream at the top of their lungs that I am actually wearing khaki.
The fact my book is given hype or good PR does not mean that my book is less shitty. It simply means that I am rubbing my shit in peoples’ faces. In the case of your friend the scatological critic, if he really did write 50 pages about my shitty book, then he is probably just as lost and confused as I am, the man who wrote the shitty book.
I think you are confusing the objectively bad with the undisputedly bad. Illustration of point: I am wearing denim jeans right now. The fact remains that I am wearing jeans, even if four people gather around me and scream at the top of their lungs that I am actually wearing khaki.
The fact my book is given hype or good PR does not mean that my book is less shitty. It simply means that I am rubbing my shit in peoples’ faces. In the case of your friend the scatological critic, if he really did write 50 pages about my shitty book, then he is probably just as lost and confused as I am, the man who wrote the shitty book.
well, when speaking so broadly like i was–“people”–of course i don’t mean all people. i was thinking of people who love the da vinci code. no matter how much it touched them, i have no interest in it.
and books that people hate, well, people love to hate dave eggers, tao lin, the flarf poets, pretty much any experimental poetry in existence… and those are some of my favorite things.
well, when speaking so broadly like i was–“people”–of course i don’t mean all people. i was thinking of people who love the da vinci code. no matter how much it touched them, i have no interest in it.
and books that people hate, well, people love to hate dave eggers, tao lin, the flarf poets, pretty much any experimental poetry in existence… and those are some of my favorite things.
this thread has me thinking about a journal (sort of a riff on Matchbook Lit Mag). This journal would publish a writer’s “worst” work (i.e., his/her own idea of the worst thing he/she has written) and then a companion criticism piece explaining why such piece is his/her worst. I’m not talking about something an author wrote at 7 or 8…but something that the writer once thought was good but now thinks is shit.
this thread has me thinking about a journal (sort of a riff on Matchbook Lit Mag). This journal would publish a writer’s “worst” work (i.e., his/her own idea of the worst thing he/she has written) and then a companion criticism piece explaining why such piece is his/her worst. I’m not talking about something an author wrote at 7 or 8…but something that the writer once thought was good but now thinks is shit.
Some people were discussing this idea on twitter yesterday, actually. I think Kevin from Writer’s Bloc might have originally brought it up.
I honestly think that might be more interesting than the usual fare.
Some people were discussing this idea on twitter yesterday, actually. I think Kevin from Writer’s Bloc might have originally brought it up.
I honestly think that might be more interesting than the usual fare.
The only thing I can comment on is that I thought no matter the content it should have been called – “the bottom 40” to me this makes more sense.
Above it is stated that these are not necessarily the worst books these people read but I think of it as the should have been better for all the hype.
Me too! The Road is one thing, All the Pretty Horses is another. I couldn’t get through the latter.
The only thing I can comment on is that I thought no matter the content it should have been called – “the bottom 40” to me this makes more sense.
Above it is stated that these are not necessarily the worst books these people read but I think of it as the should have been better for all the hype.
Me too! The Road is one thing, All the Pretty Horses is another. I couldn’t get through the latter.
I had no problem with the layout.
I had no problem with the layout.
hmm, my twitter acct got hacked so i closed it up. that’s bizarre he was discussing it, too. and cool, too. i think it would be fun. i’d have plenty of stories to consider submitting.
hmm, my twitter acct got hacked so i closed it up. that’s bizarre he was discussing it, too. and cool, too. i think it would be fun. i’d have plenty of stories to consider submitting.
But badness is not a thing like denim is a thing. If perception is reality, we are working with different realities. I think I am confusing myself. But the scat critic is great. You should see the shit she talks about the Germans.
But badness is not a thing like denim is a thing. If perception is reality, we are working with different realities. I think I am confusing myself. But the scat critic is great. You should see the shit she talks about the Germans.
Heh
Heh
I feel that if it had been called “The Bottom Forty,” though an infinitely more fitting title, I wouldn’t have cared as much. It’s the word “Bad” and how liberally they used the word “Bad” that irks me.
I feel that if it had been called “The Bottom Forty,” though an infinitely more fitting title, I wouldn’t have cared as much. It’s the word “Bad” and how liberally they used the word “Bad” that irks me.
cmd -/ctrl -, you know?
cmd -/ctrl -, you know?
with lots of publicity the book would exhaust itself before it was even read and though it might be read countless times it would be dead before each reading
with lots of publicity the book would exhaust itself before it was even read and though it might be read countless times it would be dead before each reading
agreed agreed agreed.
agreed agreed agreed.