-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
madeshopping.net
b2cshop.us
i have noticed a barthelme influence in contemporary “indie” writers moreso than any other influence. his voice/tone/”quirky” humor style, vaguely speaking, seems rampant/almost default. i don’t buy into any ideas of right/wrong, good/bad, safe/dangerous w/r/t writing/”Literature,” but within that context, that general style seems safe/”tired.” this has been me chiming in and agreeing, sort of. if forced at gunpoint to theorize/”explain,” i’d say it has something to do with dfw and george saunders coming after barthelme and further spreading the influence (some say, rarely, when in a bitter mood, the disease). i feel like i would rather read barthelme or barthelme-aping writing than some other things, so it seems [something], in a way, to be grouchy about this trend. this has been me adding more to my comment.
it also occurs to me that his style has been influential (via “osmosis,” perhaps, or via the porousness of certain borders (sorry 4 that egregious reference, h8 myself)) in other fields of writing, maybe, like essay writing, comedy writing…. maybe it’s just like, an educated person thing, like, “we must prove we’re smart, but we must also poke fun at smartness, be a bit silly, it’s unseemly otherwise” -type deal. but people used to do parodies and wordplay (Joyce, et al), and then they did dark comedy/all you writers suck and are sycophantic shitheads (via Sorrentino) and then there was Barthelme with the each story is a fully-formed style/concept/form/idea thing often featuring an appealing tone for some ppl, and maybe ppl have just run with the tone and neglected the rest of the Barthelme package, to varying degrees…. idk… this has been me doing a half-assed relevant lit history summary. seems really hard to pick/adopt/evolve/contrive/”come in touch with”/”plumb your depths in order to dig up from the dregs of your soul” a style that is satisfying both to yourself and others. just thinking out loud. happy 2k11 yall!
Check back in 20 years and we’ll probably be saying the same thing about David Foster Wallace: Seriously people, let him go. He satirized American society from the vantage point of a Generation X era and it’s time to move on.
More like good luck coming close to his intellect, his output, his appreciation for and awareness of the reader, his humor, his pathos, his understanding of, respect for and use of pop culture past and present. More like step it up, folks. If you can really do DB you can really do literature. It doesnt matter if he did it first. This feels like trash-talk to me and misguided at that. We should be so lucky if there were one more DB in our lifetime. One more truly original truly contemporary writer.
i’m not saying let anybody go
i am not talking trash directed toward Mr. Barthelme
yeah, but it’s like a million years since the death of Flannery OC and there are STILL writers from the South
i am not saying respond to Barthelme’s work or write work demonstrating his influence
what styles do ppls think are prevalent in indie lit today 2k10-beyond, besides Barthelme Lite, Miserycore, and Tao School/Muumuucore? just made up those names. unsure if i care. Miserycore is like things Blake would write or be mad amped about, imho (no disrespect/humor). feel free to simply vent your anger at various literary styles as you identify them/instantly critique/position their “relevance”/”insufferability index”/degree of “badassness” in your brain in a manner akin to bloodletting or stepping outside for fresh air/nasty-smelling ciggy smoke, if you want (feel like a verbose jackass today, to some degree)
I’ve not read any Barthelme. I want to.
i know. aren’t you saying you’re tired of seeing barthelme-influence work? that seemed clear to me
I understand. I don’t think any of us is really doing anything new. Are the forms he made famous supposed to be off limits? His tone is his and his alone?
He still hasn’t been dealt with adequately by serious criticism. Unlike just about every other major writer of the twentieth century.
I’m not saying that you are…but this is a similar critique that people make in all art forms, whether its painting or music or literature. I think DFW’s influence will only grow and the critics of the future are going to demand writers come up with new ideas and “stop ripping off his style” or what have you.
no, i am saying he was new for his time because of his method of approach and if there is a good thing to learn from him it is an idea of invention, not incorporation, or search for influence, or consideration of genre as you are asking. i think those you were hinting as people who seem influenced by barthelme weren’t influenced in the way one might most profit from, especially twenty years down the line.
i hate when i break the vague.
I am watching “Blood Diamond” reading “Barthelme” noting the “influence.”
that’s an interesting take on barthelme. to me he’s a master weaver of tropes, not a conjuror.
i feel more inspired thinking about writing as an exchange between many people at many times who are wholly idiosyncratic/wholly the same. but, as with most all ideas, it becomes diffuse to me to the point we do not disagree
“writing as an exchange between many people at many times who are wholly idiosyncratic”
isn’t that what htmlgiant is like ~kinda ~just a little ?
Being vague is easy. Being clear is hard.
WHATEVER, I SAY
Clearly, it’s possible to be both.
barthelme is my ticket out of this gohd forsaken cohntinent.
Buy a new shirt and stop wearing Barthelme’s? Is that what you are saying?
Your taxonomy sounds accurate to me (a much less indie-well-read reader).
I’d add, with respect to Wallace, Comprepulsiveness, and I’d change “Miserycore” to “sensationcore” – ‘corporeal coming-to-understand’ being essential (in my small acquaintance) to Blake’s writing.
god forshaken incontinent
[ deleted comment disqus sucks, so i had to put something here ]
Evidence of Barthelme
Act like you are writing 384 years after the death of Shakespeare.
Act like you are writing 2416 years after the death of Sophocles.
Act like you are writing ~250 million years after the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
Act like you are writing the day before you were conceived, you gaseous bore.
those sound immensely boring and make me real happy that other countries exist beside America.
[better final line:]
Act like you are writing during an unremarkable life, you gaseous bore.
I love Barthelme. I like Frederick but I love Donald.
I am irrelevant. I am at the bottom of the comment sections. I am one of those useless comments.
The comment before me is funny.
But the idea of originality can be seen virtually everywhere, one needs not read Barthelme to learn it. The value I see in Barthelme is not that he was original for ‘his time’ but rather the nature and substance of his writing.
When someone is moved by another person’s work, they incorporate it, right? Incorporation is necessary to find out who you are, as an artist. When you find someone whose work moves you, it’s like finding another little piece of a really big puzzle called Who Am I. I don’t see how any artist who’s influenced by Barthelme can be expected not to incorporate him.
Of course, to be fair, Barthelme himself was a little neurotic over the issue of influences, himself . . . it’s hard for me to say if his writing style wasn’t developed to some degree in an attempt to fight against influence . . . so… I don’t know… perhaps you’re saying that people should imitate Barthelme himself and not his work. I wouldn’t agree with that, myself, but it’s interesting, anyway, to think about the value of that kind of attitude toward writing.
Well… I’m going to tell you right now: Do NOT start with Paradise.
The Dead Father is my favorite novel of his, and I think the best introduction to his short fiction is probably 60 stories. After that, maybe Flying to America.
In Houston, DJ Screw has already replaced Donald Barthelme.
Styles are contagious, inventiveness isn’t. We are creatures gifted/burdened with mirror neurons; we imitate to the nth dimension of laziness, n referring to one notch above what is available. I like the idea of breaking with the imitative reflex to the extent possible, but it results in tumbles, bruises, calluses, callousness. Embarrassing results, an ability to dwell with one’s flatulence in close quarters. None of which is to say that we shouldn’t strive for this.
One interesting thing about Barthelme is that he appears to have been influenced by a lot of things extra-literary. To put it mildly, I think this is something many writers, myself included, could use reminders of. One of the great things about this website is how often it strays from the literary. And also there is some flatulence from time to time.
What wouldn’t Barthelme have done with spam?
Also, imagine getting one of those big black boxes in your inbox? Giant square of Hex #000000 might’ve taken down Submishmash for a day.
get out of my room dad!
well ain’t this too cute
*sips barre*
RIP NUGGA
the barthelmes included
[…] HTMLGIANT: We are living in post-Donald Barthelme times. Get used to […]
Blake,
You are writing cryptic posts to a community that / repeatedly / misunderstands / you. Act like it.
nice
madeshopping.com
I didn’t say it wasn’t possible to be both. Read what I wrote and respond to that, not to your internal asshat.
We’re also writing more than 30 years after the death of Ezra Pound. Get over ‘make it new.’ Maybe the time you think we ought to be spending hiding our influences should instead be spent thinking about the limits and capabilities of what has influenced us. I’d rather read a thoughtfully composed story in a borrowed style than a half-baked story in an ‘new’ one. Stop making stylistic individuation out to be anything other than the personal branding process it is.
Full disclosure: While there are a couple that have knocked my socks off (‘The School’ comes to mind), I can’t read most Barthelme stories without getting super impatient. So if I were in an editorial position where I had to read oodles of Barthelme knockoffs, I’d probably be pissed too. Not because they were knockoffs, but because they were Barthelme knockoffs, and I find 60% of Barthelme totally unrewarding after the initial shock of ‘people get away with this?’ wears off.
But I brought you a zombie book!
Did you “read what [you] wrote”, Alexander?
You distinguished between being “vague” and being “clear” – a distinction as “clear” as discerning “easy” from “hard”, and yet, with an almost magical simultaneity, as “vague” as that discernment, otherwise unclear, could be.
Having read “what [you] wrote”, I responded directly to your muscular vacuity by indicating it.
Now you raise your irony to the power of ‘irony’ by disdaining “[to r]ead what [we] wrote”; instead, you externalize “your asshat” – why, you become “your asshat”!
Exquisite, Alexander.
Make it old.
Another thing that’s been on my mind regarding Barthelme… Yes, I’ve always been disappointed that Barthelme is so overlooked as a major figure in American literature. Actually, I believe his writings happen to be among the most influential of the 20th century, along will Vonnegut, Kathy Acker (to a lesser extent), and other figures that the canon-huggers seem less enamored of. (Incidentally, Barthelme was a fan of Vonnegut — when his ex-wife asked him, incredulously, why: he gave the same precise answer that I’ve always given to everyone whose ever asked me the same question with the same incredulity: “Well, he’s honest.” That really was heartwarming, to me, reading that.
Here’s my take: There’s a Sonic Youth quote (don’t remember if it was Thurston or Kim who said it), pointing out the Sonic Youth [until the time of that interview] has influenced more bands than sold records. That appears to be the case, here, as well, although admittedly it’s just as easy to walk into a bookstore and find 60 Stories as it is to walk into a record store and find Sonic Youth’s Goo. I think Barthelme will eventually be recognized as a great figure. But for the moment… the results speak for themselves.
Are you suggesting that the spambots are actually bits of Donald Barthelme? In sort of Lain-of-the-Wired spirit form?
Don’t think I don’t know what you intend with that zombie book… .
Eh… have you read his work? Ambiguity can have extraordinary value, if done right, and Blake’s fiction is [done right] . . . not so sure about this post, but… like B.S. Johnson says, this book is not merely an uninterrupted string a successes.
(Lines/fragments/passages/quotes taken out of context can be awesome, too . . . not this one either, I expect, but hell, sometimes they work.)
I’ve been a champion of literary “misunderstanding” for a long time. Obviously I’ve always had an asterisk next to that thought. I can go on and on… . I won’t.
…Or perhaps herein lies the genius, as the saying goes . . . Alexander appears to say effectively nothing with such apparent clarity, and yet — it being impossible to “say nothing with clarity”: Alexander must, logically, be saying something… .
Therefore: it must be we who are somehow missing some cognitive trait that would otherwise enable us to be enriched by his brilliant koan.
I say we embark on a study. If only Alexander would offer us a personal link, we could begin forthwith… .
Another thing that’s been on my mind regarding Barthelme… Yes, I’ve always been disappointed that Barthelme is so overlooked as a major figure in American literature. Actually, I believe his writings happen to be among the most influential of the 20th century, along will Vonnegut, Kathy Acker (to a lesser extent), and other figures that the canon-huggers seem less enamored of. (Incidentally, Barthelme was a fan of Vonnegut — when his ex-wife asked him, incredulously, why: he gave the same precise answer that I’ve always given to everyone whose ever asked me the same question with the same incredulity: “Well, he’s honest.” That really was heartwarming, to me, reading that.
Here’s my take: There’s a Sonic Youth quote (don’t remember if it was Thurston or Kim who said it), pointing out the Sonic Youth [until the time of that interview] has influenced more bands than sold records. That appears to be the case, here, as well, although admittedly it’s just as easy to walk into a bookstore and find 60 Stories as it is to walk into a record store and find Sonic Youth’s Goo. I think Barthelme will eventually be recognized as a great figure. But for the moment… the results speak for themselves.
No need to resort to name-calling Alexander. What you said, “Being vague is easy. Being clear is hard,” is the most lucid sentence in this thread. If someone doesn’t understand it, they never will.
“All writing is ‘experimental,’ Tom,” he said. “Don’t get caught up with fads.” Boyle inwardly scoffed and continued to regard Cheever as “an old stick in the mud” – until he finally got around to rereading Cheever’s work with care. To this day he’s still reading it, though it’s been a long time since he’s read any Barthelme or Barth. “Anyone can write a Barthelme story,” said Boyle. “No on can write a Cheever story.”
– Blake Bailey, Cheever: A Life
Was more thinking that Barthelme would’ve raised spam to an art form, or, if it is already one, to a higher art form. Was more suggesting that he would’ve been fascinated by spam rather than seeing it as inimical to his work. That he would’ve loved spam as a kid loves mud and can do damned near anything with it.
A Nutshell Made of Art
Stone-wash it.
See the example you’ve set, Alexander? “Vague” and “clear”. “Easy” and “hard”.
Mosaic and kaleidoscope.
Quisp and Quake.
If you think this is the most lucid sentence in the thread, you’re not reading.
The problem, Jeffrey, is that this statement is far too simplistic. Vagueness and clarity are neither more easy nor more difficult than the other, and neither is more valuable. Each has its value, depending on the circumstance, and so forth.
I might shorten this down and just say: The simpler the reduction, the more skeptical I am. Nothing in life is simple.
MANAM IT IS REALLY NICE TO GET OUTSIDE SOMETIMES
YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND
I dunno… I think he’d’ve been just more likely to write a story or two making high-minded fun of it. I think he’d find it just as annoying as the rest of us, but he’d treat it in his usual playful/sarcastic/philosophical manner.
THAT’S WHAT HE MEANT OWEN
Forget about the ‘shock’ value or the concept of playfulness… Barthelme was much more than that. He was a student of philosophy, art, literature, and this stuff is evident throughout his works… he was an intellectual. In interviews he said that one of the pieces of advice he always gave to young writers was to familiarize themselves with philosophy.
He was also a fierce satirist, of course. Read his works with a keener eye — his heavier works much more so than his lighter works. 60 Stories seems lighter (which makes it a good intro). Like I’ve said before: try Flying to America.
Ooh, the inflammatory approach! Exciting… . Excuse me if I don’t bite.
Outside is overrated.
To me it sounded like Tim was thinking in terms of Don playing around with spam as an artistic form . . . I was thinking more in terms of Barthelme’s satirical ‘essays’.
Being an outsider is exhilarating to me, Owen – though, if it were taken to be Inarguably Oracular, to the utter denigration of inclusion, I’d agree that it were being overrated.
Manam’s boredom, so far, is fruitlessly boring.
I don’t think that, here, Jeffrey is trying to be “inflammatory”, Owen.
Boyle’s point is that, in Barthelme, technique – which can be copied – easily overrides any ‘heart’, while, in Cheever, the mellifluity of the sentences (a virtue minor relative to ‘heart’) is always at the service of the narratives’ emotive effect.
To me, in the light of just the four texts Blake links us to, Boyle’s “anyone” is needlessly sharp towards Barthelme – the ‘heart/mind’ dichotomy is, pushed too far, just false.
But you can see how, phrased in Boyle’s way, but with namby-pamby qualification, the preference for Cheever over Barthelme is not a crazily provocative one, but rather, discloses a reasonable aesthetic priority.
Clarity is not necessarily the same thing as simplicity. Something can be intensely complex and yet still clear.
But what you said about vagueness and clarity is thought-provoking and, upon consideration, I think correct.
To write something clear, with intelligence, is difficult. At the same time, to write something vague, with intelligence, is also not easy.
Thing is, I don’t think Blake’s statement is actually that vague. To me, it seems pretty clear!
So you’re saying writers should imitate his spirit of invention, as we haven’t seen one consonant with it?
– Paul Celan, quoted by Jean Daive (transl. Waldrop)
I’ll just say, to start with: If either Barthelme or Cheever is a slave to “technique” then it’s clearly Cheever . . . certainly not Barthelme, who changes his technique from story to story and often forgoes any identifiable technique whatsoever. Cheever, on the other hand, employs the same tired style of storytelling again and again.
Now… when you start talking about “heart”… hell, I wish you luck, there.
Of course, if you’re going to start calling Cheever’s writing “mellifluous”… ahem… I’m going to have to call up your psychiatrist . . . or question your reading habits.
Ha ha – if I ‘had’ a shrink, my shrink would know why yellow books make me sad.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about monostylistic, viscid Cheever; do revisit ‘The Golden Age’ for a laugh.
Barthelme’s changing of technique from story to story is evidence of how much technical gimmickry mattered to him, not how little.
I’d say to “Boyle”: What, exactly, is wrong with gimmicks? with technical hedonism? To go straight to the falsity of the dichotomy between ‘heart’ and ‘mind’, can one reasonably deny that there’s tons of gimmickry in Shakespeare – absolutely in dialectical unity with his dramatic poetry’s capacity to elicit emotion?? (Dr. Johnson denies this unity; he (Johnson) is wrong.) There’s plenty of sadness behind Barthelme’s smirk – your [Boyle’s] pat dismissal is inaccurate.
And I say to you [Owen] that I’m going to read The Dead Father this winter, thanks (partly) to your recommendation.
“Barthelme’s changing of technique from story to story is evidence of how much technical gimmickry mattered to him, not how little.” :Enter face-palm here.
What is one of the first things writers learn?: ‘Find your own voice’. While curious new styles are a good way to identify you and gain you attention, they can also restrict your ability to speak and be heard beyond the loud voice of that curious style. Barthelme seemed to be constantly, even desperately running away from this effect, while at the same time trying to find new means of expression because the existing ones didn’t satisfy him. Cheever, who had a less conspicuous style but whose style nonetheless restricted the above-mentioned ‘freedom’ (inasmuch as it’s really important enough to dwell on, ahem — another discussion), hugged it tightly.
Anyhow… thanks for listening to my recommendations… Again, I’d also suggest Flying to America, because I think it’s a good collection. Barthelme’s output was mixed, he had his silly side, his serious/analytical side, his fiercely satyrical side, his care-free side. How does anyone divide all this up? He was a complicated artist and a lifelong student, his work is full of allusion and satire; to reduce such a complicated artist to one or two styles he happened to invent and employ is simply missing the point. Would you do that to Joyce?
Anyhow… happy new year… .
“Barthelme’s changing of technique from story to story is evidence of how much technical gimmickry mattered to him, not how little.” :Enter face-palm here.
What is one of the first things writers learn?: ‘Find your own voice’. While curious new styles are a good way to identify you and gain you attention, they can also restrict your ability to speak and be heard beyond the loud voice of that curious style. Barthelme seemed to be constantly, even desperately running away from this effect, while at the same time trying to find new means of expression because the existing ones didn’t satisfy him. Cheever, who had a less conspicuous style but whose style nonetheless restricted the above-mentioned ‘freedom’ (inasmuch as it’s really important enough to dwell on, ahem — another discussion), hugged it tightly.
Anyhow… thanks for listening to my recommendations… Again, I’d also suggest Flying to America, because I think it’s a good collection. Barthelme’s output was mixed, he had his silly side, his serious/analytical side, his fiercely satyrical side, his care-free side. How does anyone divide all this up? He was a complicated artist and a lifelong student, his work is full of allusion and satire; to reduce such a complicated artist to one or two styles he happened to invent and employ is simply missing the point. Would you do that to Joyce?
Anyhow… happy new year… .
[…] is a discussion at HTML Giant on Donald Barthelme. One of the proprietors of the site, Blake Butler, reminds everyone with a blanket of […]
[…] was this thing that Blake Butler said a few months ago, about how if you are writing, you are doing it in a period more than twenty years after the death […]