Lily Hoang—
This guy said in this book: My tastes in reading lately have been way more realistic, because most experimental stuff is hellaciously unfun to read.
Discuss.
-
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
alright, fine, I’ll go get the popcorn
I’d say this is patent DFW humble pie, because his realistic is still smartly written: Hannah, DeLillo, etc. And he also loved TV and entertainment. So, yeah, I’d take this with a big, DFW-brain/Mario Incandenza’s skull grain of salt.
alright, fine, I’ll go get the popcorn
I’d say this is patent DFW humble pie, because his realistic is still smartly written: Hannah, DeLillo, etc. And he also loved TV and entertainment. So, yeah, I’d take this with a big, DFW-brain/Mario Incandenza’s skull grain of salt.
Yeah, absolutely. This book is so fucking incredible.
Yeah, absolutely. This book is so fucking incredible.
Yo, you guys ever noticed how experimental writers all write like THIS, but realistic writers, we like to write like thiiiiiiiiis.
amirite people?
<3 you.
Yo, you guys ever noticed how experimental writers all write like THIS, but realistic writers, we like to write like thiiiiiiiiis.
amirite people?
<3 you.
GOT TO BE SOME LIMITS TO EXPERIMENTAL WRITING OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ENTRANCE EXCEPT FOR ACADEMICS, THAT’S FINE IF THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OR TO DIP TOES IN OR READ OH NO I DON’T WANT TO WRITE ANYONE OFF IT SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE ZZZIPP IS WRITING EXPERIMENTAL FICTION WRITERS OFF
EQUILIBRIUM
GOT TO BE SOME LIMITS TO EXPERIMENTAL WRITING OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ENTRANCE EXCEPT FOR ACADEMICS, THAT’S FINE IF THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OR TO DIP TOES IN OR READ OH NO I DON’T WANT TO WRITE ANYONE OFF IT SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE ZZZIPP IS WRITING EXPERIMENTAL FICTION WRITERS OFF
EQUILIBRIUM
I think fun experimental is usually more fun than fun realistic although there’s more fun realistic than fun experimental.
I think fun experimental is usually more fun than fun realistic although there’s more fun realistic than fun experimental.
no one wants to publish my fun experimental stuff, usually
no one wants to publish my fun experimental stuff, usually
experimental : literature :: alternative : rock music
experimental : literature :: alternative : rock music
wish i could delete this comment
wish i could delete this comment
I do beg to differ!
I do beg to differ!
the more important realization Wallace brought out of that thought i think was aiming to make a book both difficult and challenging in new ways but also fun and compelling so that it was entertaining enough to ‘do the work’ that people would ‘actually do the work’ he said
the original title of infinite jest was ‘a failed entertainment’
the more important realization Wallace brought out of that thought i think was aiming to make a book both difficult and challenging in new ways but also fun and compelling so that it was entertaining enough to ‘do the work’ that people would ‘actually do the work’ he said
the original title of infinite jest was ‘a failed entertainment’
Whoa, it’s like you read my brain.
Whoa, it’s like you read my brain.
Sometimes I think that Wallace had too large a sweet spot for easy ‘fun.’ There are parts in IJ that really fade with re-reading, I think.
Sometimes I think that Wallace had too large a sweet spot for easy ‘fun.’ There are parts in IJ that really fade with re-reading, I think.
This.
This.
I’ve grown tired of this debate. Give me it all–tragedy, comedy, fun, seriousness. How about, the writing I’m drawn to is ambitious and is too good to be placed in some neat little category. Like FOC said, a good story resists paraphrase. You could apply her comment to these stupid categories.
I’ve grown tired of this debate. Give me it all–tragedy, comedy, fun, seriousness. How about, the writing I’m drawn to is ambitious and is too good to be placed in some neat little category. Like FOC said, a good story resists paraphrase. You could apply her comment to these stupid categories.
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Experience-Limits-Philippe-Sollers/dp/B0038LWUJ2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270092545&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Experience-Limits-Philippe-Sollers/dp/B0038LWUJ2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270092545&sr=8-2
NICE
THANKS M.M.
NICE
THANKS M.M.
That Sollers book looks like a must. His Women is fantastic.
I wonder if this passage from Infinite Jest has any relevance here. Wallace writes , “…what are those boundaries, if they’re not baselines, that contain and direct its infinite expansion inward, that make tennis like chess on the run, beautiful and infinitely dense?” It’s those inner limits, both internal to the self and to any phenomenon, that seem to compel him here.
If one thinks about the Oulipeans in terms of limits, the limits are constant; they are what spur the imagination in recoil.
That Sollers book looks like a must. His Women is fantastic.
I wonder if this passage from Infinite Jest has any relevance here. Wallace writes , “…what are those boundaries, if they’re not baselines, that contain and direct its infinite expansion inward, that make tennis like chess on the run, beautiful and infinitely dense?” It’s those inner limits, both internal to the self and to any phenomenon, that seem to compel him here.
If one thinks about the Oulipeans in terms of limits, the limits are constant; they are what spur the imagination in recoil.
We love Wallace. We met him once a long time ago.
We love Wallace. We met him once a long time ago.
Yes. Every time I think my writing is failing or I need to remind myself why I write I go back to this interview. The mccafferty one, that is.
Yes. Every time I think my writing is failing or I need to remind myself why I write I go back to this interview. The mccafferty one, that is.
yessir.
yessir.
Justin, if this was on the SAT, I don’t think I would fill in the T for True bubble.
Alternative is a pretty cooked-to-mush word when it comes to describing music. Remember a band called Hootie and the Blowfish? I think everywhere in the world they were called “Alternative Rock” but what exactly were they the alternative to? Alternative and Indie supposedly, maybe meant something when describing music a few decades ago, but they mean basically nothing now. Supposed Indie bands are signed to major labels. Supposed Alternative bands are no longer alternative, and are instead the norm.
Experimental, though….. That word isn’t quite so cooked.
Unlike ‘alternative’ & ‘indie’ music which is flowing on major radio waves all day, the average reader, for the most part, will not read contemporary experimental fiction. She might read fiction that was considered experimental at the time, but stuff that weirdo-writers that I love are writing in the current era is not really read by mainstream audiences, yet. Your boy Barthelme was experimental at the time, and still may be some people, but I think his style is becoming more and more acceptable to the contemporary reader. …. yeah?
Justin, if this was on the SAT, I don’t think I would fill in the T for True bubble.
Alternative is a pretty cooked-to-mush word when it comes to describing music. Remember a band called Hootie and the Blowfish? I think everywhere in the world they were called “Alternative Rock” but what exactly were they the alternative to? Alternative and Indie supposedly, maybe meant something when describing music a few decades ago, but they mean basically nothing now. Supposed Indie bands are signed to major labels. Supposed Alternative bands are no longer alternative, and are instead the norm.
Experimental, though….. That word isn’t quite so cooked.
Unlike ‘alternative’ & ‘indie’ music which is flowing on major radio waves all day, the average reader, for the most part, will not read contemporary experimental fiction. She might read fiction that was considered experimental at the time, but stuff that weirdo-writers that I love are writing in the current era is not really read by mainstream audiences, yet. Your boy Barthelme was experimental at the time, and still may be some people, but I think his style is becoming more and more acceptable to the contemporary reader. …. yeah?
Also, I love Wallace but a few stories in Oblivion were actually, at times, unfun for me to read. And yet I tortured myself and re-read some of those stories to see what it was that bothered me. (I just read it a few weeks ago.) The soul is not a smithy– which is narrated from such an absurd angle that it made my teeth hurt a little— alternated between pure bliss and watch-checking agony for me. Hellacious would be an appropriate word for it, I think.
Also, I love Wallace but a few stories in Oblivion were actually, at times, unfun for me to read. And yet I tortured myself and re-read some of those stories to see what it was that bothered me. (I just read it a few weeks ago.) The soul is not a smithy– which is narrated from such an absurd angle that it made my teeth hurt a little— alternated between pure bliss and watch-checking agony for me. Hellacious would be an appropriate word for it, I think.
I think “experimental” as a term is cooked to a state of exactly as much mush as “alternative,” to say nothing of the Orwellian usage of “indie.” DB may or may not have been experimenting, but I warrant that his published work represents those “experiments” which he himself regarded as successful. To put it in middle school science project terms, he didn’t publish his hypotheses, but his conclusions. He settled for the label “postmodern” only grudgingly, because it was better than the alternatives (which included “superfiction”, to name just one) and probably because his sense of history in general was so good, and his reverence for Beckett was so profound, that it probably meant something to him to be part of a group that was explicitly situated in relation to the Modernism.
I think that “experimental” by and large comes off sounding either like an insult or an apology. It does no work at all in terms of designating any particular group of writers at any particular time, and as an adjective it’s essentially bankrupt, failing as it does to tell me anything about the difference between, say, Diane Williams, Josh Cohen, Shelley Jackson, and Tao Lin. Experimental writers should call me when the lab work is done, and they’ve got something to show for their efforts. In the meantime, while they’re trying to figure out what it is that makes pennies burn green, they should leave the rest of us alone. But if we absolutely must choose a single blanket term to describe all things that are non-normative (and really, aren’t we just repeating the classic Judith Butler-ian proposition that homosexuality is an imitation for which there is no original, that heterosexuality can only understand itself as the non-non-normative, and that any conception of the so-called “normal” is always a belated, incomplete response?) then I would cheerfully vote for the resurrection of the term “avant-garde,” provided it is used with extreme judiciousness, and without irony.
I think “experimental” as a term is cooked to a state of exactly as much mush as “alternative,” to say nothing of the Orwellian usage of “indie.” DB may or may not have been experimenting, but I warrant that his published work represents those “experiments” which he himself regarded as successful. To put it in middle school science project terms, he didn’t publish his hypotheses, but his conclusions. He settled for the label “postmodern” only grudgingly, because it was better than the alternatives (which included “superfiction”, to name just one) and probably because his sense of history in general was so good, and his reverence for Beckett was so profound, that it probably meant something to him to be part of a group that was explicitly situated in relation to the Modernism.
I think that “experimental” by and large comes off sounding either like an insult or an apology. It does no work at all in terms of designating any particular group of writers at any particular time, and as an adjective it’s essentially bankrupt, failing as it does to tell me anything about the difference between, say, Diane Williams, Josh Cohen, Shelley Jackson, and Tao Lin. Experimental writers should call me when the lab work is done, and they’ve got something to show for their efforts. In the meantime, while they’re trying to figure out what it is that makes pennies burn green, they should leave the rest of us alone. But if we absolutely must choose a single blanket term to describe all things that are non-normative (and really, aren’t we just repeating the classic Judith Butler-ian proposition that homosexuality is an imitation for which there is no original, that heterosexuality can only understand itself as the non-non-normative, and that any conception of the so-called “normal” is always a belated, incomplete response?) then I would cheerfully vote for the resurrection of the term “avant-garde,” provided it is used with extreme judiciousness, and without irony.
Agreed. The idea that I could write a Donald Barthelme rip-off (ie a story that was done 40 years ago) and have it be called “experimental” in 2010 is pretty silly. What’s the experiment? The term doesn’t seem to mean much.
Agreed. The idea that I could write a Donald Barthelme rip-off (ie a story that was done 40 years ago) and have it be called “experimental” in 2010 is pretty silly. What’s the experiment? The term doesn’t seem to mean much.
Oh, can’t we use “Avant-Garde” with just a liiiiitle irony? It’s just so much more fun to say when said ironically.
Oh, can’t we use “Avant-Garde” with just a liiiiitle irony? It’s just so much more fun to say when said ironically.
this made my day.
this made my day.
This.
This.
I agree, Justin, that the term “experimental” is useless. It means nothing, an empty term people (regretfully, myself included, but I also use avant-garde, both in quotes, if I can help it) throw around because they can’t come up with a better one. I like “avant-garde”, though it has suitcases of shit that arrive with it too. Because ultimately, Diane Williams is a very different breed of “avant-garde” than Josh or Shelley or Tao.
Come up with better categorizations. That’s a challenge.
I agree, Justin, that the term “experimental” is useless. It means nothing, an empty term people (regretfully, myself included, but I also use avant-garde, both in quotes, if I can help it) throw around because they can’t come up with a better one. I like “avant-garde”, though it has suitcases of shit that arrive with it too. Because ultimately, Diane Williams is a very different breed of “avant-garde” than Josh or Shelley or Tao.
Come up with better categorizations. That’s a challenge.
The most impactful story in Oblivion is “Good Old Neon,” which is only “experimental” in the sense that it devolves from third person domestic realism to first person writerly engagement with what he’s just written, which is mostly an exercise in memoirish remembering and reckoning. This kind of experiment — in the service of the deeper things instead of in the service of surfaces — is, I think, emblematic of what Wallace is about in the better of his fictions (including, it must be said, Infinite Jest.)
The most impactful story in Oblivion is “Good Old Neon,” which is only “experimental” in the sense that it devolves from third person domestic realism to first person writerly engagement with what he’s just written, which is mostly an exercise in memoirish remembering and reckoning. This kind of experiment — in the service of the deeper things instead of in the service of surfaces — is, I think, emblematic of what Wallace is about in the better of his fictions (including, it must be said, Infinite Jest.)
guess this comment involves the entire experimental vs. ‘regular’ writing, but i’ll comment here.
kinda feel like hemingway was experimental, in the same way zachary german is, like the writing itself isn’t difficult, nor are the ideas, just that there’s some agenda that challenges the way people read.
and a lot of experimental writing is sort of predictable and boring, like there’s no higher agenda after all the syntax/form/meta play, so for me it’s not about the decipherability, but a kind of restlessness the writer has, and the chances they’re willing to take
i like darby’s comment elsewhere of ‘why dont you just like what you like.’ it’s like we’re trying determine what’s better, ice-cream of beef wellington, or cats vs. beer. it’s too hard.
And ditto, I think, stories in BIWHM such as “Octet,” “Adult World,” etc. He’s so often grappling with his desire to be an intellectually engaging object-maker versus his (often stronger) desire to write emotionally engaging work that means and means. For a reader like me, 90% of the pleasure of reading him lies in how he navigates the tension between the two desirable but possibly in some ways contradictory ends.
guess this comment involves the entire experimental vs. ‘regular’ writing, but i’ll comment here.
kinda feel like hemingway was experimental, in the same way zachary german is, like the writing itself isn’t difficult, nor are the ideas, just that there’s some agenda that challenges the way people read.
and a lot of experimental writing is sort of predictable and boring, like there’s no higher agenda after all the syntax/form/meta play, so for me it’s not about the decipherability, but a kind of restlessness the writer has, and the chances they’re willing to take
i like darby’s comment elsewhere of ‘why dont you just like what you like.’ it’s like we’re trying determine what’s better, ice-cream of beef wellington, or cats vs. beer. it’s too hard.
And ditto, I think, stories in BIWHM such as “Octet,” “Adult World,” etc. He’s so often grappling with his desire to be an intellectually engaging object-maker versus his (often stronger) desire to write emotionally engaging work that means and means. For a reader like me, 90% of the pleasure of reading him lies in how he navigates the tension between the two desirable but possibly in some ways contradictory ends.
the more i read of him, the more i see dfw as a vonnegut v2.0 kinda writer. though i admit i’m genuinely curious to find out what’s become of his unfinished next novel.
ice-cream, beer.
the more i read of him, the more i see dfw as a vonnegut v2.0 kinda writer. though i admit i’m genuinely curious to find out what’s become of his unfinished next novel.
ice-cream, beer.
mr. redundant here, but “mister squishy,” “oblivion,” and “the suffering channel” are like the best stories i’ve ever read, and i re-read them with joy, and they make me happier
mr. redundant here, but “mister squishy,” “oblivion,” and “the suffering channel” are like the best stories i’ve ever read, and i re-read them with joy, and they make me happier
i’d rather put ice-cream and beer in a blender than cat and beef wellington, so yah, you are rational
i’d rather put ice-cream and beer in a blender than cat and beef wellington, so yah, you are rational
justin you just dressed up experimental fiction in drag and stripped it naked
justin you just dressed up experimental fiction in drag and stripped it naked
Please don’t start renaming experimental as avant-garde – or I’ll start imagining lots of pontificating individuals with ridiculous moustaches, stroking their chins.
As I think I’ve said before on here, any writer – any artist, in fact – who, with an entirely straight face, calls their work ‘experimental’ needs a swift kick up the jacksie and placing in Pseuds Corner to calm down. Anyone who has ever looked me in the eye and consciously uttered the phrase “I think my work is … experimental in nature” has not only wanted me to gasp and be oh so impressed, but they’ve also invariably turned out to be po-faced bores.
I think the desire to claim the term ‘experimental’ is part of a nostalgia for an age when, for instance, Stravinsky’s The Rites of Spring caused outrage in the concert hall; when performances of theatre work by Artaud or Jarry provoked shouts of disgust, walk-outs and riots; and when novels by writers deemed ‘experimental’ caused them to be virtually ostracised so that they eked out the rest of their lives writing in poverty and obscurity.
But I doubt these reactions are going to happen any more. Why? Because we’ve seen too much, read too much, heard too much. And because in our always-on and ever-connected age, there is always more art to consume, to appreciate. Where do you draw the line beyond which you can confidently say “this is experimental” and start stroking your chin thoughtfully again? Answer: you can’t.
So there’s no longer a consensus about what’s experimental in art and in literature. Is that a bad thing? No. It’s just more awkward, because the judgement on what is experimental has become personal, not political. I wouldn’t regard the bits and pieces of what I’ve read of Tao Lin as experimental; I would call Christopher Higgs’s Marvin Mooney book experimental – even the first few pages blew my mind, and I had to go take a few minutes rest in a darkened room. Yet that’s my experience. To friends, colleagues, relatives, seeing – oh, I don’t know – an Ian McEwan or a Martin Amis on my bookshelves would suggest to them that I like experimental fiction. Which it wouldn’t to me or to any of you, of course. But then if those friends, colleagues or relatives have got their heads buried in the latest Dan Brown, Jodi Picoult or Anita Shreve – to name but three glossy fiction writers whose works I’ve seen being read recently by people I know – then even McEwan and Amis are going to be experimental to them.
It’s all, as with so much, a matter of perception based on what you’ve experienced. Now, if you’ll excuse me, my avant-garde moustache is itching.
Please don’t start renaming experimental as avant-garde – or I’ll start imagining lots of pontificating individuals with ridiculous moustaches, stroking their chins.
As I think I’ve said before on here, any writer – any artist, in fact – who, with an entirely straight face, calls their work ‘experimental’ needs a swift kick up the jacksie and placing in Pseuds Corner to calm down. Anyone who has ever looked me in the eye and consciously uttered the phrase “I think my work is … experimental in nature” has not only wanted me to gasp and be oh so impressed, but they’ve also invariably turned out to be po-faced bores.
I think the desire to claim the term ‘experimental’ is part of a nostalgia for an age when, for instance, Stravinsky’s The Rites of Spring caused outrage in the concert hall; when performances of theatre work by Artaud or Jarry provoked shouts of disgust, walk-outs and riots; and when novels by writers deemed ‘experimental’ caused them to be virtually ostracised so that they eked out the rest of their lives writing in poverty and obscurity.
But I doubt these reactions are going to happen any more. Why? Because we’ve seen too much, read too much, heard too much. And because in our always-on and ever-connected age, there is always more art to consume, to appreciate. Where do you draw the line beyond which you can confidently say “this is experimental” and start stroking your chin thoughtfully again? Answer: you can’t.
So there’s no longer a consensus about what’s experimental in art and in literature. Is that a bad thing? No. It’s just more awkward, because the judgement on what is experimental has become personal, not political. I wouldn’t regard the bits and pieces of what I’ve read of Tao Lin as experimental; I would call Christopher Higgs’s Marvin Mooney book experimental – even the first few pages blew my mind, and I had to go take a few minutes rest in a darkened room. Yet that’s my experience. To friends, colleagues, relatives, seeing – oh, I don’t know – an Ian McEwan or a Martin Amis on my bookshelves would suggest to them that I like experimental fiction. Which it wouldn’t to me or to any of you, of course. But then if those friends, colleagues or relatives have got their heads buried in the latest Dan Brown, Jodi Picoult or Anita Shreve – to name but three glossy fiction writers whose works I’ve seen being read recently by people I know – then even McEwan and Amis are going to be experimental to them.
It’s all, as with so much, a matter of perception based on what you’ve experienced. Now, if you’ll excuse me, my avant-garde moustache is itching.
Yeah, I have been thinking about this all evening (while listening to somewhat boring British people talk over mediocre beer) and I have decided that Justin’s SAT analogy is pretty solid and I was basically splitting hairs by trying to say it wasn’t correct. Justin 1, Catherine 0.
Yeah, I have been thinking about this all evening (while listening to somewhat boring British people talk over mediocre beer) and I have decided that Justin’s SAT analogy is pretty solid and I was basically splitting hairs by trying to say it wasn’t correct. Justin 1, Catherine 0.
I loved Good Old Neon. I really liked the one about the spiders and the old mom and the son too…. what was that one called?
I loved Good Old Neon. I really liked the one about the spiders and the old mom and the son too…. what was that one called?
The soul is not a smithy was huge for me. What a freakin story!
The soul is not a smithy was huge for me. What a freakin story!
This is probably obvious, but, to me, experimental has a lot more to do with the reader than the writer. You can’t really lump people into the experimental mold, if, for instance, you’ve cut your teeth on all kinds of experimental books in the past. To say something is experimental might be to say, ‘I haven’t yet in my reading life perceived of story/language/whatever in this way, and this new way of perceiving, it’s going to take me a minute to get my mind around–and if I’m really lucky–I’m actually going to want to ‘put in the work’ (as Blake reminds DFW was always seeming to worry about) and figure it out.’ And what made DFW so always interesting to me is that he managed, with each book, to seem experimental at times. To go from the character pieces of GIRL to IJ, then to veer left, violently, into BIWHM, only to come out the other side with those dense, long stories that are Oblivion. Luckily, I always wanted to put in the work with him. And I think the Barthelme point is a good one. Not so experimental to me anymore, but God it was when I first consumed 60 Stories; and when I meet those kind, nice people so well versed in [add whatever term for ‘realistic’ fiction you’d like right here], I kind of chuckle handing over Barthelme, knowing what it will probably do to them. Recently, I reread Bats Out of Hell, and even though I’ve read Hannah, I still found some of those paragraphs and sentences experimental, because I just keep coming away from them wondering what is he doing, why does it work, and how the hell how can I do it too.
This is probably obvious, but, to me, experimental has a lot more to do with the reader than the writer. You can’t really lump people into the experimental mold, if, for instance, you’ve cut your teeth on all kinds of experimental books in the past. To say something is experimental might be to say, ‘I haven’t yet in my reading life perceived of story/language/whatever in this way, and this new way of perceiving, it’s going to take me a minute to get my mind around–and if I’m really lucky–I’m actually going to want to ‘put in the work’ (as Blake reminds DFW was always seeming to worry about) and figure it out.’ And what made DFW so always interesting to me is that he managed, with each book, to seem experimental at times. To go from the character pieces of GIRL to IJ, then to veer left, violently, into BIWHM, only to come out the other side with those dense, long stories that are Oblivion. Luckily, I always wanted to put in the work with him. And I think the Barthelme point is a good one. Not so experimental to me anymore, but God it was when I first consumed 60 Stories; and when I meet those kind, nice people so well versed in [add whatever term for ‘realistic’ fiction you’d like right here], I kind of chuckle handing over Barthelme, knowing what it will probably do to them. Recently, I reread Bats Out of Hell, and even though I’ve read Hannah, I still found some of those paragraphs and sentences experimental, because I just keep coming away from them wondering what is he doing, why does it work, and how the hell how can I do it too.
Excellent response, although art can still inspire shouts of disgust/fury/etc. I’ve seen it twice in theatres: Enter The Void (audience hemmorage, shouts of disgust) and Antichrist (same).
Excellent response, although art can still inspire shouts of disgust/fury/etc. I’ve seen it twice in theatres: Enter The Void (audience hemmorage, shouts of disgust) and Antichrist (same).
i’ve always liked this defense of “experimental” by Ann Lauterbach:
“The two words, experience and experiment, share an etymological root; they are the flora of experiri, to try, and related to periculum, which includes both the idea of attempt and peril. The path proceeds on, somewhat perilously, to the expert and then to its final nettlesome destination, expiate.
Recently, I was introduced as an “experimental” poet. The word was uttered with disdain; I was being damned with the faintest of praise. In the tiny world of poetry, to be experimental is often taken to mean you have an aversion to form, rather than an aversion to conformity.
I was raised in a leftist/liberal environment. I went to a small progressive school founded on John Dewey’s pragmatism. The etymological root shared by experience and experiment formed the fundamental, pedagogical ground. The idea was that by doing something one would come to understand it.”
–from “Use This Word in a Sentence: Experimental”: http://archbold.blogspot.com/2006/02/use-this-word-in-sentence-experimental.html
i’ve always liked this defense of “experimental” by Ann Lauterbach:
“The two words, experience and experiment, share an etymological root; they are the flora of experiri, to try, and related to periculum, which includes both the idea of attempt and peril. The path proceeds on, somewhat perilously, to the expert and then to its final nettlesome destination, expiate.
Recently, I was introduced as an “experimental” poet. The word was uttered with disdain; I was being damned with the faintest of praise. In the tiny world of poetry, to be experimental is often taken to mean you have an aversion to form, rather than an aversion to conformity.
I was raised in a leftist/liberal environment. I went to a small progressive school founded on John Dewey’s pragmatism. The etymological root shared by experience and experiment formed the fundamental, pedagogical ground. The idea was that by doing something one would come to understand it.”
–from “Use This Word in a Sentence: Experimental”: http://archbold.blogspot.com/2006/02/use-this-word-in-sentence-experimental.html
Lawl.
Lawl.
“a term…. cooked to a state of…. mush…”
Justin – I am feelin’ it wholeheartedly with your statement here.
But, people, would it be possible to somehow move beyond labels? All labels. Post-labelism. ?
The problem for me as an “average reader” (who has read Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, Marquez, Morrison, Rhys, Barthelme, Beatty, Moore, Pynchon, etc, etc, and is “working on” DFW, Tao Lin, July, etc, etc, has actually purchased and own “a book” by Justin Taylor, Blake Butler and Sean Lovelace – still gettin’ to ’em, boys – ) is what to read that is current current, regardless of any label(s) attached to it (by whomever), how to find things that I will “like”, that will grab me and hold me, something that I am willing to spend my precious time with, something that will take me “someplace new” but that is still “translate-able” by me to me, that I “understand it” or “get it” or “get something” on “my” terms).
And: “….stuff that weirdo-writers that I love are writing in the current era is not really read by mainstream audiences, yet.”
Catherine – I would, for example, love to see a list from you of just this. (Maybe this list exists somewhere already? On HTML or elsewhere?)
Anyway, in the vastness that is the internet, Amazon.com, SPD, Pegasus, Black Oak, etc, etc, is the challenge (the Hero’s epic quest?) to figure out what to read next (“were there but world enough and time…”) cuz there’s a lot of crap out there, and I need someone I can “trust” to give me suggestions. (I have plenty of friends and colleagues that can suggest good stuff; I’m talkin’ about the new-new-good stuff. And then I can suggest the new good stuff to them!)
OK. A longish comment, late in the game, from a “label-weary” “average reader”.
“a term…. cooked to a state of…. mush…”
Justin – I am feelin’ it wholeheartedly with your statement here.
But, people, would it be possible to somehow move beyond labels? All labels. Post-labelism. ?
The problem for me as an “average reader” (who has read Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, Marquez, Morrison, Rhys, Barthelme, Beatty, Moore, Pynchon, etc, etc, and is “working on” DFW, Tao Lin, July, etc, etc, has actually purchased and own “a book” by Justin Taylor, Blake Butler and Sean Lovelace – still gettin’ to ’em, boys – ) is what to read that is current current, regardless of any label(s) attached to it (by whomever), how to find things that I will “like”, that will grab me and hold me, something that I am willing to spend my precious time with, something that will take me “someplace new” but that is still “translate-able” by me to me, that I “understand it” or “get it” or “get something” on “my” terms).
And: “….stuff that weirdo-writers that I love are writing in the current era is not really read by mainstream audiences, yet.”
Catherine – I would, for example, love to see a list from you of just this. (Maybe this list exists somewhere already? On HTML or elsewhere?)
Anyway, in the vastness that is the internet, Amazon.com, SPD, Pegasus, Black Oak, etc, etc, is the challenge (the Hero’s epic quest?) to figure out what to read next (“were there but world enough and time…”) cuz there’s a lot of crap out there, and I need someone I can “trust” to give me suggestions. (I have plenty of friends and colleagues that can suggest good stuff; I’m talkin’ about the new-new-good stuff. And then I can suggest the new good stuff to them!)
OK. A longish comment, late in the game, from a “label-weary” “average reader”.
Right — if he chose, it would be much, much less fun.
Right — if he chose, it would be much, much less fun.
Do folks here think that fiction writers have more anxiety than other types of artist about appearing to be snobs or pretentious or elitists? Because there often seems to be an element of that in these debates, that I don’t find (or is more muted) when, say, poets or painters discuss issues of “labeling” in their fields.
(I must suffer from it myself — see, I said “folks.” Just a man o’ the people here!).
Do folks here think that fiction writers have more anxiety than other types of artist about appearing to be snobs or pretentious or elitists? Because there often seems to be an element of that in these debates, that I don’t find (or is more muted) when, say, poets or painters discuss issues of “labeling” in their fields.
(I must suffer from it myself — see, I said “folks.” Just a man o’ the people here!).
Yes. It seems increasingly that the only way an audience can be provoked is by the obscenity of the content. This seems like an easy boundary to push.
With regard to a piece of art that asks serious questions about form most audiences seem more likely to walk out, not having made the effort to understand, than to be provoked.
This seems obvious, but I think it’s pretty sad.
To consider yourself ‘experimental’ or ‘avant-garde’ just because you fuck about with the most perverse (read: controversial) subject matter is ignorant and lazy.
Yes. It seems increasingly that the only way an audience can be provoked is by the obscenity of the content. This seems like an easy boundary to push.
With regard to a piece of art that asks serious questions about form most audiences seem more likely to walk out, not having made the effort to understand, than to be provoked.
This seems obvious, but I think it’s pretty sad.
To consider yourself ‘experimental’ or ‘avant-garde’ just because you fuck about with the most perverse (read: controversial) subject matter is ignorant and lazy.
i said this somewhere else, but gaddis once said that he wasn’t an ‘experimental’ writer because his work was intentional and precise, not an ‘experiment’
i said this somewhere else, but gaddis once said that he wasn’t an ‘experimental’ writer because his work was intentional and precise, not an ‘experiment’
It was interesting that Ken mentioned Antichrist, and then JW mentioned obscenity of the content as being the only way to provoke audiences these days. I’d agree. And I think there’s often an assumption that ‘shocking’ equals ‘experimentation’. Which I don’t think it does. I didn’t find Antichrist experimental, for instance – in fact, by von Trier’s usual standards it was a quite conventionally made film – but I did find it shocking. In a good way, incidentally.
This brief thread within the thread here made me remember, in 1993, going to see Derek Jarman’s last film, Blue. I found that film ‘experimental’, certainly, though not in content but in form and approach. And true enough, people were leaving within minutes …
It was interesting that Ken mentioned Antichrist, and then JW mentioned obscenity of the content as being the only way to provoke audiences these days. I’d agree. And I think there’s often an assumption that ‘shocking’ equals ‘experimentation’. Which I don’t think it does. I didn’t find Antichrist experimental, for instance – in fact, by von Trier’s usual standards it was a quite conventionally made film – but I did find it shocking. In a good way, incidentally.
This brief thread within the thread here made me remember, in 1993, going to see Derek Jarman’s last film, Blue. I found that film ‘experimental’, certainly, though not in content but in form and approach. And true enough, people were leaving within minutes …
All this talk of “realism” in a culture created from nothing but scraps of fiction is getting ridiculous.
All this talk of “realism” in a culture created from nothing but scraps of fiction is getting ridiculous.
your last line cracked me up. well done.
your last line cracked me up. well done.
The only movie I’ve ever walked out of was Ken Russell’s “The Devils”, and that was a while ago.
I might see it differently now.
The only movie I’ve ever walked out of was Ken Russell’s “The Devils”, and that was a while ago.
I might see it differently now.
I do respect the way HTML can re-argue an argument in three posts/two days. Redundancy for emphasis? And where the fuck is the Tao Lin?
Anyone want to drop a “What is your purpose on this earth” post? I mean really. Why were you placed here?
No, fuck that.
Paper vs plastic? Seriously.
And I mean in the grocery AND credit card vs. dollar bill. Paper vs. plastic.
I do respect the way HTML can re-argue an argument in three posts/two days. Redundancy for emphasis? And where the fuck is the Tao Lin?
Anyone want to drop a “What is your purpose on this earth” post? I mean really. Why were you placed here?
No, fuck that.
Paper vs plastic? Seriously.
And I mean in the grocery AND credit card vs. dollar bill. Paper vs. plastic.
Enter The Void actually hurt the audience the most in the moments of transition. Pace as offense.
Enter The Void actually hurt the audience the most in the moments of transition. Pace as offense.
i have a feeling he meant “hellaciously unfun without there being a purpose to the unfun aspects,” at least if he was leading by example, because a story like “the depressed person” is powerful in part because it is intentionally “quite unfun” if not “hellaciously unfun” to read owing to the reader feeling like they’re living in a trapped, despairing, fucked, depressed person’s mind, agonizing through their thought processes. but it’s an example of a story that IS something as opposed to being ABOUT something. and those IS stories and novels are often ‘special,’ both the “conventional realist” and the “experimental” or “avant-garde” ones.
i have a feeling he meant “hellaciously unfun without there being a purpose to the unfun aspects,” at least if he was leading by example, because a story like “the depressed person” is powerful in part because it is intentionally “quite unfun” if not “hellaciously unfun” to read owing to the reader feeling like they’re living in a trapped, despairing, fucked, depressed person’s mind, agonizing through their thought processes. but it’s an example of a story that IS something as opposed to being ABOUT something. and those IS stories and novels are often ‘special,’ both the “conventional realist” and the “experimental” or “avant-garde” ones.
“Eat When You Feel Sad” is one of the latest examples of an IS novel. it’s not ABOUT ontological despair/uncertainty/ennui or ABOUT ‘a young man’s life’/’the state of things today in this internet age in which we live, today’—-rather, it IS the thing.
“Eat When You Feel Sad” is one of the latest examples of an IS novel. it’s not ABOUT ontological despair/uncertainty/ennui or ABOUT ‘a young man’s life’/’the state of things today in this internet age in which we live, today’—-rather, it IS the thing.
after Beckett, one may feel commentary is rather superfluous, misguided, even silly. but then, as this forum demonstrates, it’s very difficult to be silent and still in yourself. likely there is space for all things.
after Beckett, one may feel commentary is rather superfluous, misguided, even silly. but then, as this forum demonstrates, it’s very difficult to be silent and still in yourself. likely there is space for all things.
http://heheheheheheheeheheheehehe.com/ :) :) :)
http://heheheheheheheeheheheehehe.com/ :) :) :)
It depends of the object of experiment in experimental writing.
And I have to admit, what is more experimental than realism?
It depends of the object of experiment in experimental writing.
And I have to admit, what is more experimental than realism?
ZZZIP FOR EDITOR
ZZZIP FOR EDITOR
man, i feel like you just called me “Pearl Jam”. Yuk.
man, i feel like you just called me “Pearl Jam”. Yuk.