Adam Robinson—
Oh snap, my girl hated Eat When You Feel Sad. Then everyone else did too.
-
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
I like that review. I haven’t read Eat When You Feel Sad so nothing to do with that, just the style/structure of the review, I like.
zachary german
a strangely vicious and boring review. great work guys.
lol @ “But here’s the thing: THAT IS BULLSHIT.”
consider me firmly in the anti-catatonic realism camp.
Not everybody hated that book: http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/on-zachary-germans-eat-when-you-feel-sad/
screed
I have a new favorite word.
I think where ZG succeeds is exactly where that review fails. The reviewer needs all sorts of caps and exclamation points and cursing to express what ZG manages so flatly.
Adam–your girl didn’t like my book much either. Hahaha. That’s okay. Not everyone has to like it. I think she’s cool.
i liked “eat when you feel sad” a lot as well [via jt]: http://southeastreview.org/2010/05/book-review-eat-when-you-feel.html
“apropos of nothing,” perhaps my “all-time favorite zg moment” is this completely random non sequitur comment on an htmlgiant post “many moons ago”:
November 30th, 2009 / 4:47 pm
zachary german—
instead of calling people fat i call them rotund imho
Seems a fine review to me, considering the site. I mean it’s a casual review, but I like the energy.
I liked that book a lot. I thought it had plenty of emotion, meaning, subtext, heart, soul, interest, and depth. Well, it depends what you mean by heart and soul, but definitely the rest of them.
I mean, the main character literally walks down the street crying at the end. It’s not all lying on the bed listening to Sonic Youth.
I respect that Megan Boyle went maverick in Eat When You Feel Sad promotional video and ate yogurt mixed with canned pumpkin and high fiber cereal.
http://www.eatwhenyoufeelsad.com/2010/01/megan-boyle.html
that is a good favorite moment
“spoilers”
i would point you to his site, http://www.zacharygerman.com , where you can listen to his radio show and check out other reviews, but that would be dick-riding right guys? how dare i not be a snarky, self-serving, skeptical, jaded little shit when commenting on other writers. this is @variousH8Rs from another post.
All I get from this review is that the reader expected/wanted a more conventional novel and didn’t get it. And was unsophisticated enough to think that this makes the novel “bad.”
there are certainly more than just a couple of ways to depart from “convention” when writing a novel, let alone just one way.
i think you’re assuming any and all so-called departures to be “good”.
and what exactly do you mean by “unsophisticated”?
down with dick-riding
up with clit-fiddling
praytell what was your old favorite?
*RHETORIC*
I presume you are referring to DFW’s essay “Fictional Futures and the Conspicuously Young,” published in “Review of Contemporary Fiction” in 1987, where he writes:
I’m not sure if this categorically applies to Tao Lin, Zachary German, et al (to the “Gmail Realism” “movement” in general). DFW’s essay was written in 1987, which was over 20 years ago, in the pre-Internet age. He was writing about the Kmart Realists and, I guess, the first Bret Easton Ellis novel. DFW writes:
He characterizes them as having a “discomfort with a culture of and by popularity.” If anything, it seems like writers like Tao Lin and Zachary German are EXCEEDINGLY comfortable with popularity and popular culture. In that Goodreads review, she cites the latter as a reason for her disgust (e.g. “exhaustively catalogued, btw, artists and albums and even lyrics, like a post-modern hipster checklist”). Tao Lin and Zachary German did not hesitate to include Gmail chats in their novels. I don’t think the “Internet generation” experiences the same anxiety regarding these kinds of things as DFW and his peers.
The “Gmail Realists” aren’t attempting to subtract themselves from popular culture in order to “achieve aesthetic depth popular entertainment so conspicuously lacks.” Instead, I think they recognize that “high art” is just as aesthetically shallow as “pop art,” that “there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in art” and “everything is meaningless.” It seems that DFW’s diagnosis is inappropriate in this case. Granted, the “Gmail Realists” have cited the writers implicated by DFW as influences, but I think this minimalism is a new variation. It seems that the minimalism of the “Gmail Realists” is not a reactionary response to the vague threat of “commercialization,” but an aesthetic choice rooted in a brand of existentialism that almost approaches Buddhism. (Tao Lin has been explicit about this aspect of his work than Zachary German has, I admit. Maybe Zachary German is actually a vulgar, reactionary, nihilist degenerate.)
Additionally, in the Goodreads review, she says that Tao Lin and Zachary German’s writing is “devoid of all emotion, meaning, subtext, heart, soul, interest, and depth,” which is surprisingly similar to DFW’s definition of the “Catatonic” camp. I think a mistake is being made here, though. As Tao Lin said in his interview on Bookworm (I think), just because the writer does not tell us explicitly what the characters are feeling, readers should not assume that the characters DON’T have feelings.
*RHETORIC*
I have a new new favorite word, ‘praytell’.
My most recent pre-screed favorite word (last night as I dozed off) was ‘unguentine’.
I also like ‘leggings’.
In this post, I attempt to “refute” an opinion and to convince people that I am “right.”
there’s less time for the latter when one is always cock-fighting
All I get from this review is that the reader got the premise and rejected it. Like an antigen.
Gratuitous Mindlessness And Ideated Listlessness Realism is what it is: a passive take on character (i believe) fueled by a rather solipsistic and un-empathetic view of the world.
/later yall. going to drink.
i was about to say…where the hell is “stephen” on this thread?
and there you go!
I would say you need to take into account what the writer is going for. What he or she is going for may or may not be interesting or worthwhile, but that’s a separate question. Readers who don’t realize that’s a separate question I would call unsophisticated.
Putting words in quotes doesn’t change what they mean. Or make them more important. Especially make them more important.
sup john
jesus christ
“food for thought” yall: no one gives blake butler or anyone else shit for enthusiastically, consistently promoting joshua cohen. i get shit due to people’s personal tastes, gatekeeping, and insecurity re: their worldview (and because there are some imaginary rules for commenting re: frequency/enthusiasm/positive-to-negative ratio by which i don’t abide). “experimental” or “internet” or “small press” writers don’t feel their worldviews threatened by ambitious, wordy joycean novels. the idea of such a novel, if not the actual reading experience of it, only comforts their feeling that “yes, there are still big, ambitious post-gaddis, post-joyce, etc. novels being written. i like big, ambitious wordy novels because i like big, ambitious wordy novels. they make me feel smart and better than other people. it is important to be better than other people” (i realize there are many other potential reasons to enjoy “witz,” but i am confident my snarky description applies to some people and to the overall “vibe” of the novel’s reception compared to Tao and ZG’s ongoing reception). what potentially threatens their worldviews are people who are more successful and more critically-praised while appearing to be blissfully, one might say “sublimely” indifferent/chill re: establishing Seriousness as a writer, conceptual thematizing, fancy prose style, or a dignified public facade/persona. to which i would say, “why u mad tho?”
also: <3 yall! :')
u mad
tell em y u mad sun
http://htmlgiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sade2.jpg
need 2 try harder to “just” chill yall… h8rs and playas can get along yall… let’s all ride the wave to death…
Nice one Jimmy.
ESSAY: “EAT WHEN YOU FEEL SAD” AS “SHOPLIFTING FROM AMERICAN APPAREL” “SPIN-OFF” A LA “DARIA” AND “BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD” OR “ROCK OF LOVE” AND “FLAVOR OF LOVE.”
DISCLAIMER: CONTAINS “SPOILERS” AND POSSIBLY “COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.”
SFAA:
EWYFS:
I have no further evidence or argument.
[END OF ESSAY]
I like that review. I haven’t read Eat When You Feel Sad so nothing to do with that, just the style/structure of the review, I like.
i think you think people care more than they probably do, stephen. i think you are projecting, basically. you are a projector.
if people are calling you a dick-rider (i haven’t been following comments lately), it’s probably because you don’t seem to make critical distinctions. if you never dislike anything, and only support things, your opinion means nothing to those attempting a sift through the mire of contemporary letters, or at least trying to find a way of understanding it / relating to it / pretending to know what they’re talking about when introducing friends to cool new books (nothing wrong with that). partly, this is not your fault, it is the fault of there not being enough meaningful contemporary criticism. some people think the people who claim to love everyone and everything are looking for handouts. bums, for instance, are typically enthusiastic supporters of everything that comes into their field of vision. conversely, some may think you simply say too much nothing about everything, using played out catch phrases and buzzwords. i, on the other hand, couldn’t care less. but i thought i would take the time to give you a frame of reference, because you seem confused here.
all i need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and i’m fine. i’m fine.
Glad someone else noticed that.
More spoilers: At no point does he eat while feeling sad.
zachary german
a strangely vicious and boring review. great work guys.
Not everybody hated that book: http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/on-zachary-germans-eat-when-you-feel-sad/
thanks, reynard.
i’m not sure what would make contemporary criticism meaningful. do you mean rigorous? discerning? i would not use any of those 3 terms in a completely serious manner, but for me, the term meaningful, in a broader context than just criticism, would be closest in kind to the term emotionally-satisfying. i can’t imagine rigorous criticism being e-s to me bc it would likely over-intellectualize or disembowel the text, or attribute social agendas to it, or create hierarchies of lit greatness in which to situate the text, rather than engaging with how the text made him or her feel or think. i think so-called discerning criticism would likely involve posturing re: why and how a text fits where it does, according to him or her, in a lit greatness hierarchy, and would oftentimes be based in part on social politics unrelated to the text and of a jealous, hateful, and catty nature.
i have much more interest in passionate advocacy or excited recommendations than i do in belabored dismissals or passive-aggressive putdowns or bitter whining.
in the case of literature, as opposed to, say, film or music, i find very few contemporary works that are emotionally-satisfying and/or aesthetically pleasing. thus, by praising a few, i am neglecting to “take a shit on” the majority. seems like what jesus would do [joke].
screed
I have a new favorite word.
I think where ZG succeeds is exactly where that review fails. The reviewer needs all sorts of caps and exclamation points and cursing to express what ZG manages so flatly.
@stephen
“there are some imaginary rules for commenting re: frequency/enthusiasm/positive-to-negative ratio by which i don’t abide.”
I like this. You are a fearless commenter, it seems like. You are a, like, avant-garde commenter, uninhibited by the ossified commenting conventions of bourgeois blogging institutions. Stephen unleashed.
kinda scary once you start reading it with B+B voices in your head. The sound of fire crackers started to sizzle in me ears.
P.S. You refuse to live (comment) in fear of the fascist “banhammer.” This is indeed righteous.
Adam–your girl didn’t like my book much either. Hahaha. That’s okay. Not everyone has to like it. I think she’s cool.
i liked “eat when you feel sad” a lot as well [via jt]: http://southeastreview.org/2010/05/book-review-eat-when-you-feel.html
“apropos of nothing,” perhaps my “all-time favorite zg moment” is this completely random non sequitur comment on an htmlgiant post “many moons ago”:
November 30th, 2009 / 4:47 pm
zachary german—
instead of calling people fat i call them rotund imho
Seems a fine review to me, considering the site. I mean it’s a casual review, but I like the energy.
would you not drink PBR simply because your friend was already drinking PBR? are you that kind of person? what if you happen to like PBR? what if you like your friend and would like to feel a “kinship” with your friend [via beer]? isn’t that “nice”? if you both wrote about the party later, wouldn’t it be “nice” to just write it down “as it actually happened,” both of you the same, sharing a memory?
I liked that book a lot. I thought it had plenty of emotion, meaning, subtext, heart, soul, interest, and depth. Well, it depends what you mean by heart and soul, but definitely the rest of them.
I mean, the main character literally walks down the street crying at the end. It’s not all lying on the bed listening to Sonic Youth.
i’m not saying anything about a moment shared or not shared (but now i will, and i’ll just say: cute), nor anything about its literary depiction (of which, i don’t really feel like going into). i’m just saying, read those with the voices of beavis and butthead, and things get a little screwy. screwy doesn’t have to mean bad. screwy doesn’t mean ‘not-nice,’ it just means weird.
and if a friend was already drinking a PBR, I’d ask him: “where the fuck’s mine?”
I respect that Megan Boyle went maverick in Eat When You Feel Sad promotional video and ate yogurt mixed with canned pumpkin and high fiber cereal.
http://www.eatwhenyoufeelsad.com/2010/01/megan-boyle.html
that is a good favorite moment
“spoilers”
i would point you to his site, http://www.zacharygerman.com , where you can listen to his radio show and check out other reviews, but that would be dick-riding right guys? how dare i not be a snarky, self-serving, skeptical, jaded little shit when commenting on other writers. this is @variousH8Rs from another post.
All I get from this review is that the reader expected/wanted a more conventional novel and didn’t get it. And was unsophisticated enough to think that this makes the novel “bad.”
*RHETORIC*
I presume you are referring to DFW’s essay “Fictional Futures and the Conspicuously Young,” published in “Review of Contemporary Fiction” in 1987, where he writes:
I’m not sure if this categorically applies to Tao Lin, Zachary German, et al (to the “Gmail Realism” “movement” in general). DFW’s essay was written in 1987, which was over 20 years ago, in the pre-Internet age. He was writing about the Kmart Realists and, I guess, the first Bret Easton Ellis novel. DFW writes:
He characterizes them as having a “discomfort with a culture of and by popularity.” If anything, it seems like writers like Tao Lin and Zachary German are EXCEEDINGLY comfortable with popularity and popular culture. In that Goodreads review, she cites the latter as a reason for her disgust (e.g. “exhaustively catalogued, btw, artists and albums and even lyrics, like a post-modern hipster checklist”). Tao Lin and Zachary German did not hesitate to include Gmail chats in their novels. I don’t think the “Internet generation” experiences the same anxiety regarding these kinds of things as DFW and his peers.
The “Gmail Realists” aren’t attempting to subtract themselves from popular culture in order to “achieve aesthetic depth popular entertainment so conspicuously lacks.” Instead, I think they recognize that “high art” is just as aesthetically shallow as “pop art,” that “there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in art” and “everything is meaningless.” It seems that DFW’s diagnosis is inappropriate in this case. Granted, the “Gmail Realists” have cited the writers implicated by DFW as influences, but I think this minimalism is a new variation. It seems that the minimalism of the “Gmail Realists” is not a reactionary response to the vague threat of “commercialization,” but an aesthetic choice rooted in a brand of existentialism that almost approaches Buddhism. (Tao Lin has been explicit about this aspect of his work than Zachary German has, I admit. Maybe Zachary German is actually a vulgar, reactionary, nihilist degenerate.)
Additionally, in the Goodreads review, she says that Tao Lin and Zachary German’s writing is “devoid of all emotion, meaning, subtext, heart, soul, interest, and depth,” which is surprisingly similar to DFW’s definition of the “Catatonic” camp. I think a mistake is being made here, though. As Tao Lin said in his interview on Bookworm (I think), just because the writer does not tell us explicitly what the characters are feeling, readers should not assume that the characters DON’T have feelings.
*RHETORIC*
I have a new new favorite word, ‘praytell’.
My most recent pre-screed favorite word (last night as I dozed off) was ‘unguentine’.
I also like ‘leggings’.
In this post, I attempt to “refute” an opinion and to convince people that I am “right.”
there’s less time for the latter when one is always cock-fighting
All I get from this review is that the reader got the premise and rejected it. Like an antigen.
i was about to say…where the hell is “stephen” on this thread?
and there you go!
I would say you need to take into account what the writer is going for. What he or she is going for may or may not be interesting or worthwhile, but that’s a separate question. Readers who don’t realize that’s a separate question I would call unsophisticated.
Putting words in quotes doesn’t change what they mean. Or make them more important. Especially make them more important.
sup john
jesus christ
I think this is really good.
“food for thought” yall: no one gives blake butler or anyone else shit for enthusiastically, consistently promoting joshua cohen. i get shit due to people’s personal tastes, gatekeeping, and insecurity re: their worldview (and because there are some imaginary rules for commenting re: frequency/enthusiasm/positive-to-negative ratio by which i don’t abide). “experimental” or “internet” or “small press” writers don’t feel their worldviews threatened by ambitious, wordy joycean novels. the idea of such a novel, if not the actual reading experience of it, only comforts their feeling that “yes, there are still big, ambitious post-gaddis, post-joyce, etc. novels being written. i like big, ambitious wordy novels because i like big, ambitious wordy novels. they make me feel smart and better than other people. it is important to be better than other people” (i realize there are many other potential reasons to enjoy “witz,” but i am confident my snarky description applies to some people and to the overall “vibe” of the novel’s reception compared to Tao and ZG’s ongoing reception). what potentially threatens their worldviews are people who are more successful and more critically-praised while appearing to be blissfully, one might say “sublimely” indifferent/chill re: establishing Seriousness as a writer, conceptual thematizing, fancy prose style, or a dignified public facade/persona. to which i would say, “why u mad tho?”
also: <3 yall! :')
u mad
tell em y u mad sun
http://htmlgiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sade2.jpg
need 2 try harder to “just” chill yall… h8rs and playas can get along yall… let’s all ride the wave to death…
Nice one Jimmy.
ESSAY: “EAT WHEN YOU FEEL SAD” AS “SHOPLIFTING FROM AMERICAN APPAREL” “SPIN-OFF” A LA “DARIA” AND “BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD” OR “ROCK OF LOVE” AND “FLAVOR OF LOVE.”
DISCLAIMER: CONTAINS “SPOILERS” AND POSSIBLY “COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.”
SFAA:
EWYFS:
I have no further evidence or argument.
[END OF ESSAY]
i think you think people care more than they probably do, stephen. i think you are projecting, basically. you are a projector.
if people are calling you a dick-rider (i haven’t been following comments lately), it’s probably because you don’t seem to make critical distinctions. if you never dislike anything, and only support things, your opinion means nothing to those attempting a sift through the mire of contemporary letters, or at least trying to find a way of understanding it / relating to it / pretending to know what they’re talking about when introducing friends to cool new books (nothing wrong with that). partly, this is not your fault, it is the fault of there not being enough meaningful contemporary criticism. some people think the people who claim to love everyone and everything are looking for handouts. bums, for instance, are typically enthusiastic supporters of everything that comes into their field of vision. conversely, some may think you simply say too much nothing about everything, using played out catch phrases and buzzwords. i, on the other hand, couldn’t care less. but i thought i would take the time to give you a frame of reference, because you seem confused here.
all i need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and i’m fine. i’m fine.
Glad someone else noticed that.
More spoilers: At no point does he eat while feeling sad.
thanks, reynard.
i’m not sure what would make contemporary criticism meaningful. do you mean rigorous? discerning? i would not use any of those 3 terms in a completely serious manner, but for me, the term meaningful, in a broader context than just criticism, would be closest in kind to the term emotionally-satisfying. i can’t imagine rigorous criticism being e-s to me bc it would likely over-intellectualize or disembowel the text, or attribute social agendas to it, or create hierarchies of lit greatness in which to situate the text, rather than engaging with how the text made him or her feel or think. i think so-called discerning criticism would likely involve posturing re: why and how a text fits where it does, according to him or her, in a lit greatness hierarchy, and would oftentimes be based in part on social politics unrelated to the text and of a jealous, hateful, and catty nature.
i have much more interest in passionate advocacy or excited recommendations than i do in belabored dismissals or passive-aggressive putdowns or bitter whining.
in the case of literature, as opposed to, say, film or music, i find very few contemporary works that are emotionally-satisfying and/or aesthetically pleasing. thus, by praising a few, i am neglecting to “take a shit on” the majority. seems like what jesus would do [joke].
@stephen
“there are some imaginary rules for commenting re: frequency/enthusiasm/positive-to-negative ratio by which i don’t abide.”
I like this. You are a fearless commenter, it seems like. You are a, like, avant-garde commenter, uninhibited by the ossified commenting conventions of bourgeois blogging institutions. Stephen unleashed.
kinda scary once you start reading it with B+B voices in your head. The sound of fire crackers started to sizzle in me ears.
P.S. You refuse to live (comment) in fear of the fascist “banhammer.” This is indeed righteous.
would you not drink PBR simply because your friend was already drinking PBR? are you that kind of person? what if you happen to like PBR? what if you like your friend and would like to feel a “kinship” with your friend [via beer]? isn’t that “nice”? if you both wrote about the party later, wouldn’t it be “nice” to just write it down “as it actually happened,” both of you the same, sharing a memory?
You missed it, man. You have to read between the lines.
i’m not saying anything about a moment shared or not shared (but now i will, and i’ll just say: cute), nor anything about its literary depiction (of which, i don’t really feel like going into). i’m just saying, read those with the voices of beavis and butthead, and things get a little screwy. screwy doesn’t have to mean bad. screwy doesn’t mean ‘not-nice,’ it just means weird.
and if a friend was already drinking a PBR, I’d ask him: “where the fuck’s mine?”
Seconded (or, technically, firsted): http://therumpus.net/2010/03/twenty-and-bored-and-alive/
I think this is really good.
How do you eat? That’s all I want to know. You can’t survive on just protein! And doesn’t your jaw get tired??
“Son, you’ve got a full-blown case of what is known as Jellybones.” –Tha Unicorns
You missed it, man. You have to read between the lines.
Seconded (or, technically, firsted): http://therumpus.net/2010/03/twenty-and-bored-and-alive/
How do you eat? That’s all I want to know. You can’t survive on just protein! And doesn’t your jaw get tired??
“Son, you’ve got a full-blown case of what is known as Jellybones.” –Tha Unicorns
who are you talking to?
I believe he’s (helpfully) summarizing what the post was for all the many people whose first thought upon seeing that block of text was ‘tl;dr’
ack, that was (clearly) meant to start w/ “@zusya”
Alan is totally right. See: there’s subtext RIGHT THERE.
[…] Just wondering. (via Marshall) […]
I believe he’s (helpfully) summarizing what the post was for all the many people whose first thought upon seeing that block of text was ‘tl;dr’
ack, that was (clearly) meant to start w/ “@zusya”
‘author’s intention is moot’ b/w ‘death of the author’ via ‘post-structualism’
@magick mike/whomever below is a “relevant” excerpt from my autobiographical (to some degree) fiction hybrid “thing” entitled “Some Trembling Melody”.
Seems this excerpt “addresses” (or at least “mocks”) the “death of the author”:
“I don’t believe in art. I believe in artists,” being something Duchamp once said.
Though of course in literature the Author is “dead,” according to Roland Barthes. Does this mean, retroactively, that Duchamp believes in people that do not exist or do not exist anymore?
And of course Duchamp died on October 2nd, 1968, and “The Death of the Author” was published in English in 1967. One assumes Duchamp stopped believing in artists the year before he died, owing to the essay that had “appeared” under the name of Roland Barthes.
I sincerely hope my Literary Forefathers and Foremothers would say, “This is on the mark, son!”
Bad joke.
you can “read the rest” in my magazine, Pop Serial, which can be downloaded here (features Tao Lin, Kendra Grant Malone, Brandon Scott Gorrell, Zachary German, and many others): http://www.mediafire.com/?hdykh1d1tmt
Or you can email me stephen.dierks@gmail.com and i will email the “.doc” to you, if you’re interested. there is a long section “sampling” David Markson (“Wittgenstein’s Mistress,” specifically), as well as a “death section” and a “love section.” Thanks
Alan is totally right. See: there’s subtext RIGHT THERE.
‘author’s intention is moot’ b/w ‘death of the author’ via ‘post-structualism’
@magick mike/whomever below is a “relevant” excerpt from my autobiographical (to some degree) fiction hybrid “thing” entitled “Some Trembling Melody”.
Seems this excerpt “addresses” (or at least “mocks”) the “death of the author”:
“I don’t believe in art. I believe in artists,” being something Duchamp once said.
Though of course in literature the Author is “dead,” according to Roland Barthes. Does this mean, retroactively, that Duchamp believes in people that do not exist or do not exist anymore?
And of course Duchamp died on October 2nd, 1968, and “The Death of the Author” was published in English in 1967. One assumes Duchamp stopped believing in artists the year before he died, owing to the essay that had “appeared” under the name of Roland Barthes.
I sincerely hope my Literary Forefathers and Foremothers would say, “This is on the mark, son!”
Bad joke.
you can “read the rest” in my magazine, Pop Serial, which can be downloaded here (features Tao Lin, Kendra Grant Malone, Brandon Scott Gorrell, Zachary German, and many others): http://www.mediafire.com/?hdykh1d1tmt
Or you can email me stephen.dierks@gmail.com and i will email the “.doc” to you, if you’re interested. there is a long section “sampling” David Markson (“Wittgenstein’s Mistress,” specifically), as well as a “death section” and a “love section.” Thanks
Isn’t all this stuff just like James Ellroy?
Isn’t all this stuff just like James Ellroy?