September 29th, 2009 / 1:27 am
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Guernica is in the process of serializing a novella by Jesse Ball titled Pieter Emily, part 1 is live now. A sentence: “If I were to go first into a house of stone, and then into a house of wood, and then into a house of straw, and then into a bare roof set upon poles, and then to lie upon the empty ground beneath the sky with a blanket, and then even to cast the blanket aside and lie in the cold on the open ground, would you not think that I was making a grave for myself?”
How come you kids all talk like farmers? You’re not farmers. You’re from good neighborhoods in large cities. You can try and get back with nature all you want, but it won’t have you. Because it’s not there. I understand that you want to keep the tradition alive, but at least acknowledge that the tradition has been enbalmed. It’s the decent thing to do. I mean, you’re not living after the Apocalypse. You are living during the Apocalypse. This is something I was told to say to kids like you. That’s why you need to trust me when I tell you that you don’t need to try so hard. It’s all right there. You just have to look for it. Which means you need to get off the train and get into orbit. Leave the passenger car behind. A mustache is a cheap costume.
How come you kids all talk like farmers? You’re not farmers. You’re from good neighborhoods in large cities. You can try and get back with nature all you want, but it won’t have you. Because it’s not there. I understand that you want to keep the tradition alive, but at least acknowledge that the tradition has been enbalmed. It’s the decent thing to do. I mean, you’re not living after the Apocalypse. You are living during the Apocalypse. This is something I was told to say to kids like you. That’s why you need to trust me when I tell you that you don’t need to try so hard. It’s all right there. You just have to look for it. Which means you need to get off the train and get into orbit. Leave the passenger car behind. A mustache is a cheap costume.
And to answer your question, Jesse. No, it doesn’t sound like you were making a grave. It sounds like you went on a camping trip and threw a fit when someone stole your hair gel.
And to answer your question, Jesse. No, it doesn’t sound like you were making a grave. It sounds like you went on a camping trip and threw a fit when someone stole your hair gel.
thanks for posting, Blake. I love Jesse’s work and am looking forward to reading this.
Milk and Cookies, you are a strange and anonymous asshole.
thanks for posting, Blake. I love Jesse’s work and am looking forward to reading this.
Milk and Cookies, you are a strange and anonymous asshole.
Maybe. Kinda has a point though.
Maybe. Kinda has a point though.
Q: what’s the difference between living after the apocalypse and living during the apocalypse?
i’m actually being sort of serious. of course you could say something obvious like “well there wouldn’t be any people around after the apocalypse.”
but what else would distinguish the two?
Q: what’s the difference between living after the apocalypse and living during the apocalypse?
i’m actually being sort of serious. of course you could say something obvious like “well there wouldn’t be any people around after the apocalypse.”
but what else would distinguish the two?
what is that point, though?
what is that point, though?
Get yr ass outta yr dick
Get yr ass outta yr dick
The sentence about the woman whistling a long whistle was among my favorite. I love when writers give you such simple reasons to be thankful for them.
The sentence about the woman whistling a long whistle was among my favorite. I love when writers give you such simple reasons to be thankful for them.
Who are you? The Bouncer in this place? You sure gotta a mouth like one. And let me tell you something. If I could put my ass in my dick or vice versa I wouldn’t be such a miserable bastard. By the way, I checked out Scorch Atlas from my local library. Some nice writing. You might want to lighten up a little bit though. The whole thing is a little too Sisters of Mercy for my tastes. But then again, I’ve been reading Sharks: Strange and Wonderful every night for the last month, so maybe I’m not your intended audience.
Who are you? The Bouncer in this place? You sure gotta a mouth like one. And let me tell you something. If I could put my ass in my dick or vice versa I wouldn’t be such a miserable bastard. By the way, I checked out Scorch Atlas from my local library. Some nice writing. You might want to lighten up a little bit though. The whole thing is a little too Sisters of Mercy for my tastes. But then again, I’ve been reading Sharks: Strange and Wonderful every night for the last month, so maybe I’m not your intended audience.
I’m the baby daddy
You said Sisters of Mercy
I’m the baby daddy
You said Sisters of Mercy
not trying to speak for bill ford, but this —
“…and then into a bare roof set upon poles…”
— could be part of the point. it’s mannered and grammatically incorrect (unless the subject is a nail or something, in which case the whole grave riff it’s trying to build toward fails). you could say it’s pretty (no accounting for taste), but it looks like the guy just doesn’t know how to use prepositions.
not trying to speak for bill ford, but this —
“…and then into a bare roof set upon poles…”
— could be part of the point. it’s mannered and grammatically incorrect (unless the subject is a nail or something, in which case the whole grave riff it’s trying to build toward fails). you could say it’s pretty (no accounting for taste), but it looks like the guy just doesn’t know how to use prepositions.
Yeah, there is something strange about the preposition. Unless the I from the initial clause is a termite or a nail or whatever, he or she or it can’t go *into* a roof. This is technically true. But I’m more inclined to draw meaning from such “mistakes” than irrelevance. There are plenty of examples of this working well. John Wray combined compound nouns in *Lowboy* into single nouns rather than hyphenated nouns to, I felt, great effect; and Ben Marcus goofed around with signifiers and signified in *The Age of Wire and String*. You know?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no apologist for innovative fiction. My question is really about Milk & Cookies’s (anonymous posting is fucking stupid) strange statements about getting out of cars and entering orbit without mustache disguises. I just really and truly don’t know what this means. This kind of reaction seems to me wrong-headed and odd. What is the difference between living during and after the apocalypse? Why does this sentence from Jesse’s novel imply an attempt to “get back with nature?” What does that even mean? Obviously, I’m not responding to your comments in particular here, Christian, and when I’ve read the rest of Jesse’s novel I may very well have criticisms of my own; I just don’t see what the point of all this is.
Yeah, there is something strange about the preposition. Unless the I from the initial clause is a termite or a nail or whatever, he or she or it can’t go *into* a roof. This is technically true. But I’m more inclined to draw meaning from such “mistakes” than irrelevance. There are plenty of examples of this working well. John Wray combined compound nouns in *Lowboy* into single nouns rather than hyphenated nouns to, I felt, great effect; and Ben Marcus goofed around with signifiers and signified in *The Age of Wire and String*. You know?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no apologist for innovative fiction. My question is really about Milk & Cookies’s (anonymous posting is fucking stupid) strange statements about getting out of cars and entering orbit without mustache disguises. I just really and truly don’t know what this means. This kind of reaction seems to me wrong-headed and odd. What is the difference between living during and after the apocalypse? Why does this sentence from Jesse’s novel imply an attempt to “get back with nature?” What does that even mean? Obviously, I’m not responding to your comments in particular here, Christian, and when I’ve read the rest of Jesse’s novel I may very well have criticisms of my own; I just don’t see what the point of all this is.
what does it mean for a tradition to have been “enbalmed?”
what does it mean for a tradition to have been “enbalmed?”
i really dont think its hard to understand going into a space covered by a roof with no walls, the same way the person enters the spaces of the other houses preceding. a pavilion is still a house? can you go into a gazebo?
even if you couldn’t, which of course you can, who really cares? trust a fiction until a fiction forces you to not.
i really dont think its hard to understand going into a space covered by a roof with no walls, the same way the person enters the spaces of the other houses preceding. a pavilion is still a house? can you go into a gazebo?
even if you couldn’t, which of course you can, who really cares? trust a fiction until a fiction forces you to not.
as for your questions, jensen, about milk and cookies, i have no idea either. i dont think logic is involved.
as for your questions, jensen, about milk and cookies, i have no idea either. i dont think logic is involved.
i think of the apocalupse as a time of upheaval and change. post apcolgupze the unvieling has happened and its somewhat ‘static’ and more stable in a relative sense…the road is post apaocloguptic but maybe something like _____ i just blanked on a writing that actually describes apaocluse in action.
i think of the apocalupse as a time of upheaval and change. post apcolgupze the unvieling has happened and its somewhat ‘static’ and more stable in a relative sense…the road is post apaocloguptic but maybe something like _____ i just blanked on a writing that actually describes apaocluse in action.
if he had said —
“…into a space covered by a roof with no walls…”
–then i would have found the sentence mannered (which, i admit, is a taste thing) but not incorrect. my point was, he used the preposition incorrectly, and it struck me more like it didn’t occur to him that it was incorrect. obviously i can’t read his mind, but that’s how it struck me. anyway, that’s where the fiction forced me not to trust it.
if he had said —
“…into a space covered by a roof with no walls…”
–then i would have found the sentence mannered (which, i admit, is a taste thing) but not incorrect. my point was, he used the preposition incorrectly, and it struck me more like it didn’t occur to him that it was incorrect. obviously i can’t read his mind, but that’s how it struck me. anyway, that’s where the fiction forced me not to trust it.
i think my head is going to explode.
i think my head is going to explode.
…and then into [well, what would you call this one?] a bare roof set upon poles.
The break in grammar serves a purpose, and it’s much more elegant than my paraphase.
…and then into [well, what would you call this one?] a bare roof set upon poles.
The break in grammar serves a purpose, and it’s much more elegant than my paraphase.
sorry shane, im adding more to this…please dont explode.
ok. i think the way he uses the preposition in the previous phrases shows that he actually knows how to use prepositions. i dont think you can read/evaluate that one phrase wihtout looking at the whole sentence. and the previous phrases also show you how he intends for that preposition to work when you do get to that roof bit, right? so by his grammatical application, it is correct right? so im curious how you think it is incorrect.
when i read it it, i see that ‘into’ modifies the noun phrase ‘a bare roof set on poles’ and not simply ‘a bare roof’ and given that the nouns in the previous phrases are structures that can be entered into, i apply that similarity to the noun ‘a bare roof set on poles.’ so it works for me, and i think its interesting (i think the alternative you suggest, christian, sounds mannered in a different, less interesting way). i like that ball’s use of ‘into’ is strange and i like to think about it. i agree that it is weird sounding, definitely agree, but i dont think its grammatically incorrect.
i also think johns point is really good too. the weirdness of it adds that ‘wellwaddyacallthis’ feel, though i hadnt sensed it until he pointed it out.
sorry shane, im adding more to this…please dont explode.
ok. i think the way he uses the preposition in the previous phrases shows that he actually knows how to use prepositions. i dont think you can read/evaluate that one phrase wihtout looking at the whole sentence. and the previous phrases also show you how he intends for that preposition to work when you do get to that roof bit, right? so by his grammatical application, it is correct right? so im curious how you think it is incorrect.
when i read it it, i see that ‘into’ modifies the noun phrase ‘a bare roof set on poles’ and not simply ‘a bare roof’ and given that the nouns in the previous phrases are structures that can be entered into, i apply that similarity to the noun ‘a bare roof set on poles.’ so it works for me, and i think its interesting (i think the alternative you suggest, christian, sounds mannered in a different, less interesting way). i like that ball’s use of ‘into’ is strange and i like to think about it. i agree that it is weird sounding, definitely agree, but i dont think its grammatically incorrect.
i also think johns point is really good too. the weirdness of it adds that ‘wellwaddyacallthis’ feel, though i hadnt sensed it until he pointed it out.
Look at the way he uses “raised village” in the first sentence. Who here accused him of misspelling the more recognizable “razed village,” only to be shown later that he knew better all along?
Look at the way he uses “raised village” in the first sentence. Who here accused him of misspelling the more recognizable “razed village,” only to be shown later that he knew better all along?
[read: third sentence]
[read: third sentence]
using that logic you could justify pretty much any grammatical formulation. i’d rather just read a good sentence.
using that logic you could justify pretty much any grammatical formulation. i’d rather just read a good sentence.
thats why its called descriptive grammar.
thats why its called descriptive grammar.
sorry christian, i didnt mean for that last comment to be rude. and im not trying to justify any grammatical formulation. obviously there are plenty that are incorrect (though that might be another discussion). i just think that the progression of this sentence supports that preposition’s being used that way.
i want to read a good sentence as well.
sorry christian, i didnt mean for that last comment to be rude. and im not trying to justify any grammatical formulation. obviously there are plenty that are incorrect (though that might be another discussion). i just think that the progression of this sentence supports that preposition’s being used that way.
i want to read a good sentence as well.
that would be a very broad and permissive definition of descriptive grammar that, taken to its extreme, would result in pure idiolect (one grammar/language per human being on earth). i’m okay with that if that’s what you want — i’m not a prescriptivist — but usually descriptive grammar deals more in usage trends rather than attempts to justify a single aberration. i ain’t trying to start a fight here. i’m just pointing out that it looked more like sloppiness than a stylistic choice to me. i’m fine with your interpretation, and pretty sure that’s what ball meant. it’s just my opinion that it’s the artist’s job to make that clear.
that would be a very broad and permissive definition of descriptive grammar that, taken to its extreme, would result in pure idiolect (one grammar/language per human being on earth). i’m okay with that if that’s what you want — i’m not a prescriptivist — but usually descriptive grammar deals more in usage trends rather than attempts to justify a single aberration. i ain’t trying to start a fight here. i’m just pointing out that it looked more like sloppiness than a stylistic choice to me. i’m fine with your interpretation, and pretty sure that’s what ball meant. it’s just my opinion that it’s the artist’s job to make that clear.
geeeeeeeegaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaboooooooooffffffffffffff
geeeeeeeegaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaboooooooooffffffffffffff
yeahi realized as soon as i typed that how my application of it could be extended to what youre talking about, but thats not what i want. and im not as interested in using it to look at ‘trends’ as a researcher would, but in trying to use those methods to figure out why i like something is all. is it permissive/loose understanding of it? yeah, i admit that. i think thats where i struggle too is when i get to aberrations that i read and dont like, how do i explain why i dont like them? there have to be some rules that help me do that. i think im having trouble explaining that. i dont feel like this is a fight. i feel very relaxed. i feel like i learned somethign also.
yeahi realized as soon as i typed that how my application of it could be extended to what youre talking about, but thats not what i want. and im not as interested in using it to look at ‘trends’ as a researcher would, but in trying to use those methods to figure out why i like something is all. is it permissive/loose understanding of it? yeah, i admit that. i think thats where i struggle too is when i get to aberrations that i read and dont like, how do i explain why i dont like them? there have to be some rules that help me do that. i think im having trouble explaining that. i dont feel like this is a fight. i feel very relaxed. i feel like i learned somethign also.
It’ll be ANARCHY!
(What will be anarchy, author? Your ‘It’ is so vague)
It’ll be ANARCHY!
(What will be anarchy, author? Your ‘It’ is so vague)