March 11th, 2010 / 4:24 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Extending auteur theory over to books, what authors with years and years of titles would you say have never published at least a semi-stinker? I think, immediately, Barry Hannah, Amy Hempel. Then I start to stall…
Good question! What’s the cut-off, like 7 books or less?
Good question! What’s the cut-off, like 7 books or less?
I don’t think Barthelme ever wrote a stinker of a collection (though he has some stinker stories). Lydia Davis? Cormac McCarthy?
I don’t think Barthelme ever wrote a stinker of a collection (though he has some stinker stories). Lydia Davis? Cormac McCarthy?
Joyce.
Joyce.
Didn’t he only write one non-semi-stinker (oh yes, I went there)
i think the span of time would be more of a definition. like, to have been publishing 15, 20, 25 years… or anyway, to have a sizable body of work. or something
Didn’t he only write one non-semi-stinker (oh yes, I went there)
i think the span of time would be more of a definition. like, to have been publishing 15, 20, 25 years… or anyway, to have a sizable body of work. or something
harry mathews
harry mathews
barthelme could be a good one. though yeah, some of the stories start to work less for me.
lydia davis is hit or miss bigtime in that way to me too. varieties of disturbance is kind of a stinker
mccarthy. hm. yeah, even the works i like least of his like ‘no country’ and ‘outer dark’, they are decent. even the border trilogy i get something out of, esp the third part. ‘no country’ is pretty close to a stinker though.
barthelme could be a good one. though yeah, some of the stories start to work less for me.
lydia davis is hit or miss bigtime in that way to me too. varieties of disturbance is kind of a stinker
mccarthy. hm. yeah, even the works i like least of his like ‘no country’ and ‘outer dark’, they are decent. even the border trilogy i get something out of, esp the third part. ‘no country’ is pretty close to a stinker though.
nice. i’ve only read 2 of his, but they were both fantastic. holds up across the board?
nice. i’ve only read 2 of his, but they were both fantastic. holds up across the board?
I’ve read all of Barthelme’s work including his children’s book and nonfiction and all his official books are pretty awesome, though the story quality varies in a collection. The closest thing to a stinker is the Flying to America collection, but that’s because it is basically a collection of his worst stories (ie the stories he chose not to include in 40 and 60 stories) so I don’t think it counts.
I’ve read all of Barthelme’s work including his children’s book and nonfiction and all his official books are pretty awesome, though the story quality varies in a collection. The closest thing to a stinker is the Flying to America collection, but that’s because it is basically a collection of his worst stories (ie the stories he chose not to include in 40 and 60 stories) so I don’t think it counts.
tho, i guess the point of auteur theory is that even seemingly lesser works of an auteur are important, and the onus is on the viewer, that the value is there, and must be found, because an auteur doesn’t make a mistake. that kind of changes the question, and the context of those books that seem to work less, esp. in the case of barthelme. i’d call barthelme an auteur. mccarthy too. i don’t know about davis.
tho, i guess the point of auteur theory is that even seemingly lesser works of an auteur are important, and the onus is on the viewer, that the value is there, and must be found, because an auteur doesn’t make a mistake. that kind of changes the question, and the context of those books that seem to work less, esp. in the case of barthelme. i’d call barthelme an auteur. mccarthy too. i don’t know about davis.
I don’t think Sam Lipsyte has missed yet. Three novels and one story collection.
I don’t think Sam Lipsyte has missed yet. Three novels and one story collection.
Agreed, if he makes the cutoff.
Maybe not enough to count. Still.
I can’t think of an Evenson book I don’t like.
Agreed, if he makes the cutoff.
Maybe not enough to count. Still.
I can’t think of an Evenson book I don’t like.
i’d say the road qualifies as a stinker, but in the semi category, it has good moments
i’d say the road qualifies as a stinker, but in the semi category, it has good moments
jk rowling
jk rowling
Blake, so how would this be applied to someone like Joyce Carol Oates, who’s written books upon books?
Blake, so how would this be applied to someone like Joyce Carol Oates, who’s written books upon books?
You guys are listing the most famous and celebrated books by Davis and McCarthy as stinkers. I mean, I thought Varities of Disturbance was below par and The Road wasn’t nearly as good as McCarthy’s pre-boarder work, but hard to call them stinkers.
You guys are listing the most famous and celebrated books by Davis and McCarthy as stinkers. I mean, I thought Varities of Disturbance was below par and The Road wasn’t nearly as good as McCarthy’s pre-boarder work, but hard to call them stinkers.
i liked the Road. i didn’t like No Country tho. It seemed more like a pulp novel than his other stuff, and haunted me not at all, which is the thing i best like about him: the haunting.
i liked the Road. i didn’t like No Country tho. It seemed more like a pulp novel than his other stuff, and haunted me not at all, which is the thing i best like about him: the haunting.
but in auteur theory, a ‘pulp nove with no haunting’ in his continuum takes on a different pull entirely. it still seems a lesser book to me than all the rest, but one could make an argument for why it exists in his arena.
tanya, i havent read enough of Oates to talk about her at all, maybe someone else here is?
but in auteur theory, a ‘pulp nove with no haunting’ in his continuum takes on a different pull entirely. it still seems a lesser book to me than all the rest, but one could make an argument for why it exists in his arena.
tanya, i havent read enough of Oates to talk about her at all, maybe someone else here is?
abe, jane bowles, celine, coover, jim krusoe, thomas ligotti, robbe-grillet, saramago, joy williams, wallace
abe, jane bowles, celine, coover, jim krusoe, thomas ligotti, robbe-grillet, saramago, joy williams, wallace
oh yeah no country’s pretty ho-hum too, though the coen brothers managed to turn it into such a great film and i read it afterwards, so it’s always been hard for me to determine feelings on it cause of that, must have inspired them somehow
oh yeah no country’s pretty ho-hum too, though the coen brothers managed to turn it into such a great film and i read it afterwards, so it’s always been hard for me to determine feelings on it cause of that, must have inspired them somehow
yes evenson
yes evenson
ligotti for sure.
ligotti for sure.
the road isnt a stinker, it’s semi-stinker. i feel like it gets a lot more accolades than it deserves for being mccarthy prose in that setting. it’s like a movie with scenery that stands in for the cinematography or something. the ending irks me a lot, feels like a real reversal of a lot of the most meticulous and deeply felt things mccarthy put forward in other earlier books. and there’s the whole subplot with the wife which is just undercooked, more so cause her character is genuinely evocative and the most interesting thing in the book. but again great moments, like in the library. and when he paces the dark. and the subcellar with the human meat. and the bunker. so semi-stinker.
the road isnt a stinker, it’s semi-stinker. i feel like it gets a lot more accolades than it deserves for being mccarthy prose in that setting. it’s like a movie with scenery that stands in for the cinematography or something. the ending irks me a lot, feels like a real reversal of a lot of the most meticulous and deeply felt things mccarthy put forward in other earlier books. and there’s the whole subplot with the wife which is just undercooked, more so cause her character is genuinely evocative and the most interesting thing in the book. but again great moments, like in the library. and when he paces the dark. and the subcellar with the human meat. and the bunker. so semi-stinker.
yeah, for me, everything that was written to be a book (including the story collection) holds up. not so sure about the kind of odds and ends stuff like “20 lines a day” tho, cause i haven’t read it.
yeah, for me, everything that was written to be a book (including the story collection) holds up. not so sure about the kind of odds and ends stuff like “20 lines a day” tho, cause i haven’t read it.
Pynchon.
For me, the only question marks would be Vineland and Inherent Vice. They are lesser works, sure, but I think there is stuff in both of them worth exploring – strings that tie into the larger, better novels – and having read them, I felt like I understood his whole ‘deal’ a little better.
Meh, maybe I’m wrong.
I would second Joyce, too.
Pynchon.
For me, the only question marks would be Vineland and Inherent Vice. They are lesser works, sure, but I think there is stuff in both of them worth exploring – strings that tie into the larger, better novels – and having read them, I felt like I understood his whole ‘deal’ a little better.
Meh, maybe I’m wrong.
I would second Joyce, too.
i would disagree (understatement) haha… Joyce is the model of the perfect artistic development curve: seminal short story collection, seminal bildungsroman first novel, greatest novel of the century (encompasses all previous literary history, anticipates much to come), most challenging, consummate novel of the century (encompasses all of human history, much of the world’s languages). [I just ignore the play and poem collections, which I guess is cheating]
i would also nominate beckett. but, to me, being an auteur doesn’t mean all your work is flawless, but rather that an auteur is a serious, important artist who imparts a distinctive stamp to all their work and creates an interrelating body of work. it would seem to me that such a person only does ‘interesting’ work, even if some works may be considered ‘semi-stinkers’ by some people.
i also don’t think salinger had any stinkers (but i’m extremely biased, a self-diagnosed unapologetic salinger-holic).
by my definition, a person like toni morrison is definitely an auteur, but she has more stinkers than winners, in my opinion.
my definition of an anti-auteur is someone like dave eggers, whose work doesn’t have a set voice, objective, theme, or distinctive stamp.
ohle?
i haven’t read everything. but he just feels so solid when i think about him.
i would disagree (understatement) haha… Joyce is the model of the perfect artistic development curve: seminal short story collection, seminal bildungsroman first novel, greatest novel of the century (encompasses all previous literary history, anticipates much to come), most challenging, consummate novel of the century (encompasses all of human history, much of the world’s languages). [I just ignore the play and poem collections, which I guess is cheating]
i would also nominate beckett. but, to me, being an auteur doesn’t mean all your work is flawless, but rather that an auteur is a serious, important artist who imparts a distinctive stamp to all their work and creates an interrelating body of work. it would seem to me that such a person only does ‘interesting’ work, even if some works may be considered ‘semi-stinkers’ by some people.
i also don’t think salinger had any stinkers (but i’m extremely biased, a self-diagnosed unapologetic salinger-holic).
by my definition, a person like toni morrison is definitely an auteur, but she has more stinkers than winners, in my opinion.
my definition of an anti-auteur is someone like dave eggers, whose work doesn’t have a set voice, objective, theme, or distinctive stamp.
ohle?
i haven’t read everything. but he just feels so solid when i think about him.
Richard Yates can do no wrong. [Although that American Book Review list of Top 40 Bad Books says otherwise, bah.] Raymond Carver. Lorrie Moore.
Aaaand I’m stalling as well.
Richard Yates can do no wrong. [Although that American Book Review list of Top 40 Bad Books says otherwise, bah.] Raymond Carver. Lorrie Moore.
Aaaand I’m stalling as well.
on second thought, i don’t think salinger would even want to be associated with a concept like ‘auteur.’ he was kind of intentionally humble in his ambitions. and he only has one novel to his name. not really an auteur. never mind.
on second thought, i don’t think salinger would even want to be associated with a concept like ‘auteur.’ he was kind of intentionally humble in his ambitions. and he only has one novel to his name. not really an auteur. never mind.
That’s hilarious.
That’s hilarious.
What about people who wrote semi stinkers purposely for the entirety of their career? Does doing so intentionally make them non-stinkers or even worse?
What about people who wrote semi stinkers purposely for the entirety of their career? Does doing so intentionally make them non-stinkers or even worse?
burroughs never wrote a stinker. even his lesser works were pretty much head and shoulders above what everbody else was doing.
burroughs never wrote a stinker. even his lesser works were pretty much head and shoulders above what everbody else was doing.
yeah, i was thinking the same thing but then i remembered junky and all the early stories in interzone
yeah, i was thinking the same thing but then i remembered junky and all the early stories in interzone
Ah, the Burden of Yeah-That’ll-Do Expectations.
damn, i should clarify that i only think those two examples are weak when held up against what he was doing in soft machine and nova express and wild boys
Ah, the Burden of Yeah-That’ll-Do Expectations.
damn, i should clarify that i only think those two examples are weak when held up against what he was doing in soft machine and nova express and wild boys
you know, in film, where the whole auteur thing started, i feel like most auteurs have semi-stinkers, but what makes them auteurs is that most of their work has their indelible stamp and is ‘vital.’ they also often have distinctive personalities as artists. like a woody allen, a godard, an almodovar. they have their themes, their passions, and their unique stamp, and all of their work is at least interesting because of this. i mean, fellini was definitely an auteur, but ‘roma’ kinda sucks balls
you know, in film, where the whole auteur thing started, i feel like most auteurs have semi-stinkers, but what makes them auteurs is that most of their work has their indelible stamp and is ‘vital.’ they also often have distinctive personalities as artists. like a woody allen, a godard, an almodovar. they have their themes, their passions, and their unique stamp, and all of their work is at least interesting because of this. i mean, fellini was definitely an auteur, but ‘roma’ kinda sucks balls
yeah, i kind of misappropriated the auteur thing on purpose. addressed it a little above. the point of the auteur is that the works that seem flawed are not, and the viewer/reader must find their centers. i like the idea. i guess there are two different questions at work here.
yeah, i kind of misappropriated the auteur thing on purpose. addressed it a little above. the point of the auteur is that the works that seem flawed are not, and the viewer/reader must find their centers. i like the idea. i guess there are two different questions at work here.
I don’t think the auteur theory implies at all that an “auteur” is exempt from “stinkers” but rather it emphasized that films were the work of a singular creative visionary, the director, rather than a string of hacks (actors, screenwriters, designers, photographers, lighting people, editors, etc.) on studio contracts and that a director’s works were connected by a certain vision or style. Thus, in the quality lit game, all authors would be auteurs, unless you think the majority of the creativity is emanating from the offices of FSG, Knopf, or BlazeVox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory#Origin
As for an author who never published a semi-stinker, Homer? Although there the auteur theory probably doesn’t apply.
I don’t think the auteur theory implies at all that an “auteur” is exempt from “stinkers” but rather it emphasized that films were the work of a singular creative visionary, the director, rather than a string of hacks (actors, screenwriters, designers, photographers, lighting people, editors, etc.) on studio contracts and that a director’s works were connected by a certain vision or style. Thus, in the quality lit game, all authors would be auteurs, unless you think the majority of the creativity is emanating from the offices of FSG, Knopf, or BlazeVox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory#Origin
As for an author who never published a semi-stinker, Homer? Although there the auteur theory probably doesn’t apply.
o ok blake, i see what you mean by that. in fact, now that i think about it, while i wouldn’t rate ‘roma’ as fellini’s best work, the motorcycle scenes are sweet, and there’s some kind of commentary on the city of rome, hippie culture going on that probably went over my head. and ‘eyes wide shut’ i think is a perfect example of a work by an auteur that can be underestimated or that plenty of people ‘didn’t get,’ when in fact it has a lot to offer and is cohesive, a fitting final statement for a legendary auteur.
o ok blake, i see what you mean by that. in fact, now that i think about it, while i wouldn’t rate ‘roma’ as fellini’s best work, the motorcycle scenes are sweet, and there’s some kind of commentary on the city of rome, hippie culture going on that probably went over my head. and ‘eyes wide shut’ i think is a perfect example of a work by an auteur that can be underestimated or that plenty of people ‘didn’t get,’ when in fact it has a lot to offer and is cohesive, a fitting final statement for a legendary auteur.
Lee K. Abbott, Joan Didion, Yasunari Kawabata, William Gay, Lydia Davis, Diane Williams, Bernard Malamud, Franz Kafka. I note, though, that these aren’t writers who took massive risks outside their established aesthetic, except Malamud. I admire writers who keep trying something extraordinarily new, even if it means the occasional stinker.
Lee K. Abbott, Joan Didion, Yasunari Kawabata, William Gay, Lydia Davis, Diane Williams, Bernard Malamud, Franz Kafka. I note, though, that these aren’t writers who took massive risks outside their established aesthetic, except Malamud. I admire writers who keep trying something extraordinarily new, even if it means the occasional stinker.
Yeah, we definitely need to define what we’re talking about with “auteur.” Cahiers du Cinema people would be confused if they read this thread, where it seems like the important criterion for determining in auteur is lack of bad work. That doesn’t ring true. Blake addresses this above by saying he misappropriated the term on purpose. But why? Couldn’t you just as easily ask this: What author hasn’t written a bad work?
Also, all authors are auteurs. The theory states that directors are the true authors of movies instead of scriptwriters or producers or editors, etc. This is important because film is colloborative, and the question of who is the author is ambiguous. Not so with books. The author is the author. The auteur is the auteur.
Interesting question, though. I’ll second Daniel in saying that Pynchon seems to have a lack of bad work (although I haven’t read Vineland) Borges, and Barth.
Yeah, we definitely need to define what we’re talking about with “auteur.” Cahiers du Cinema people would be confused if they read this thread, where it seems like the important criterion for determining in auteur is lack of bad work. That doesn’t ring true. Blake addresses this above by saying he misappropriated the term on purpose. But why? Couldn’t you just as easily ask this: What author hasn’t written a bad work?
Also, all authors are auteurs. The theory states that directors are the true authors of movies instead of scriptwriters or producers or editors, etc. This is important because film is colloborative, and the question of who is the author is ambiguous. Not so with books. The author is the author. The auteur is the auteur.
Interesting question, though. I’ll second Daniel in saying that Pynchon seems to have a lack of bad work (although I haven’t read Vineland) Borges, and Barth.
the main lesson i draw from auteurs is: be yourself, on purpose, through and through and through
the main lesson i draw from auteurs is: be yourself, on purpose, through and through and through
exactly. the guy i took a class from who was huge on the auteur thing talked about Eyes Wide Shut just about every single day. he said it contained all films, ever. he was kinda a dick, but i liked him.
exactly. the guy i took a class from who was huge on the auteur thing talked about Eyes Wide Shut just about every single day. he said it contained all films, ever. he was kinda a dick, but i liked him.
oh wow, i did not know that. wouldn’t surprise me. there definitely seems to be some sort of parody/not-parody of a million mainstream movies and their endings in the ending of ‘eyes wide shut.’ kubrick is such a smart, slippery dude, haha… did anyone else want to see more of that prostitute character played by Vinessa Shaw (also in ‘two lovers’)? she is such a captivating actress, wish she had bigger roles.
oh wow, i did not know that. wouldn’t surprise me. there definitely seems to be some sort of parody/not-parody of a million mainstream movies and their endings in the ending of ‘eyes wide shut.’ kubrick is such a smart, slippery dude, haha… did anyone else want to see more of that prostitute character played by Vinessa Shaw (also in ‘two lovers’)? she is such a captivating actress, wish she had bigger roles.
i guess i misappropriated it specifically because of what you’re saying (which i like): that all authors are auteurs. so then asking which of them have stayed truest to the idea of lack of bad work. surely would have been easier to ask straight ahead. it just kinda fell out that way. :P
borges, definitely.
Vineland, that’s definitely a slip up for me with Pynchon. just kinda.. boring, comparatively.
i guess i misappropriated it specifically because of what you’re saying (which i like): that all authors are auteurs. so then asking which of them have stayed truest to the idea of lack of bad work. surely would have been easier to ask straight ahead. it just kinda fell out that way. :P
borges, definitely.
Vineland, that’s definitely a slip up for me with Pynchon. just kinda.. boring, comparatively.
Barth? Really? Sot-Weed Factor was a snoozefest for me, and I enjoyed the couple of others I’d read by him.
Barth? Really? Sot-Weed Factor was a snoozefest for me, and I enjoyed the couple of others I’d read by him.
i didn’t like crying lot a lot. it was too thin and its genre elements gleamed too brightly. maybe im used to fat pynchon.
what would one say a beckett stinker is? murphy?
Dennis Cooper? Come on, guys.
Saul Bellow.
i didn’t like crying lot a lot. it was too thin and its genre elements gleamed too brightly. maybe im used to fat pynchon.
what would one say a beckett stinker is? murphy?
Dennis Cooper? Come on, guys.
Saul Bellow.
Did you guys like Against the Day? I couldn’t get past the first hundred pages or so. That book was like a fifty-pound Ambien for me. I like Pynchon when he’s daring.
Did you guys like Against the Day? I couldn’t get past the first hundred pages or so. That book was like a fifty-pound Ambien for me. I like Pynchon when he’s daring.
DC 4 sure.
Bellow, eh.
DC 4 sure.
Bellow, eh.
i tried and couldn’t. but to be fair, it took me 3 or 4 false starts before i broke page 100 of Gravity’s Rainbow, and then it blew my head off. i mean to try it again.
i tried and couldn’t. but to be fair, it took me 3 or 4 false starts before i broke page 100 of Gravity’s Rainbow, and then it blew my head off. i mean to try it again.
i like Murphy. i think Beckett is a no stinker.
i like Murphy. i think Beckett is a no stinker.
Sot-Weed Factor is probably my favorite book. Reading Lipsyte’s interview where he mentioned that books were allowed to be hilarious and still considered literary in the 1960s seemed to be commenting directly on Barth to me. It’s a little slow and very long, but I’ve never laughed so much in reading a book.
No, I take that back. Mr. Sammler’s Planet is a shit book. Beautifully written, but shit.
William Gass, maybe?
Sot-Weed Factor is probably my favorite book. Reading Lipsyte’s interview where he mentioned that books were allowed to be hilarious and still considered literary in the 1960s seemed to be commenting directly on Barth to me. It’s a little slow and very long, but I’ve never laughed so much in reading a book.
No, I take that back. Mr. Sammler’s Planet is a shit book. Beautifully written, but shit.
William Gass, maybe?
It was funny, yeah, but I like Barth in smaller doses, where he’s more immediately devious (Lost in the Funhouse).
It was funny, yeah, but I like Barth in smaller doses, where he’s more immediately devious (Lost in the Funhouse).
You probably wouldn’t like Giles Goat Boy then. The one I’m working my way up to is Letters, which is intimidating as hell. It consists of letters that fictional characters from his previous books write to Barth. Apparently frustrating but maybe brilliant at the same time.
but they were still pretty great. i’d say junky still is better than much junkie-reportage novels published today, and his one came out in the 50s when the genre didnt even have a name.
but yeah, burroughs only competition was himself, which is a pretty good position to be in.
You probably wouldn’t like Giles Goat Boy then. The one I’m working my way up to is Letters, which is intimidating as hell. It consists of letters that fictional characters from his previous books write to Barth. Apparently frustrating but maybe brilliant at the same time.
but they were still pretty great. i’d say junky still is better than much junkie-reportage novels published today, and his one came out in the 50s when the genre didnt even have a name.
but yeah, burroughs only competition was himself, which is a pretty good position to be in.
His outlook changed. The man is seventy-something – I don’t think he had anywhere to go after Blood Meridian except to get softer, and softer is not a bad thing. So many people have failed in writing about the end of the world – he didn’t, he pulled it off.
Yeah, I’ve had GGB for a while but I probably won’t get to it. I’ve heard mixed things about Letters–that it was his attempt at a Gravity’s Rainbow, but that it’s sort of a stinker. Isn’t that the book he was working on in Chimera?
Harper Lee
His outlook changed. The man is seventy-something – I don’t think he had anywhere to go after Blood Meridian except to get softer, and softer is not a bad thing. So many people have failed in writing about the end of the world – he didn’t, he pulled it off.
Yeah, I’ve had GGB for a while but I probably won’t get to it. I’ve heard mixed things about Letters–that it was his attempt at a Gravity’s Rainbow, but that it’s sort of a stinker. Isn’t that the book he was working on in Chimera?
Harper Lee
Murphy is hilarious.
NO BOOK WAS EVER MORE OF AN UNREWARDING SLOG THAN “COMING SOON!!!”
THOUGH PARTZZ OF IT ZZZIPP STUCK IN ZZZIPP
Murphy is hilarious.
NO BOOK WAS EVER MORE OF AN UNREWARDING SLOG THAN “COMING SOON!!!”
THOUGH PARTZZ OF IT ZZZIPP STUCK IN ZZZIPP
Sebald, Kafka
BORGEZZ SHINEZZ IN NON-FICTION ALSO
Sebald, Kafka
BORGEZZ SHINEZZ IN NON-FICTION ALSO
I think Blanchot. But maybe just because he just kept writing more or less the same (fascinating) book.
I think Blanchot. But maybe just because he just kept writing more or less the same (fascinating) book.
i’d agree with gass as a non-stinker.
and i’d add w.g. sebald, four nearly perfect novels.
gombrowicz had only one stinker (the possessed) and i’ve yet to read a stinker of bernhard’s, but i’ve only read four of his, and i think he wrote about a dozen?
i’d agree with gass as a non-stinker.
and i’d add w.g. sebald, four nearly perfect novels.
gombrowicz had only one stinker (the possessed) and i’ve yet to read a stinker of bernhard’s, but i’ve only read four of his, and i think he wrote about a dozen?
Malamud, yes.
Malamud, yes.
bah, you beat me to the sebald.
i thought about kafka too, but thought amerika was kind of a stinker, or at least way below his others…
bah, you beat me to the sebald.
i thought about kafka too, but thought amerika was kind of a stinker, or at least way below his others…
Absolutely. And an auteur.
Absolutely. And an auteur.
same for me, i’ve read the first 100p of AoD twice now. aim to do it again and further sometime
same for me, i’ve read the first 100p of AoD twice now. aim to do it again and further sometime
The Cat Inside?
The Cat Inside?
actually i just keep wanting to read about the elf named darby over and over. i love that guy.
actually i just keep wanting to read about the elf named darby over and over. i love that guy.
Any weak Bolano?
Any weak Bolano?
any strong Bolano?
;P
any strong Bolano?
;P
any strong bolano?
b beat me. i was jk anyway, i’ve never read bolano.
any strong bolano?
b beat me. i was jk anyway, i’ve never read bolano.
Great minds think alike. hehe
Great minds think alike. hehe
Yeah, its hard to settle in, but AtD gives it all back eventually. I really enjoyed it.
Yeah, its hard to settle in, but AtD gives it all back eventually. I really enjoyed it.
Brautigan.
Brautigan.
mcguane
mcguane
Great question.
William Gaddis, David Foster Wallace, & Salman Rushdie come to mind.
Great question.
William Gaddis, David Foster Wallace, & Salman Rushdie come to mind.
Dr. Seuss.
Rudolph Wurlitzer (inc. the screenplays)
Will Eno
David Markson
Dr. Seuss.
Rudolph Wurlitzer (inc. the screenplays)
Will Eno
David Markson
Ass-Brackets, how is Markson’s earlier work? I’ve only read his late work with his cut-and-paste technique, which I love, btw.
Ass-Brackets, how is Markson’s earlier work? I’ve only read his late work with his cut-and-paste technique, which I love, btw.
I like his earlier work. I mean, it’s not anything like his new stuff, but the Fannin novels and Dingus Magee are pretty goddamned good.
I like his earlier work. I mean, it’s not anything like his new stuff, but the Fannin novels and Dingus Magee are pretty goddamned good.
i’m 3 for 3 with bolano so far (savage, 2666, by night in chile) really dug all 3. what do ppl think of the others that are out? i’m mostly asking bolano fans, bc if you didnt dig the aforementioned, somehow i doubt you’d dig the others
i’m 3 for 3 with bolano so far (savage, 2666, by night in chile) really dug all 3. what do ppl think of the others that are out? i’m mostly asking bolano fans, bc if you didnt dig the aforementioned, somehow i doubt you’d dig the others
stephen wright.
and already mentioned, but joy williams and wg sebald
stephen wright.
and already mentioned, but joy williams and wg sebald
amulet is good, and last evenings on earth (stories)
amulet is good, and last evenings on earth (stories)
Madonna (forget cherish)
Nike ads
crushed blue tablets, up nose
Chekhov (forget newspaper work)
rivers
bitter coffee with someone old in cold kitchen
Montana speed limits
kissing
kissing on futon mattresses
mowing a yard well
mockingbirds
the sound of a hammer
Madonna (forget cherish)
Nike ads
crushed blue tablets, up nose
Chekhov (forget newspaper work)
rivers
bitter coffee with someone old in cold kitchen
Montana speed limits
kissing
kissing on futon mattresses
mowing a yard well
mockingbirds
the sound of a hammer
Yeah, I just don’t get this thing with The Road. I loved that book so much. I can’t read No Country, but I think that’s as much because I saw the movie first as anything.
Yeah, I just don’t get this thing with The Road. I loved that book so much. I can’t read No Country, but I think that’s as much because I saw the movie first as anything.
and joy williams.
and joy williams.
was thinking yates as well. don’t think he has an out-and-out stinker, just lesser workers maybe. does have an over-arching vision thru all the novels and short stories. good, solid oevure.
was thinking yates as well. don’t think he has an out-and-out stinker, just lesser workers maybe. does have an over-arching vision thru all the novels and short stories. good, solid oevure.
I don’t know if I’d qualify DFW’s “Signifying Rappers” as a stinker as I don’t think he was setting out at that young age to produce something as part of any sort of cannon or whatever, but it doesn’t really sit alongside the other stuff. Also, it seemed to me that Everything and More was written in a rush.
But if we’re talking auteurship, they are both really interesting to read in this context.
I don’t know if I’d qualify DFW’s “Signifying Rappers” as a stinker as I don’t think he was setting out at that young age to produce something as part of any sort of cannon or whatever, but it doesn’t really sit alongside the other stuff. Also, it seemed to me that Everything and More was written in a rush.
But if we’re talking auteurship, they are both really interesting to read in this context.
damn. want to read GR now.
damn. want to read GR now.
i love rivers
but the grand canyon was a stinker
i love rivers
but the grand canyon was a stinker
jack kerouac
j/k
jack kerouac
j/k
dostoevsky, of course.
surprised no mention yet.
and delillo. he’s up and down (the body artist?) but always something interesting (language, premise, idea, etc.) to latch onto.
and conrad.
I’ve come around to amis, also. stinkers, sure. but singular artist, yes.
damn, i’ll stop.
dostoevsky, of course.
surprised no mention yet.
and delillo. he’s up and down (the body artist?) but always something interesting (language, premise, idea, etc.) to latch onto.
and conrad.
I’ve come around to amis, also. stinkers, sure. but singular artist, yes.
damn, i’ll stop.
Sean’s list opens up a whole other can of worms.
Maverick!
Sean’s list opens up a whole other can of worms.
Maverick!
Gotta disagree with you there on the grand canyon, zippy.
Gotta disagree with you there on the grand canyon, zippy.
Auteur authors in my book: Joyce, Faulkner & Flannery O’Connor.
Auteur authors in my book: Joyce, Faulkner & Flannery O’Connor.
Ditto on Dostoevsky, Kafka, Conrad, Joyce, Beckett, Sebald, and Dr. Seuss.
Thomas Mann (Buddenbrooks. The Magic Mountain. Joseph and His Brothers. Doctor Faustus. All great).
I’d love to say Faulkner, but the Snopes Trilogy is bloated and The Fable is heavy-handed sentimental Pulitzer Prize winning dreck. Same could be said of McCarthy’s The Road and James Agee’s A Death in the Family—far from their finest work. But Agee (definitely an auteur, who was called “The Sovereign Prince of the English Language” by some) is only notable for Let Us Now Praise Famous Men and some short marvels (“Dedication” and “Knoxville”).
Genet. Gide. Hesse. Calvino. Unamuno. Pavese. D.H. Lawrence (Plumed Serpent, a late work, is still terrific). Patrick White.
Has Virginia Woolf been mentioned? I’d say Stein (most decidedly an auteur), but some of her most “experimental” work is very difficult to assess.
All right. Enough from me. I always show up late for these things…
Ditto on Dostoevsky, Kafka, Conrad, Joyce, Beckett, Sebald, and Dr. Seuss.
Thomas Mann (Buddenbrooks. The Magic Mountain. Joseph and His Brothers. Doctor Faustus. All great).
I’d love to say Faulkner, but the Snopes Trilogy is bloated and The Fable is heavy-handed sentimental Pulitzer Prize winning dreck. Same could be said of McCarthy’s The Road and James Agee’s A Death in the Family—far from their finest work. But Agee (definitely an auteur, who was called “The Sovereign Prince of the English Language” by some) is only notable for Let Us Now Praise Famous Men and some short marvels (“Dedication” and “Knoxville”).
Genet. Gide. Hesse. Calvino. Unamuno. Pavese. D.H. Lawrence (Plumed Serpent, a late work, is still terrific). Patrick White.
Has Virginia Woolf been mentioned? I’d say Stein (most decidedly an auteur), but some of her most “experimental” work is very difficult to assess.
All right. Enough from me. I always show up late for these things…
What about Vonnegut? Any stinkers among the later work (I only know the first seven or eight)?
What about Vonnegut? Any stinkers among the later work (I only know the first seven or eight)?
I’d forgotten about this (from Vonnegut himself): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut
In Chapter 18 of his book Palm Sunday, “The Sexual Revolution”, Vonnegut grades his own works. He states that the grades “do not place me in literary history” and that he is comparing “myself with myself.” The grades are as follows:
* Player Piano: B
* The Sirens of Titan: A
* Mother Night: A-plus
* Cat’s Cradle: A-plus
* God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater: A
* Slaughterhouse-Five: A-plus
* Welcome to the Monkey House: B-minus
* Happy Birthday, Wanda June: D
* Breakfast of Champions: C
* Slapstick: D
* Jailbird: A
* Palm Sunday: C
I’d forgotten about this (from Vonnegut himself): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut
In Chapter 18 of his book Palm Sunday, “The Sexual Revolution”, Vonnegut grades his own works. He states that the grades “do not place me in literary history” and that he is comparing “myself with myself.” The grades are as follows:
* Player Piano: B
* The Sirens of Titan: A
* Mother Night: A-plus
* Cat’s Cradle: A-plus
* God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater: A
* Slaughterhouse-Five: A-plus
* Welcome to the Monkey House: B-minus
* Happy Birthday, Wanda June: D
* Breakfast of Champions: C
* Slapstick: D
* Jailbird: A
* Palm Sunday: C
just finished the body artist, thought it was great
just finished the body artist, thought it was great
um, closer?
um, closer?
okay, okay,
i only read the review
okay, okay,
i only read the review
Slapstick is definitely a D.
Not sure Vonnegut gave himself enough credit on Breakfast of Champions, though.
Slapstick is definitely a D.
Not sure Vonnegut gave himself enough credit on Breakfast of Champions, though.
yeah i would have swapped the grades for breakfast and god bless you
yeah i would have swapped the grades for breakfast and god bless you
Percival Everett
And while he’s been publishing for a shorter period of time than probably many of those listed, I’d toss Peter Markus’ name into the mix and think he might just sneak into the original thought process behind auteur as well.
And I second KB’s Brautigan nomination.
Percival Everett
And while he’s been publishing for a shorter period of time than probably many of those listed, I’d toss Peter Markus’ name into the mix and think he might just sneak into the original thought process behind auteur as well.
And I second KB’s Brautigan nomination.
with vonnegut i kind of think that whichever one you read first is always your favorite because they all act as such powerful discoveries, and then everyone after slowly becomes less interesting or more of the same. thats kind of how my experience with vonnegut was. i was burned out on him by the time i read god bless you and said okay, no more.
with vonnegut i kind of think that whichever one you read first is always your favorite because they all act as such powerful discoveries, and then everyone after slowly becomes less interesting or more of the same. thats kind of how my experience with vonnegut was. i was burned out on him by the time i read god bless you and said okay, no more.
kind of like douglas coupland but vonnegut is much better than douglas coupland
zzzzipp read breakfast of champions first and saw leaks everywhere
kind of like douglas coupland but vonnegut is much better than douglas coupland
zzzzipp read breakfast of champions first and saw leaks everywhere
b’s fiction a tonic–who is a bigger borges fan than zzzzipp who lives inside an aleph at times–but his non-fiction is more nourishing and more infinite
b’s fiction a tonic–who is a bigger borges fan than zzzzipp who lives inside an aleph at times–but his non-fiction is more nourishing and more infinite
i should say i was not well read and very impressionable when i went through my vonnegut phase though, so that could be something. maybe i should re-read something of it.
i should say i was not well read and very impressionable when i went through my vonnegut phase though, so that could be something. maybe i should re-read something of it.
Faulkner? The Reivers was weak.
Faulkner? The Reivers was weak.
ZZZZIPP: “more infinite”
More infinite?!—Is that Lobachevski or crushed blue tablets or post-rapids concussion from the mighty Colorado?
Nonetheless, agree re: Borges.
oh, Jhon. let Harry into your life.
ZZZZIPP: “more infinite”
More infinite?!—Is that Lobachevski or crushed blue tablets or post-rapids concussion from the mighty Colorado?
Nonetheless, agree re: Borges.
oh, Jhon. let Harry into your life.
when he died a columnist in the newspaper dismissed him entirely as being a writer for adolescents and someone you grow out of easily but while there are some books like that (written by other people) I think that’s an awful thing to say about vonnegut
when he died a columnist in the newspaper dismissed him entirely as being a writer for adolescents and someone you grow out of easily but while there are some books like that (written by other people) I think that’s an awful thing to say about vonnegut
I think it is all those things. Tim, whenever I see your name I like it because I get to click it and look at that “gate” pdf.
Samuel Beckett is the epitome of auteur. Everything he’s written (at least, everything I’ve read) has demanded (not out of difficulty, but by promise) many reads. Part of the definition of auteur, as I’m reading these posts, is that the auteur’s works describe a singular territory on the mass of literature. Such is Sam.
John Hawkes hasn’t come up, which is a shame; his work is singular too.
Somewhere Barthelme says you have to excuse a genius their excesses, or their missteps. They need time to find their footing, etc. I think it’s in Not Knowing. It’s an important thought for this conversation.
There’s another, more important, point. If Barry Hannah never missed a step and Thomas Pynchon did, that might imply that Hannah was more the auteur. I can’t get to that. Even if Vineland was a misstep (an opinion which I can’t endorse; let’s call it a side step), Gravity’s Rainbow and V (at least) had more than enough poop to challenge Hannah’s perfect catalogue. At least to my mind.
The greatness of GR (just for example) allows you to reevaluate the seemingly lesser works (like Crying of Lot 49) in their light. In the lesser works (or the other works, the letters, the diaries etc.) you find re-stated, or pre-stated in new ways or side-ways nuances you’d noticed elsewhere in the body of their work.
Being-auteur (and this may have been said, there’s hundred of thoughts above this one) implies that all of your work is worth re-reading and placing into some sort of a meta-narrative. You’re a master of discursivity.
I think it is all those things. Tim, whenever I see your name I like it because I get to click it and look at that “gate” pdf.
Samuel Beckett is the epitome of auteur. Everything he’s written (at least, everything I’ve read) has demanded (not out of difficulty, but by promise) many reads. Part of the definition of auteur, as I’m reading these posts, is that the auteur’s works describe a singular territory on the mass of literature. Such is Sam.
John Hawkes hasn’t come up, which is a shame; his work is singular too.
Somewhere Barthelme says you have to excuse a genius their excesses, or their missteps. They need time to find their footing, etc. I think it’s in Not Knowing. It’s an important thought for this conversation.
There’s another, more important, point. If Barry Hannah never missed a step and Thomas Pynchon did, that might imply that Hannah was more the auteur. I can’t get to that. Even if Vineland was a misstep (an opinion which I can’t endorse; let’s call it a side step), Gravity’s Rainbow and V (at least) had more than enough poop to challenge Hannah’s perfect catalogue. At least to my mind.
The greatness of GR (just for example) allows you to reevaluate the seemingly lesser works (like Crying of Lot 49) in their light. In the lesser works (or the other works, the letters, the diaries etc.) you find re-stated, or pre-stated in new ways or side-ways nuances you’d noticed elsewhere in the body of their work.
Being-auteur (and this may have been said, there’s hundred of thoughts above this one) implies that all of your work is worth re-reading and placing into some sort of a meta-narrative. You’re a master of discursivity.
Cat’s Cradle is still my favorite Vonnegut (third of his I read, if I remember right).
Darby: Off-topic, but I quite like Piccinnini’s “Recidivist” at your Adjective site. Thanks. I’m off now to explore more of his work and dig deeper into Adjective (new to me—I’ve not been paying very good attention).
Cat’s Cradle is still my favorite Vonnegut (third of his I read, if I remember right).
Darby: Off-topic, but I quite like Piccinnini’s “Recidivist” at your Adjective site. Thanks. I’m off now to explore more of his work and dig deeper into Adjective (new to me—I’ve not been paying very good attention).
Thanks, ZZZZIPP, for peeking. I so envy your moniker and the nimbleness of your opinions as they unspiral (outspiral?) into view. Where does your aleph-work lurk?
Thanks, ZZZZIPP, for peeking. I so envy your moniker and the nimbleness of your opinions as they unspiral (outspiral?) into view. Where does your aleph-work lurk?
thanks tim! appreciate it. piccinnini’s stuff is awesome.
thanks tim! appreciate it. piccinnini’s stuff is awesome.
my reading list just got a lot bigger. whenever i see conversations like this i think that i spent too much time reading shit.
my reading list just got a lot bigger. whenever i see conversations like this i think that i spent too much time reading shit.
kathy acker and robert coover i think make my list
kathy acker and robert coover i think make my list
GR is worth every word. it kills its hype, easy. you just gotta get into the vibe of it, which takes some doing.
GR is worth every word. it kills its hype, easy. you just gotta get into the vibe of it, which takes some doing.
The Hawkline Monster
period
The Hawkline Monster
period
I bought that book after reading the first sentence. Was that easy.
I bought that book after reading the first sentence. Was that easy.
Breakfast of Champions may be my favorite book ever. I cried in the library break room.
Mother Night was definitely incredible, read it at the other library (the one I didn’t work at) in an afternoon, took it home anyway just to touch it.
Did that essay predate Bluebeard? I love Bluebeard so much but it seems like nobody’s with me on that one.
Breakfast of Champions may be my favorite book ever. I cried in the library break room.
Mother Night was definitely incredible, read it at the other library (the one I didn’t work at) in an afternoon, took it home anyway just to touch it.
Did that essay predate Bluebeard? I love Bluebeard so much but it seems like nobody’s with me on that one.
dennis fucking cooper and kathy fucking acker.
dennis fucking cooper and kathy fucking acker.
I was thinking a similar thing the other day with regards to old Cormac. All out of books and money, I decided to give The Crossing another shot and, again, struggled with it. Yet I feel I can’t call it weak because there is still so much more at work in a weak McCarthy than the majority of other writers who are read in the mainstream. This may not make much sense, but I felt like my desire for a tight, gripping story had eclipsed my respect for a unique voice and even a little guilty for that.
Perhaps it is my recognition of the language and world of a book I see as outstanding (Blood Meridian) in a story that little interests me that makes me feel so divided.
I guess the question I’m trying to ask is whether a book by a writer who is unique formally but misfires with narrative is more valuable than one that is more traditional but has a tighter story?
I was thinking a similar thing the other day with regards to old Cormac. All out of books and money, I decided to give The Crossing another shot and, again, struggled with it. Yet I feel I can’t call it weak because there is still so much more at work in a weak McCarthy than the majority of other writers who are read in the mainstream. This may not make much sense, but I felt like my desire for a tight, gripping story had eclipsed my respect for a unique voice and even a little guilty for that.
Perhaps it is my recognition of the language and world of a book I see as outstanding (Blood Meridian) in a story that little interests me that makes me feel so divided.
I guess the question I’m trying to ask is whether a book by a writer who is unique formally but misfires with narrative is more valuable than one that is more traditional but has a tighter story?
Calvino for sure. Showing up late is the real challenge; you have to remember what everyone else is bringing to the picnic plus come up with an item of your own.
Coleman Dowell.
A post yesterday criticized ABR for their Bad Books, and here are 100+ comments about books deemed “sub par.” What are your standards for criticizing “good art” v. “bad art”? And I’d wager it’s easier for you to say a book sucks than for any author to write it, “good” or “bad,” whether you’re Oates, pumping out a zillion books at a time, or Lutz, giving each word due attention.
This is not to say that I don’t readily dismiss books as “bad” after a cursory read. Or a thorough read for that matter.
A post yesterday criticized ABR for their Bad Books, and here are 100+ comments about books deemed “sub par.” What are your standards for criticizing “good art” v. “bad art”? And I’d wager it’s easier for you to say a book sucks than for any author to write it, “good” or “bad,” whether you’re Oates, pumping out a zillion books at a time, or Lutz, giving each word due attention.
This is not to say that I don’t readily dismiss books as “bad” after a cursory read. Or a thorough read for that matter.
Murphy is one of his best.
Murphy is one of his best.
Where is a good place to begin with Dowell? I’m embarrassed to say I’ve never read any of his novels.
Where is a good place to begin with Dowell? I’m embarrassed to say I’ve never read any of his novels.
I just never read something I don’t like long enough to be sure I’m right about it sucking.
I just never read something I don’t like long enough to be sure I’m right about it sucking.
I disagree with the Hempel thing. Just four books in more than 20 years, all of which barely swipe at 100 full pages, all of which read like Marmaduke for angst-ridden adults.
I disagree with the Hempel thing. Just four books in more than 20 years, all of which barely swipe at 100 full pages, all of which read like Marmaduke for angst-ridden adults.
20 lines a day is my bible right now. totally you should read it, Christian.
20 lines a day is my bible right now. totally you should read it, Christian.
Jane Austen. Virginia Woolf (possible exception of Orlando, but lots of people love it. i don’t think it counts as a stinker unless it is roundly dismissed by most of her readers, and it isn’t). Elizabeth Bishop. def. agree about Beckett.
Jane Austen. Virginia Woolf (possible exception of Orlando, but lots of people love it. i don’t think it counts as a stinker unless it is roundly dismissed by most of her readers, and it isn’t). Elizabeth Bishop. def. agree about Beckett.
Island People.
Henry Green, Henry Green, Henry Green.
Henry Green, Henry Green, Henry Green.
I second Virginia Woolf, from what i’ve read (dalloway, waves, orlando, room with a view, to the lighthouse, moments of being). the ones i haven’t read sound very interesting, should get my hands on those (between the acts, etc.)
‘Orlando’ is another great example of the ‘misunderstood’ or ‘undervalued’ work by an auteur. Mind you, gender theory critics and feminists probably rate it top of the heap, but for less politically-affiliated readers, it might be, initially, the least attractive of the bunch. but i’d say with a careful reading and an adjustment to its unusual approach, it’s rewarding. it is written as a ‘biography,’ and the main character switches genders halfway through the book. it also has photographs of the purported ‘real people’ in the biography. also, very interestingly, it was written for/about vita sackville-west, the poet and virginia’s lesbian lover. it is funnier than a lot of Virginia’s other work, and more playful. Vita’s son, Nigel, referred to ‘Orlando’ as “the longest and most charming love letter in literature.” Vive Virginia!
I second Virginia Woolf, from what i’ve read (dalloway, waves, orlando, room with a view, to the lighthouse, moments of being). the ones i haven’t read sound very interesting, should get my hands on those (between the acts, etc.)
‘Orlando’ is another great example of the ‘misunderstood’ or ‘undervalued’ work by an auteur. Mind you, gender theory critics and feminists probably rate it top of the heap, but for less politically-affiliated readers, it might be, initially, the least attractive of the bunch. but i’d say with a careful reading and an adjustment to its unusual approach, it’s rewarding. it is written as a ‘biography,’ and the main character switches genders halfway through the book. it also has photographs of the purported ‘real people’ in the biography. also, very interestingly, it was written for/about vita sackville-west, the poet and virginia’s lesbian lover. it is funnier than a lot of Virginia’s other work, and more playful. Vita’s son, Nigel, referred to ‘Orlando’ as “the longest and most charming love letter in literature.” Vive Virginia!
Rushdie is a FULL TILT! piece of shit writer.
Rushdie is a FULL TILT! piece of shit writer.
ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP
ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP
Tobias Wolff.
Tobias Wolff.
Was going to say the same. Yes.
Was going to say the same. Yes.
Martin Amis
Michel Hoeullebecq
Denis Johnson
Martin Amis
Michel Hoeullebecq
Denis Johnson
thanks, Stephen, for this–I have started and put down Orlando because i got distracted by something else, but now i will def give it a more concerted 2nd try.
thanks, Stephen, for this–I have started and put down Orlando because i got distracted by something else, but now i will def give it a more concerted 2nd try.
cool, man. yeah, i mean, if i was trying to get someone into woolf, i would press “to the lighthouse” on them if they don’t like “way sad” books, or else “mrs. dalloway” and “the waves,” but yeah, for a peer (or hell, i’m not your peer, you’re smart/sophisticated, you know what i mean) writer/reader, “orlando” is definitely worth at least a try. you may eventually get into it. it’s just a different style for her, and doesn’t have as much of the “word orgasm” prose going on all the time.
cool, man. yeah, i mean, if i was trying to get someone into woolf, i would press “to the lighthouse” on them if they don’t like “way sad” books, or else “mrs. dalloway” and “the waves,” but yeah, for a peer (or hell, i’m not your peer, you’re smart/sophisticated, you know what i mean) writer/reader, “orlando” is definitely worth at least a try. you may eventually get into it. it’s just a different style for her, and doesn’t have as much of the “word orgasm” prose going on all the time.
hey sorry, amy, somehow i thought i saw alec niedenthal’s name on your comment. you’re not a man! you are a wonderful woman, no doubt. glad you’re trying “orlando” again. peace and love
hey sorry, amy, somehow i thought i saw alec niedenthal’s name on your comment. you’re not a man! you are a wonderful woman, no doubt. glad you’re trying “orlando” again. peace and love
you think you’re a man, but you’re only a boy!
you think you’re a man, but you’re only a boy!
?
Your last name must be Quinn.
AN’s just being funny, Stephen, it’s all good.
Your last name must be Quinn.
AN’s just being funny, Stephen, it’s all good.
I know Kyle M likes 2666 a lot. I’d like to hear his thoughts on the book here. And then Chris H can share his.
I know Kyle M likes 2666 a lot. I’d like to hear his thoughts on the book here. And then Chris H can share his.
beat happening lyric dogg
beat happening lyric dogg
AtD is probably the most fun of all of P.’s totem-tomes. once i started reading as a satire of just about everything pop culture has ever had to offer i started to fly (zzzip?) through it, thoroughly enjoying myself along the way.
it features, arguably, one of his best (read: “pleasantly mystifying”) endings.
AtD is probably the most fun of all of P.’s totem-tomes. once i started reading as a satire of just about everything pop culture has ever had to offer i started to fly (zzzip?) through it, thoroughly enjoying myself along the way.
it features, arguably, one of his best (read: “pleasantly mystifying”) endings.
bill watterson?
bill watterson?