April 11th, 2010 / 2:46 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Sean Lovelace—
But why do the individual stories in a collection have to be connected in any way (tone, character, subject matter, etc)?
They don’t but the book will create a different effect on the reader. Maybe it’s like the difference in music between a concept album (or a more accurately a sub-concept album where the songs are still somehow related to one another) and a collection of singles. Sgt. Pepper vs. Magical Mystery Tour if you will.
Curiously, I usually find that while people always talk up Sgt. Pepper as an overall album they often don’t remember the individual songs (maybe because they can be as forgettable as For the Benefit of Mr Kite), but Magical Mystery Tour is often disparaged and yet it has some of their more popular songs on it like Strawberry Fields and I am the Walrus. Perhaps a similar thing doesn’t happen in literature because individual stories aren’t sold in the way individual songs are, or something.
They don’t but the book will create a different effect on the reader. Maybe it’s like the difference in music between a concept album (or a more accurately a sub-concept album where the songs are still somehow related to one another) and a collection of singles. Sgt. Pepper vs. Magical Mystery Tour if you will.
Curiously, I usually find that while people always talk up Sgt. Pepper as an overall album they often don’t remember the individual songs (maybe because they can be as forgettable as For the Benefit of Mr Kite), but Magical Mystery Tour is often disparaged and yet it has some of their more popular songs on it like Strawberry Fields and I am the Walrus. Perhaps a similar thing doesn’t happen in literature because individual stories aren’t sold in the way individual songs are, or something.
They are already connected, beeing in a collection. Perhaps the point is to find a very different stories, so every usual connection could be unthinkable. But the forced connection through collection make them to a Gesamtkunstwerk, like Schwitters spoke about his MERZ.
They are already connected, beeing in a collection. Perhaps the point is to find a very different stories, so every usual connection could be unthinkable. But the forced connection through collection make them to a Gesamtkunstwerk, like Schwitters spoke about his MERZ.
i have a hard time thinking of any good story collections that are completely unconnected in the way you describe. Even formally disjunct collections like dfw’s, evenson’s first 3, maybe jarne anne phillip’s black tickets or melville’s piazza tables, still have, to greater or lesser degrees, an overall “sensibility” that is not purely some retroactive effect created by the reader (“this feels like a Hemingway story — i know because the book has his name on it!”) but has to do with a writer’s preoccupations that come through no matter what.
ron hansen’s nebraska is the closest thing i can’t think of to an unconnected collection — really is all over the map. and i have to say that even though it has at least one capital-g Great story in it (“wickedness”), i’m not sure that in the end it’s quite successful as a book, in part because it’s lacking that cumulative power.
sean(s), do you have any examples of what you’re talking about?
i have a hard time thinking of any good story collections that are completely unconnected in the way you describe. Even formally disjunct collections like dfw’s, evenson’s first 3, maybe jarne anne phillip’s black tickets or melville’s piazza tables, still have, to greater or lesser degrees, an overall “sensibility” that is not purely some retroactive effect created by the reader (“this feels like a Hemingway story — i know because the book has his name on it!”) but has to do with a writer’s preoccupations that come through no matter what.
ron hansen’s nebraska is the closest thing i can’t think of to an unconnected collection — really is all over the map. and i have to say that even though it has at least one capital-g Great story in it (“wickedness”), i’m not sure that in the end it’s quite successful as a book, in part because it’s lacking that cumulative power.
sean(s), do you have any examples of what you’re talking about?
Not to sidetrack this, but Sgt. Peppers is not a concept album in any way. Even the Beatles members have always maintained they abandoned the concept after like two songs and just made a random collection of songs.
I agree that the effect can be quite different reading stories that cohere in some way versus those that don’t.
Not to sidetrack this, but Sgt. Peppers is not a concept album in any way. Even the Beatles members have always maintained they abandoned the concept after like two songs and just made a random collection of songs.
I agree that the effect can be quite different reading stories that cohere in some way versus those that don’t.
This is a question I’m struggling with finishing up a collection right now. In theory, I really like collections that go all over the place and authors who try different things formally and stylistically. However, it seems pretty rare that those kind of collections get made and often when they do the disparate elements are disliked (for example, I remember reviews of Wells Tower’s book saying the titular viking story was a misstep, despite that being one of the best IMHO. Similarly, Rebecca Curtis’s collection has about half realist, half more magical/weird stories, yet reviewers complained about that…) so I guess publishers don’t like them.
This is a question I’m struggling with finishing up a collection right now. In theory, I really like collections that go all over the place and authors who try different things formally and stylistically. However, it seems pretty rare that those kind of collections get made and often when they do the disparate elements are disliked (for example, I remember reviews of Wells Tower’s book saying the titular viking story was a misstep, despite that being one of the best IMHO. Similarly, Rebecca Curtis’s collection has about half realist, half more magical/weird stories, yet reviewers complained about that…) so I guess publishers don’t like them.
In what degree can a short story collection be judged as “a book”? I don’t know what the reading habits of others are, but when I read short story collections, I don’t read them all in one go like I would a novel. I read them one story at a time, often in between novels or while I’m taking a break from a novel. As a result, I tend not to think of a short story collection as good book, but as a set of stories that I either enjoy reading or do not enjoy reading. If I like the stories, of course, then I’ll recommend the book to friends, because that’s where the stories are.
In what degree can a short story collection be judged as “a book”? I don’t know what the reading habits of others are, but when I read short story collections, I don’t read them all in one go like I would a novel. I read them one story at a time, often in between novels or while I’m taking a break from a novel. As a result, I tend not to think of a short story collection as good book, but as a set of stories that I either enjoy reading or do not enjoy reading. If I like the stories, of course, then I’ll recommend the book to friends, because that’s where the stories are.
maybe this is silly of me, and this is sort of a tangent, but i’m turned off by this “novel in stories” thing that has become more common in the last half-dozen years. it’s a free country of course, but it seems like a publishing company marketing gimmick moreso than a natural artistic gesture. i would be more attracted to a collection if they just gave it a title and i knew it had stories. i don’t even need it to say stories on the cover. i guess everything relates back to music for me. the beatles “revolver” just says “revolver.” it doesn’t say “revolver: songs” or “revolver: group autobiography in songs.” “novel in stories” just seems like misguided marketing by people who are insecure about anything that isn’t a Proper Literary Novel of Some Length.
Also, more directly related to this post, I think cohesion is overrated. The messiness of life and emotions will come across in its (in)coherence whether you contrive it to or not, so i say paint by feel and inspiration and let other people worry about what box it fits in.
maybe this is silly of me, and this is sort of a tangent, but i’m turned off by this “novel in stories” thing that has become more common in the last half-dozen years. it’s a free country of course, but it seems like a publishing company marketing gimmick moreso than a natural artistic gesture. i would be more attracted to a collection if they just gave it a title and i knew it had stories. i don’t even need it to say stories on the cover. i guess everything relates back to music for me. the beatles “revolver” just says “revolver.” it doesn’t say “revolver: songs” or “revolver: group autobiography in songs.” “novel in stories” just seems like misguided marketing by people who are insecure about anything that isn’t a Proper Literary Novel of Some Length.
Also, more directly related to this post, I think cohesion is overrated. The messiness of life and emotions will come across in its (in)coherence whether you contrive it to or not, so i say paint by feel and inspiration and let other people worry about what box it fits in.
just to reiterate, precisely why the beatles (and i know you almost certainly disagree with me) are more memorable to me and many others more than any of their incredible contemporaries, is because they had 3 songwriters and lots of variety. life is varied. we have obsessions and focuses, but then other people intervene, and events intervene, and randomness. randomness and variety are integral to life. would be natural to have them in art.
and anyone who calls the viking story in wells towers’ collection a “misstep” is a lame, and shouldn’t be listened to. he should have had all the stories be that creative and distinctive.
just to reiterate, precisely why the beatles (and i know you almost certainly disagree with me) are more memorable to me and many others more than any of their incredible contemporaries, is because they had 3 songwriters and lots of variety. life is varied. we have obsessions and focuses, but then other people intervene, and events intervene, and randomness. randomness and variety are integral to life. would be natural to have them in art.
and anyone who calls the viking story in wells towers’ collection a “misstep” is a lame, and shouldn’t be listened to. he should have had all the stories be that creative and distinctive.
of course the themes were always love and peace and love, but if you’re true to yourself, however you define that, your core beliefs will come across in every which way you decide to attack the page.
of course the themes were always love and peace and love, but if you’re true to yourself, however you define that, your core beliefs will come across in every which way you decide to attack the page.
i skip around to, at least in the big collected stories, like barthelme’s, for example. but i would dig a story collection that has 9-12 stories and they all seem integral and “paced well” and you feel you can read it in order and enjoy it that way. makes it more like a music album, to beat that drum one final time.
i skip around to, at least in the big collected stories, like barthelme’s, for example. but i would dig a story collection that has 9-12 stories and they all seem integral and “paced well” and you feel you can read it in order and enjoy it that way. makes it more like a music album, to beat that drum one final time.
*too
*too
I don’t think I read novels or stories any differently. Read both in chunks, from start to finish, rarely in one go, normally with other books being read at the same time.
I don’t think I read novels or stories any differently. Read both in chunks, from start to finish, rarely in one go, normally with other books being read at the same time.
At the same time, I think there are a lot of people who find the Beatles unsatisfying to listen to on an album basis as their albums are just random collections of singles, more or less. They never really mastered the art of the album that their contemporaries did.
At the same time, I think there are a lot of people who find the Beatles unsatisfying to listen to on an album basis as their albums are just random collections of singles, more or less. They never really mastered the art of the album that their contemporaries did.
[out of the side of his mouth, whilst chewing a cigar]:
“what is this, vikings?! what does that ‘meeeeaan’?! OK OK, Wells, we get it, you’re very young…. you’ve been slipping in some Barthelme and some of that there ‘magical realism’ in between healthy, strong soup-bowlfuls of the good Carver stuff, and we get that, we get that, I had sex naked in a river at Woodstock, i’m not judging anyybody, but OK… Wells… what you’re good at is ‘hard-scrabble realism.’ The lives of ordinary people. Redemption…. The memory of pain, tough times… Families… Reconciliation… Hard-scrabble… Stick with that, Wells. Leave the fantastical, hey-look-at-me magical gobbledygook to, I don’t know, to this fuckin’ Stephen O’Connor guy or something… Wells, I say this out of respect for your obvious talent.”
[out of the side of his mouth, whilst chewing a cigar]:
“what is this, vikings?! what does that ‘meeeeaan’?! OK OK, Wells, we get it, you’re very young…. you’ve been slipping in some Barthelme and some of that there ‘magical realism’ in between healthy, strong soup-bowlfuls of the good Carver stuff, and we get that, we get that, I had sex naked in a river at Woodstock, i’m not judging anyybody, but OK… Wells… what you’re good at is ‘hard-scrabble realism.’ The lives of ordinary people. Redemption…. The memory of pain, tough times… Families… Reconciliation… Hard-scrabble… Stick with that, Wells. Leave the fantastical, hey-look-at-me magical gobbledygook to, I don’t know, to this fuckin’ Stephen O’Connor guy or something… Wells, I say this out of respect for your obvious talent.”
i think a lot of critics and fans would disagree with you. the consensus is that the beatles are the all-time masters of the art of the album. see: revolver, sgt. pepper, white album, rubber soul, let it be.
they only seem like random collections of singles if you’re thinking strictly on a thematic level, like “do these songs tell me ‘a cohesive story’ or something.” but music isn’t/doesn’t have to be like that, thank god. if you listen to the aforementioned albums as a sound experience, you may hear it as many have heard it, as something that ‘feels right’ together, just as it is sequenced. even the white album, which is seemingly random-as-fuck, and to some degree is, nonetheless the sequencing is genius and feels great.
i think a lot of critics and fans would disagree with you. the consensus is that the beatles are the all-time masters of the art of the album. see: revolver, sgt. pepper, white album, rubber soul, let it be.
they only seem like random collections of singles if you’re thinking strictly on a thematic level, like “do these songs tell me ‘a cohesive story’ or something.” but music isn’t/doesn’t have to be like that, thank god. if you listen to the aforementioned albums as a sound experience, you may hear it as many have heard it, as something that ‘feels right’ together, just as it is sequenced. even the white album, which is seemingly random-as-fuck, and to some degree is, nonetheless the sequencing is genius and feels great.
forgot abbey road. that should be on the list too.
forgot abbey road. that should be on the list too.
I find it ironic that people argue the sequencing of The Beatles albums shows how great they are as albums or how conscious the Beatles were of making albums (and I’ve heard others make that claim), because up until Sgt. Peppers the UK and US versions didn’t even have the same tracks!
So you probably aren’t even listening to Revolver or Rubber Soul how the Beatles wanted you to.
I find it ironic that people argue the sequencing of The Beatles albums shows how great they are as albums or how conscious the Beatles were of making albums (and I’ve heard others make that claim), because up until Sgt. Peppers the UK and US versions didn’t even have the same tracks!
So you probably aren’t even listening to Revolver or Rubber Soul how the Beatles wanted you to.
Actually, I guess the british track listings dominate now
i don’t trust people who don’t love the beatles.
Actually, I guess the british track listings dominate now
i don’t trust people who don’t love the beatles.
jazz musicians didn’t even start to think about “the art of the album” until the 60s. i’d rather hear a random collection of great songs than a concept album where every other song is filler.
jazz musicians didn’t even start to think about “the art of the album” until the 60s. i’d rather hear a random collection of great songs than a concept album where every other song is filler.
Well I don’t trust people who flip out about any perceived slight to their favorite pop group, so I guess we are even! :)
When I listen to Beatles albums, I tend to hear snippets of good things. When I listen to “Pet Sounds,” I hear songs that, despite being two to three minutes long, are incredibly fleshed out. I like that.
Well I don’t trust people who flip out about any perceived slight to their favorite pop group, so I guess we are even! :)
When I listen to Beatles albums, I tend to hear snippets of good things. When I listen to “Pet Sounds,” I hear songs that, despite being two to three minutes long, are incredibly fleshed out. I like that.
i answered you very calmly, trust, lincoln (still calm). i just stated facts with one or two opinions.
i answered you very calmly, trust, lincoln (still calm). i just stated facts with one or two opinions.
I like The Beatles fine, their albums just don’t hold up as albums as well as many of their contemporaries. They are better as a singles band.
if i was overreacting i’d be like: “fuckin’ hipsters think they’re too good for the beatles. fuckin’ bullshit.”
I like The Beatles fine, their albums just don’t hold up as albums as well as many of their contemporaries. They are better as a singles band.
if i was overreacting i’d be like: “fuckin’ hipsters think they’re too good for the beatles. fuckin’ bullshit.”
I’d say that Revolver didn’t need to have that “songs” tagged on the end of its name because the contents were kind of implicit in the packaging. If you see something in a record sleeve (or in a casette box or CD jewel case), and unless it explicitly states that it contains something else, like an audiobook, you’re going to assume that songs lie within.
The most common thing to find inside a book is a single long prose work, whether fiction or non-fiction, which stretches the book’s length. If it actually contains something else, then, it often makes sense to state the fact explicitly.
That’s just an explanation, though. Maybe it’d be better not to state it at all. Let the readers work out for themselves if they’re looking at one long thing or several short things, and whether they’re poetry, fiction or non-fiction.
I’d say that Revolver didn’t need to have that “songs” tagged on the end of its name because the contents were kind of implicit in the packaging. If you see something in a record sleeve (or in a casette box or CD jewel case), and unless it explicitly states that it contains something else, like an audiobook, you’re going to assume that songs lie within.
The most common thing to find inside a book is a single long prose work, whether fiction or non-fiction, which stretches the book’s length. If it actually contains something else, then, it often makes sense to state the fact explicitly.
That’s just an explanation, though. Maybe it’d be better not to state it at all. Let the readers work out for themselves if they’re looking at one long thing or several short things, and whether they’re poetry, fiction or non-fiction.
;) :)
;) :)
I don’t trust people who are past the age of 15 and still obsessed with The Beatles
I don’t trust people who are past the age of 15 and still obsessed with The Beatles
burn!
burn!
You know what else, FS, once we reach a quaint old age of 24, or say, whatever the fuck age you are, y’ rusty old anonymous, we should leave behind other childish things, like love, enthusiasm, joy, peace, understanding, harmony, idealism. Fuck the lot of it, right?! I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t kill him or herself once past the age of 15.
You know what else, FS, once we reach a quaint old age of 24, or say, whatever the fuck age you are, y’ rusty old anonymous, we should leave behind other childish things, like love, enthusiasm, joy, peace, understanding, harmony, idealism. Fuck the lot of it, right?! I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t kill him or herself once past the age of 15.
They are the same people who, in ten years, will be telling everyone how U2 was the greatest band of all time.
They are the same people who, in ten years, will be telling everyone how U2 was the greatest band of all time.
Love is for kids, FS. We get bitterness, pretense, anonymity, small talk, desperate claims for power, desperate grabs for happiness, settling, growing silent, growing cold, and mountains of bullshit. Enjoy it, sweet one.
Love is for kids, FS. We get bitterness, pretense, anonymity, small talk, desperate claims for power, desperate grabs for happiness, settling, growing silent, growing cold, and mountains of bullshit. Enjoy it, sweet one.
You sound really bitter, maybe you need to listen to a song about an Octopus Garden to experience love again.
Let me know when even Radiohead isn’t cool anymore, FS. Is that in 10 years? I’m sure there’ll be shitstains around to enforce that in 10 yrs. time. Maybe that’s already happened. Are there any good smelly kids screaming in mics and smashing guitars in basements i should check out… or maybe a 14-piece from Manitoba playing violins and coke bottles while decked out like Russian peasants from the 1600s? Keep me informed, FS.
You sound really bitter, maybe you need to listen to a song about an Octopus Garden to experience love again.
Let me know when even Radiohead isn’t cool anymore, FS. Is that in 10 years? I’m sure there’ll be shitstains around to enforce that in 10 yrs. time. Maybe that’s already happened. Are there any good smelly kids screaming in mics and smashing guitars in basements i should check out… or maybe a 14-piece from Manitoba playing violins and coke bottles while decked out like Russian peasants from the 1600s? Keep me informed, FS.
Talk about a Bloody Sunday!
Talk about a Bloody Sunday!
You sound like pretense wrapped in bullshit, FS. I’m violently sick of both.
You sound like pretense wrapped in bullshit, FS. I’m violently sick of both.
I nominate Stephen for the most ironic post of the day!
I nominate Stephen for the most ironic post of the day!
can’t believe i let myself get into another flame war. oh well… congratulations, FS. it’s funny you compare me to a 15 yr. old because i graduated from your general viewpoint years ago. i think of myself as post-hipster. it’s much happier here.
I’m the same – I’m usually skipping around a couple of novels, a short story collection and a handful of poetry collections at any given time.
Also, Hank, I’m not sure to whose use of the word ‘book’ you’re responding, but, purely conjecturally, it’s possible that they might have been using it in the sense of ‘product / delivery method’ rather than ‘concept/content’.
I dunno. For me, even the way I think about the word ‘book’ as non-product is as a conceptual body (I know how this sounds, but bear with me) which can be composed of a group of works just as well as it can be a single story or long-form poem or whatever. Even if the stories in a collection are apparently unrelated or unlinked, they’re still connected by the fact of their inclusion in that collection no matter how much you skip about out of story order or between different books. They interact, and that’s what gives you the overall outcome or impression.
Also: if you’re like me and everyone I know, you’ll spend most of your music-listening time using the shuffle function on the mp3 player/software of your choice. I’m constantly skipping around between a whole multitude of albums, but I can still form a judgement on those albums individually. That said, the judgement might be slightly different (in the case of some albums) if/when I listen to an entire album in sequence, which I guess could raise other interesting questions about Things and Stuff.
can’t believe i let myself get into another flame war. oh well… congratulations, FS. it’s funny you compare me to a 15 yr. old because i graduated from your general viewpoint years ago. i think of myself as post-hipster. it’s much happier here.
I’m the same – I’m usually skipping around a couple of novels, a short story collection and a handful of poetry collections at any given time.
Also, Hank, I’m not sure to whose use of the word ‘book’ you’re responding, but, purely conjecturally, it’s possible that they might have been using it in the sense of ‘product / delivery method’ rather than ‘concept/content’.
I dunno. For me, even the way I think about the word ‘book’ as non-product is as a conceptual body (I know how this sounds, but bear with me) which can be composed of a group of works just as well as it can be a single story or long-form poem or whatever. Even if the stories in a collection are apparently unrelated or unlinked, they’re still connected by the fact of their inclusion in that collection no matter how much you skip about out of story order or between different books. They interact, and that’s what gives you the overall outcome or impression.
Also: if you’re like me and everyone I know, you’ll spend most of your music-listening time using the shuffle function on the mp3 player/software of your choice. I’m constantly skipping around between a whole multitude of albums, but I can still form a judgement on those albums individually. That said, the judgement might be slightly different (in the case of some albums) if/when I listen to an entire album in sequence, which I guess could raise other interesting questions about Things and Stuff.
so it’s pretentious to earnestly like a band from your childhood to your adulthood. but it’s not pretentious to dismiss the most successful, most critically-praised musical artists EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH? just think about that for a second.
so it’s pretentious to earnestly like a band from your childhood to your adulthood. but it’s not pretentious to dismiss the most successful, most critically-praised musical artists EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH? just think about that for a second.
This guy is obsessed with Avatar too, isn’t he?
This guy is obsessed with Avatar too, isn’t he?
Poor Motzart and Beethoven, how the mighty have fallen :(
no one can help you, FS. i haven’t seen avatar. anything else you’re wrong about?
Poor Motzart and Beethoven, how the mighty have fallen :(
no one can help you, FS. i haven’t seen avatar. anything else you’re wrong about?
You haven’t seen THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MOVIE IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH!??!
What kind of pretentious bullshit hipster anti-love destroyer of all things good Satantic worshiper are you? Too busy sacrificing lambs while reading Brandon Scott Gorrell poems while wearing New Kids on the Block gear ironically to watch the greatest and most critically acclaimed director of all time bring love and magic to the world for a mere 10 dollars a pop?
You haven’t seen THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MOVIE IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH!??!
What kind of pretentious bullshit hipster anti-love destroyer of all things good Satantic worshiper are you? Too busy sacrificing lambs while reading Brandon Scott Gorrell poems while wearing New Kids on the Block gear ironically to watch the greatest and most critically acclaimed director of all time bring love and magic to the world for a mere 10 dollars a pop?
you make such great points, FS. i’m an individual. i make decisions. some of them are thought out. some of them are random. i’m sure there are all kinds of possible reasons i didn’t see avatar, but none of them is “i’m too good for this shit.” i’ll probably see it, eventually. it’s just “not really my thing.” has nothing to do with it being cool or not. i’m sure zillions of hipsters saw avatar.
i am in a grumpy mood momentarily, but really i only fight back so violently because you’re attacking my favorite group, who stood for nothing other than love. and you can laugh at that all you want, but it’s one thing i cling to quite earnestly, and i find it hard to read even random internet fucks desecrate that.
you make such great points, FS. i’m an individual. i make decisions. some of them are thought out. some of them are random. i’m sure there are all kinds of possible reasons i didn’t see avatar, but none of them is “i’m too good for this shit.” i’ll probably see it, eventually. it’s just “not really my thing.” has nothing to do with it being cool or not. i’m sure zillions of hipsters saw avatar.
i am in a grumpy mood momentarily, but really i only fight back so violently because you’re attacking my favorite group, who stood for nothing other than love. and you can laugh at that all you want, but it’s one thing i cling to quite earnestly, and i find it hard to read even random internet fucks desecrate that.
I actually only listen to albums as albums. I like the structure of it and how if I’ve listened to an album enough times, then I can almost hear the next song as the one playing is ending. Even with the music software I use on the computer, I usually only listen to albums as albums, but not always. Sometimes I listen to a song via YouTube and only listen to that song for days on end.
It’s kind of a different thing, but did you know that the DVD’s of David Lynch’s movies aren’t separated into chapters? It’s because he believes his movies should be seen in a certain order. Sometimes this is frustrating (like the time I rented “Mulholland Drive,” and the disc was defective — on any other DVD it would have skipped to the next chapter when it got to the defective part of the DVD, but this time it skipped to the end, past the credits, since there were no chapters), but I think it is an interesting take on things.
They stood for nothing but love like Wall Street Bankers stand for nothing but love.
I actually only listen to albums as albums. I like the structure of it and how if I’ve listened to an album enough times, then I can almost hear the next song as the one playing is ending. Even with the music software I use on the computer, I usually only listen to albums as albums, but not always. Sometimes I listen to a song via YouTube and only listen to that song for days on end.
It’s kind of a different thing, but did you know that the DVD’s of David Lynch’s movies aren’t separated into chapters? It’s because he believes his movies should be seen in a certain order. Sometimes this is frustrating (like the time I rented “Mulholland Drive,” and the disc was defective — on any other DVD it would have skipped to the next chapter when it got to the defective part of the DVD, but this time it skipped to the end, past the credits, since there were no chapters), but I think it is an interesting take on things.
They stood for nothing but love like Wall Street Bankers stand for nothing but love.
being popular and making money doesn’t necessarily change the validity of your emotions or your message, and certainly not in the Beatles’ case.
well, this was embarrassing and stupid…. i need to gain greater self-control + find a new girlfriend…. peace and love, yall
being popular and making money doesn’t necessarily change the validity of your emotions or your message, and certainly not in the Beatles’ case.
well, this was embarrassing and stupid…. i need to gain greater self-control + find a new girlfriend…. peace and love, yall
“You say you want a revolution
well you know
social justice is cool and all
unless it hurts our bank accounts!”
“You say you want a revolution
well you know
social justice is cool and all
unless it hurts our bank accounts!”
There is the option of simply ceasing to reply. The pros outweigh the cons
There is the option of simply ceasing to reply. The pros outweigh the cons
One of my all-time favorites is Winesburg, Ohio, which is a wonderful collection of intertwined and overlapping stories, stories that stand equally well on their own or all together as a cohesive whole. This does not answer the original question posted.
So………
When asked a rhetorical question in the form: But why do _____________s have to be ____________? I usually answer : They don’t.
One of my all-time favorites is Winesburg, Ohio, which is a wonderful collection of intertwined and overlapping stories, stories that stand equally well on their own or all together as a cohesive whole. This does not answer the original question posted.
So………
When asked a rhetorical question in the form: But why do _____________s have to be ____________? I usually answer : They don’t.
To corrupt the universe, is the only answer worth giving
To corrupt the universe, is the only answer worth giving
Mary Miller said people critique Big World (one of my fav books, actually) because it sounds like the same character.
Another writer told me two days ago that people critique her SS book because, “It sounds like a different person wrote each story.”
(Her reply is, “That’s on purpose.”)
Mary Miller said people critique Big World (one of my fav books, actually) because it sounds like the same character.
Another writer told me two days ago that people critique her SS book because, “It sounds like a different person wrote each story.”
(Her reply is, “That’s on purpose.”)
when there’s a book called “a novel in stories,” i always think it might as well say “a novel in chapters.”
i would say that same thing about the mary miller book, but not in a bad way. i mean, the characters do sound the same from story to story (i think i remember a couple exceptions), but why is that bad? or, why would it be a critique? it was still pleasant to read each story. if each story was ‘the same,’ then that would be a more understandable critique.
when there’s a book called “a novel in stories,” i always think it might as well say “a novel in chapters.”
i would say that same thing about the mary miller book, but not in a bad way. i mean, the characters do sound the same from story to story (i think i remember a couple exceptions), but why is that bad? or, why would it be a critique? it was still pleasant to read each story. if each story was ‘the same,’ then that would be a more understandable critique.
Winesburg is an absolute classic. And there’s lots of “novels in stories” that work despite the dubious branding. Tim O’Brien’s The Things We Carried is the big one and more contemporary examples are Rebecca Barry’s Later, At the Bar and Cathy Day’s Circus in Winter. Russel Banks’ Trailerpark isn’t half bad if I’m remembering it correctly.
On the flip side, when “novels in stories” fail, they really kind of fall apart. Maybe it’s because editors force there to be connections in stories where there shouldn’t be any at all?
Winesburg is an absolute classic. And there’s lots of “novels in stories” that work despite the dubious branding. Tim O’Brien’s The Things We Carried is the big one and more contemporary examples are Rebecca Barry’s Later, At the Bar and Cathy Day’s Circus in Winter. Russel Banks’ Trailerpark isn’t half bad if I’m remembering it correctly.
On the flip side, when “novels in stories” fail, they really kind of fall apart. Maybe it’s because editors force there to be connections in stories where there shouldn’t be any at all?
SMALL POSTS GET THE MOST COMMENTS BECAUSE WRITERS AND READERS ARE OBSESSED WITH ABSENCE.
WAIT HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO READ THIS BLOG ARE “JUST READERS”?
SMALL POSTS GET THE MOST COMMENTS BECAUSE WRITERS AND READERS ARE OBSESSED WITH ABSENCE.
WAIT HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO READ THIS BLOG ARE “JUST READERS”?
I like it when the stories are all over the place and yet still feel connected by a logic I can’t quite grasp. The Wavering Knife has some of that going on, for me — they’re all Evenson stories, but so many are so different from each other.
I like it when the stories are all over the place and yet still feel connected by a logic I can’t quite grasp. The Wavering Knife has some of that going on, for me — they’re all Evenson stories, but so many are so different from each other.
i don’t trust people who don’t love mary miller, the southern beetle [sic].
i don’t trust people who don’t love mary miller, the southern beetle [sic].
the novel-in-stories is its own beast–always has been–and should be considered as such.
some great examples have already been given: winesburg ohio being my favorite. but also the street of crocodiles by bruno schulz, the rainbow stories by william vollmann, the wanderers by richard price, go down moses by william faulkner, dubliners by james joyce.
it’s not a recent trend by any means.
the novel-in-stories is its own beast–always has been–and should be considered as such.
some great examples have already been given: winesburg ohio being my favorite. but also the street of crocodiles by bruno schulz, the rainbow stories by william vollmann, the wanderers by richard price, go down moses by william faulkner, dubliners by james joyce.
it’s not a recent trend by any means.
“I like it when the stories are all over the place and yet still feel connected by a logic I can’t quite grasp.”
i really like this. i think some of my favorite collections could be described this way. for a collection to build up its own sense of logic, i think, means that the author has a vision, something that unifies their writing, makes each story a part of a whole.
“I like it when the stories are all over the place and yet still feel connected by a logic I can’t quite grasp.”
i really like this. i think some of my favorite collections could be described this way. for a collection to build up its own sense of logic, i think, means that the author has a vision, something that unifies their writing, makes each story a part of a whole.
i wouldn’t call “dubliners” a novel-in-stories. nor does the publisher or the author. yes, it’s unified and cohesive, but it’s not a novel-in-stories. the characters change from story to story, there’s variety, etc. even if one could call it a novel-in-stories, i don’t see why one should, or why the publisher should. it just shows that you don’t trust your readership or you’re insecure about putting it out there as “dubliners,” no more or less.
i wouldn’t call “dubliners” a novel-in-stories. nor does the publisher or the author. yes, it’s unified and cohesive, but it’s not a novel-in-stories. the characters change from story to story, there’s variety, etc. even if one could call it a novel-in-stories, i don’t see why one should, or why the publisher should. it just shows that you don’t trust your readership or you’re insecure about putting it out there as “dubliners,” no more or less.
that last sentence isn’t very factual, sorry, hehe.. let me try again: i think it’s ‘OK’ to just title it “dubliners” and leave it at that, and it feels good to me for it to just be that. i think readers can ‘handle’ it that way, and some will ‘appreciate’ that you’re not beating them over the head with the fact that ‘these stories are linked, thematically, and shit.’
that last sentence isn’t very factual, sorry, hehe.. let me try again: i think it’s ‘OK’ to just title it “dubliners” and leave it at that, and it feels good to me for it to just be that. i think readers can ‘handle’ it that way, and some will ‘appreciate’ that you’re not beating them over the head with the fact that ‘these stories are linked, thematically, and shit.’
i don’t know of anyone in the ‘olden days’ literally using the term ‘novel-in-stories’ on a jacket or in promotional copy. i have no way of proving this, but that is my ‘understanding.’ i honestly think it’s just a function of the Biz being insecure about short story collections. as a marketing device, ‘i see where they’re coming from, but i think they’re misguided.’ from an artistic perspective, i don’t understand why authors would want their collection of stories/whatevers to be called a ‘novel-in-stories.’ feels like the least cool possible type of book to put out (i know these thoughts are sort of random/juvenile, but i don’t care).
i don’t know of anyone in the ‘olden days’ literally using the term ‘novel-in-stories’ on a jacket or in promotional copy. i have no way of proving this, but that is my ‘understanding.’ i honestly think it’s just a function of the Biz being insecure about short story collections. as a marketing device, ‘i see where they’re coming from, but i think they’re misguided.’ from an artistic perspective, i don’t understand why authors would want their collection of stories/whatevers to be called a ‘novel-in-stories.’ feels like the least cool possible type of book to put out (i know these thoughts are sort of random/juvenile, but i don’t care).
stephen, i’m glad you commented here, because i debated whether or not to include dubliners on my list. but, i think, w/r/t dubliners, it comes back to the idea of place.
if all of the stories in a collection center around a certain place, i’m more inclined to think of that collection as a novel-in-stories. other elements need to be taken into consideration as well: era of time, tone, dialect, similar or overlapping themes.
i think dubliners has all of these elements in place. i guess i don’t really care what the publisher says it is, or what joyce thought it was. it’s out there for readers and critics to figure it out.
stephen, i’m glad you commented here, because i debated whether or not to include dubliners on my list. but, i think, w/r/t dubliners, it comes back to the idea of place.
if all of the stories in a collection center around a certain place, i’m more inclined to think of that collection as a novel-in-stories. other elements need to be taken into consideration as well: era of time, tone, dialect, similar or overlapping themes.
i think dubliners has all of these elements in place. i guess i don’t really care what the publisher says it is, or what joyce thought it was. it’s out there for readers and critics to figure it out.
man yall r obsessed w/ this joyce chick
man yall r obsessed w/ this joyce chick
“Dubliners”, like “Portrait of the Artist…”, has a chronology, a progression from childhood to maturity, that gives it its cohesiveness as a collection of stories.
The chapters of “Portrait…” could possibly stand alone as stories, or conversely, “Portrait…” could be considered a novel-in-stories. (I’d have to look at it again from that perspective.)
“Dubliners”, like “Portrait of the Artist…”, has a chronology, a progression from childhood to maturity, that gives it its cohesiveness as a collection of stories.
The chapters of “Portrait…” could possibly stand alone as stories, or conversely, “Portrait…” could be considered a novel-in-stories. (I’d have to look at it again from that perspective.)
i feel you on that, david, thanks. you make good points. it can certainly be thought of as a “novel-in-stories.”
[insert segue here]
in some ways, i think it’s intriguing to think of “brief interviews with hideous men” as a “novel-in-stories” or at least as a “unified work, not a ‘singles collection,'” to use music parlance.”
i feel you on that, david, thanks. you make good points. it can certainly be thought of as a “novel-in-stories.”
[insert segue here]
in some ways, i think it’s intriguing to think of “brief interviews with hideous men” as a “novel-in-stories” or at least as a “unified work, not a ‘singles collection,'” to use music parlance.”
and, as it happens, “brief interviews with hideous men” has no directions on its cover vis-a-vis ‘what it is,’ which seems appropriate and attractive. obviously, whatever the author wants seems to be a logical policy with that. if an author likes “novel-in-stories,” OK.
What a coincidence. I am reading “Brief Interviews….” right now and am totally enthralled.
and, as it happens, “brief interviews with hideous men” has no directions on its cover vis-a-vis ‘what it is,’ which seems appropriate and attractive. obviously, whatever the author wants seems to be a logical policy with that. if an author likes “novel-in-stories,” OK.
What a coincidence. I am reading “Brief Interviews….” right now and am totally enthralled.
sweet, mimi. i really enjoyed it.
sweet, mimi. i really enjoyed it.
‘interestingly,’ Ulysses, the novel of novels, in some people’s opinion, including mine, has the greatest disjunction (in terms of prose style, approach, etc.) between sections or chapters or stories, what-have-you, of all his books
‘interestingly,’ Ulysses, the novel of novels, in some people’s opinion, including mine, has the greatest disjunction (in terms of prose style, approach, etc.) between sections or chapters or stories, what-have-you, of all his books
that is part of its appeal for me. (i dig spare novels in a consistent style too).
that is part of its appeal for me. (i dig spare novels in a consistent style too).
“Ulysses” – disjunction of style – yes. But still, it takes place in Dublin and has chronology – over the course of a day.
Novel of novels? Yep. Along with “Lolita”, a few others. Can’t think right now. Must leave for work. Would rather stay home, read, think and feel.
:(
“Ulysses” – disjunction of style – yes. But still, it takes place in Dublin and has chronology – over the course of a day.
Novel of novels? Yep. Along with “Lolita”, a few others. Can’t think right now. Must leave for work. Would rather stay home, read, think and feel.
:(
and finnegans wake, seemingly chaotic and unreadable, is the most cohesive novel imaginable, practically (i’ll stop ;)
and finnegans wake, seemingly chaotic and unreadable, is the most cohesive novel imaginable, practically (i’ll stop ;)
yall read “cronopios and famas” by julio cortazar? that one is connected, but not a novel-in-stories, in my opinion, and very sweet. in a way, it’s the same ‘breed’ as “brief interviews..”—there is a linked series of stories related to the title, but then there is play and back-alleys…
yall read “cronopios and famas” by julio cortazar? that one is connected, but not a novel-in-stories, in my opinion, and very sweet. in a way, it’s the same ‘breed’ as “brief interviews..”—there is a linked series of stories related to the title, but then there is play and back-alleys…
you continue to seem sweet, mimi. cheers
you continue to seem sweet, mimi. cheers
I like what Stephen is saying here re: not naming a thing beyond its title on the cover. I’ve always hated the “A Novel” affixed to everything. I assume it helps to sell copies, so if some publisher really wanted to do it for that reason I guess I would let them — not the hugest deal in the world — but generally it seems idiotic to worry I won’t understand a novel is a novel, or that poems are poems, or collected stories are collected stories. And what if they weren’t? What if there was an opportunity for me to discover that something was not a novel, or that it was not a collection of stories but a novel-in-stories, or whatever? Seems like a mistake to close off that avenue. Scorch Atlas isn’t a novel in stories, though it could be/has been called that (I think). It’s a Scorch Atlas. I like that this is all the cover says.
I like what Stephen is saying here re: not naming a thing beyond its title on the cover. I’ve always hated the “A Novel” affixed to everything. I assume it helps to sell copies, so if some publisher really wanted to do it for that reason I guess I would let them — not the hugest deal in the world — but generally it seems idiotic to worry I won’t understand a novel is a novel, or that poems are poems, or collected stories are collected stories. And what if they weren’t? What if there was an opportunity for me to discover that something was not a novel, or that it was not a collection of stories but a novel-in-stories, or whatever? Seems like a mistake to close off that avenue. Scorch Atlas isn’t a novel in stories, though it could be/has been called that (I think). It’s a Scorch Atlas. I like that this is all the cover says.
How long did it take you to read Ulysses, stephen and mimi? I’ve been considering making it a summer project but I don’t know if I’m being hopelessly unrealistic or something.
Is it a bit like reading things in foreign languages or Middle English where you go much slower than usual to begin with but kind of ‘click’ into it and pick up the pace?
How long did it take you to read Ulysses, stephen and mimi? I’ve been considering making it a summer project but I don’t know if I’m being hopelessly unrealistic or something.
Is it a bit like reading things in foreign languages or Middle English where you go much slower than usual to begin with but kind of ‘click’ into it and pick up the pace?
I’ve honestly never seen that many books with ‘A Novel’ written on their cover (and I’ve never, ever knowingly come across one labelled a ‘novel-in-stories’). I think it’s only really very common to see that in the UK with collections of ‘Stories by’ and ‘Poems by’. Then again, perhaps my mind has been blanking such covers out to protect me from the terrible reality of the world.
I don’t know how many people there are who would appreciate buying a book only to realise that it isn’t X, as they had hoped, but is in fact Y. That appeals to people who enjoy writing and literature in general, but not everyone likes (or thinks he/she likes) poetry, or short stories, or whatever else. I suspect that consumers tend not to enjoy surprises, unless the surprise is that they’re getting something extra in addition to what they’d bargained for. It seems very unlikely that the standard consumer is an idiot, but they’ve adapted to a market which tends to treat them like they’re straddling the dividing line.
I’ve honestly never seen that many books with ‘A Novel’ written on their cover (and I’ve never, ever knowingly come across one labelled a ‘novel-in-stories’). I think it’s only really very common to see that in the UK with collections of ‘Stories by’ and ‘Poems by’. Then again, perhaps my mind has been blanking such covers out to protect me from the terrible reality of the world.
I don’t know how many people there are who would appreciate buying a book only to realise that it isn’t X, as they had hoped, but is in fact Y. That appeals to people who enjoy writing and literature in general, but not everyone likes (or thinks he/she likes) poetry, or short stories, or whatever else. I suspect that consumers tend not to enjoy surprises, unless the surprise is that they’re getting something extra in addition to what they’d bargained for. It seems very unlikely that the standard consumer is an idiot, but they’ve adapted to a market which tends to treat them like they’re straddling the dividing line.
Ouch. Cortàzar would not be happy with that comparison.
Ouch. Cortàzar would not be happy with that comparison.
hey donald! we spent the better part of a semester on it in my james joyce seminar in college (which is the best class i’ve ever taken). was with the incomparable prof. richard begam at wisconsin (shout outs to begam! who i’m sure totally reads htmlgiant, heh…. also shout outs to prof. cyrena pondrom for modernist poetry class, also top-notch).
it is “kind of” like what you describe, i guess… actually, no, reading “finnegans wake” is like reading a foreign language or middle english. reading “ulysses” is like reading a novel mixed with avant-garde poetry mixed with news reports mixed with other things.
hey donald! we spent the better part of a semester on it in my james joyce seminar in college (which is the best class i’ve ever taken). was with the incomparable prof. richard begam at wisconsin (shout outs to begam! who i’m sure totally reads htmlgiant, heh…. also shout outs to prof. cyrena pondrom for modernist poetry class, also top-notch).
it is “kind of” like what you describe, i guess… actually, no, reading “finnegans wake” is like reading a foreign language or middle english. reading “ulysses” is like reading a novel mixed with avant-garde poetry mixed with news reports mixed with other things.
have you asked him?
have you asked him?
i mean, i prefer “cronopios and famas” to “brief interviews,” i think it conveys more to me with less, but it’s still a valid comparison in my book. no need to be snotty. you may as well adjust to the canonization of wallace, there’s nothing you can do about it.
i mean, i prefer “cronopios and famas” to “brief interviews,” i think it conveys more to me with less, but it’s still a valid comparison in my book. no need to be snotty. you may as well adjust to the canonization of wallace, there’s nothing you can do about it.
J.C. died on the day I was born, so I just take it for granted that I am a medium for him to speak through.
J.C. died on the day I was born, so I just take it for granted that I am a medium for him to speak through.
I see “a novel” constantly. Sometimes it’s a useful part of the title — my professor Dan Barden wrote one called John Wayne: A Novel and I thought that there the “A Novel” was meaningful and useful because of how it modifies the title/persona/object “John Wayne.”
In general though how many people buy a book without opening it up and flipping through it enough to discern its genre? That seems extremely unlikely if they’re the sort to get upset when it’s the “wrong” thing.
I see “a novel” constantly. Sometimes it’s a useful part of the title — my professor Dan Barden wrote one called John Wayne: A Novel and I thought that there the “A Novel” was meaningful and useful because of how it modifies the title/persona/object “John Wayne.”
In general though how many people buy a book without opening it up and flipping through it enough to discern its genre? That seems extremely unlikely if they’re the sort to get upset when it’s the “wrong” thing.
Do you think, stephen? I’m a huge wallace fan, and I mean he has affected my emotions and my thoughts in a way that only like 2-3 other authors have, but sometimes as I re-read his stuff I find myself questioning how much of it is going to appeal to people in, say, 10-20 years. Maybe I’m just overfamiliar with all of it by now, but take for example Good Old Neon. During my first read of that a few years ago, I was pretty much destroyed by it. I thought it was incredible. But on rereading that same feeling didn’t seem to be consistently there (although there’s that sentence about high-beams and seeing clearly that I thought was still fucking incredible). I don’t know. There will always be parts of IJ that are flat-out badass incredible, though, so I guess that will always appeal. I don’t know, maybe I am focusing too closely on the guy’s flaws.
Do you think, stephen? I’m a huge wallace fan, and I mean he has affected my emotions and my thoughts in a way that only like 2-3 other authors have, but sometimes as I re-read his stuff I find myself questioning how much of it is going to appeal to people in, say, 10-20 years. Maybe I’m just overfamiliar with all of it by now, but take for example Good Old Neon. During my first read of that a few years ago, I was pretty much destroyed by it. I thought it was incredible. But on rereading that same feeling didn’t seem to be consistently there (although there’s that sentence about high-beams and seeing clearly that I thought was still fucking incredible). I don’t know. There will always be parts of IJ that are flat-out badass incredible, though, so I guess that will always appeal. I don’t know, maybe I am focusing too closely on the guy’s flaws.
A theme makes the collection easier to talk about, easier to imagine things about, easier to interest people in, easier to sell.
Otherwise you’re just “it’s a bunch of stories by this really great writer,” and that, honestly, isn’t enough for some people. Even if the writer has juicy blurbs and an MFA.
One might find the theme after one collects the stories. Someone other than the author might be better suited to divining the hidden theme. The discovery of the theme might even be a source of insight into how to improve the stories.
But if the stories have nothing at all in common, you’ll have nothing to say when people ask you “what is this book about?”
A theme makes the collection easier to talk about, easier to imagine things about, easier to interest people in, easier to sell.
Otherwise you’re just “it’s a bunch of stories by this really great writer,” and that, honestly, isn’t enough for some people. Even if the writer has juicy blurbs and an MFA.
One might find the theme after one collects the stories. Someone other than the author might be better suited to divining the hidden theme. The discovery of the theme might even be a source of insight into how to improve the stories.
But if the stories have nothing at all in common, you’ll have nothing to say when people ask you “what is this book about?”
“a novel” on the cover is extremely common. You probably just haven’t noticed it?
I just looked through the most recent stack of books I’ve been sent for review and literally every single novel has “a novel” on the cover (and for what its worth the rest were all labeled as well as “selected poems” “stories” or what not)
“a novel” on the cover is extremely common. You probably just haven’t noticed it?
I just looked through the most recent stack of books I’ve been sent for review and literally every single novel has “a novel” on the cover (and for what its worth the rest were all labeled as well as “selected poems” “stories” or what not)
Now I’m glancing through most established books (Thomas Bernhard, Roberto Bolano, Robert Coover, Sam Lipsyte, etc.) and they virtually all have “a novel” somewhere on the cover as well.
Now I’m glancing through most established books (Thomas Bernhard, Roberto Bolano, Robert Coover, Sam Lipsyte, etc.) and they virtually all have “a novel” somewhere on the cover as well.
who knows, of course, but the way that prominent authors talk about him and the way academic conferences devoted to him are popping up left and right, and the way the internet talks about him, the way his work intersects with so much of the philosophical tradition as well as the literary tradition, etc. etc., i think DFW isn’t going anywhere.
plus, i mean, if anyone was going to be remembered from 85-2008, wouldn’t it be him? if you could only pick one writer who started during that period, roughly speaking? of course there are other writers from that rough period who are very popular and sell lots of copies and get talked about a lot (kind of funny to picture “Franzen Studies,” hehehehehe…..), but I think DFW has that elusive X-factor, moreso than anyone else (and yes, quite frankly, his suicide has put his name back on everyone’s lips and his work on their minds, but that is what it is).
who knows, of course, but the way that prominent authors talk about him and the way academic conferences devoted to him are popping up left and right, and the way the internet talks about him, the way his work intersects with so much of the philosophical tradition as well as the literary tradition, etc. etc., i think DFW isn’t going anywhere.
plus, i mean, if anyone was going to be remembered from 85-2008, wouldn’t it be him? if you could only pick one writer who started during that period, roughly speaking? of course there are other writers from that rough period who are very popular and sell lots of copies and get talked about a lot (kind of funny to picture “Franzen Studies,” hehehehehe…..), but I think DFW has that elusive X-factor, moreso than anyone else (and yes, quite frankly, his suicide has put his name back on everyone’s lips and his work on their minds, but that is what it is).
I am really fond of ‘concept album’-style collections. Some day, when I develop my fiction-writing chops, I’d like to make one.
I am really fond of ‘concept album’-style collections. Some day, when I develop my fiction-writing chops, I’d like to make one.
but aren’t the “best” books not “about” anything at all?
but aren’t the “best” books not “about” anything at all?
I think you are thinking about Seinfeld episodes
If I had to bet on any one writer from that period surviving, then my money’s on Anne Carson. If it’s only Americans, then I would have to at least think about Vollmann.
I just went back and reread ‘Here and There’ from GWCH. Even recognizing that this is far from one of DFW’s signature stories, I am more hopeful that he’ll stand the test of time. There was lots of raw power there. Maybe I just got too close, too obsessed maybe, with the work. I’ve stayed away from him for a few weeks now.
I think you are thinking about Seinfeld episodes
If I had to bet on any one writer from that period surviving, then my money’s on Anne Carson. If it’s only Americans, then I would have to at least think about Vollmann.
I just went back and reread ‘Here and There’ from GWCH. Even recognizing that this is far from one of DFW’s signature stories, I am more hopeful that he’ll stand the test of time. There was lots of raw power there. Maybe I just got too close, too obsessed maybe, with the work. I’ve stayed away from him for a few weeks now.
Agreed, Wallace seems most likely to head to “the canon” from writers of his era.
I like Vollmann, but not many people even read him now and his profile amongst the culture is tiny compared to Wallace.
Agreed, Wallace seems most likely to head to “the canon” from writers of his era.
I like Vollmann, but not many people even read him now and his profile amongst the culture is tiny compared to Wallace.
hey lincoln, sorry if i was an asshole yesterday, by the by (just joined a Excessive Commenters Anonymous group and a Single Man’s Anger Anonymous group and a Damn, Still Dig This Shit From My Childhood, Does That Mean I’m Consistent Or Immature Or Life Is Cyclical Or Like What The Fuck Dude? Anonymous group.) thx 4 all ur work with things lit-like, lincoln, and all that.
In poetry, though, Lowell and Berryman once had similar ‘cultural profiles.’ Their shine would seem to be fading some. The tastes [ie I mean who they largely choose to read] of contemp-lit readers can be really fickle, as times passes.
hey lincoln, sorry if i was an asshole yesterday, by the by (just joined a Excessive Commenters Anonymous group and a Single Man’s Anger Anonymous group and a Damn, Still Dig This Shit From My Childhood, Does That Mean I’m Consistent Or Immature Or Life Is Cyclical Or Like What The Fuck Dude? Anonymous group.) thx 4 all ur work with things lit-like, lincoln, and all that.
In poetry, though, Lowell and Berryman once had similar ‘cultural profiles.’ Their shine would seem to be fading some. The tastes [ie I mean who they largely choose to read] of contemp-lit readers can be really fickle, as times passes.
“an* Excessive…” (also just joined a Compulsive Editors, Even On Da Interwebs Group)
“an* Excessive…” (also just joined a Compulsive Editors, Even On Da Interwebs Group)
no problem dude. just joshing around here, though I do think that most books are about things (unless you meant story collections not being about something as a whole, in which case I agree most great collections are not)
no problem dude. just joshing around here, though I do think that most books are about things (unless you meant story collections not being about something as a whole, in which case I agree most great collections are not)
i think i was just making my umpteenth reference around these parts to the beckett quote about joyce’s books not being about something but the thing itself, but i left the quote out this time, except not, because now….. heh…
i think i was just making my umpteenth reference around these parts to the beckett quote about joyce’s books not being about something but the thing itself, but i left the quote out this time, except not, because now….. heh…
Fog
Fog
is there literally fog or are you voicing your vague disapproval in an obscure way?
is there literally fog or are you voicing your vague disapproval in an obscure way?
Oh no, much more weak/truckle than that.
I’m trying to work a year long campaign of people wanting to read about fog.
http://www.publishinggenius.com/2010/03/publishing-genius-to-release-fox.html
Oh no, much more weak/truckle than that.
I’m trying to work a year long campaign of people wanting to read about fog.
http://www.publishinggenius.com/2010/03/publishing-genius-to-release-fox.html
Huh, how odd. I just looked through my bookshelves and only a couple of them have that on the cover. Then again, I charityshopped a lot of my old books recently so my collection is relatively small now — around 150 or so. Also, many of the books on my shelves are ‘classics’ (or at least established books, to use your phrase) and published pre-1960, so I guess the publishers might not think it necessary, assuming that everyone will know about the titles anyway.
Huh, how odd. I just looked through my bookshelves and only a couple of them have that on the cover. Then again, I charityshopped a lot of my old books recently so my collection is relatively small now — around 150 or so. Also, many of the books on my shelves are ‘classics’ (or at least established books, to use your phrase) and published pre-1960, so I guess the publishers might not think it necessary, assuming that everyone will know about the titles anyway.
Ah, the classics might be the key. once a book is famous enough that anyone buying it knows what it is, they probably stop putting “a novel” on the cover. But for new releases I think it is pretty universal, at least today.
Ah, the classics might be the key. once a book is famous enough that anyone buying it knows what it is, they probably stop putting “a novel” on the cover. But for new releases I think it is pretty universal, at least today.
@Donald-
It took me about two months to read “Ulysses”. I was determined to get through it, and I made an academic exercise of reading it. (I was working 40 hours a week at the time; I was otherwise unencumbered.) Every evening I would read for an hour or two, with “Ulysses Annotated: Notes for James Joyce’s Ulysses by Don Gifford” and a good dictionary by my side. I read very methodically, I read every note, in order, as I read the text, and I looked up every word I didn’t know (which was a lot of ’em). This is the only time I’ve ever made such an academic exercise out of reading something outside of being enrolled in a class. I am glad I did it, and I am a better reader now for it. Also, it was not so difficult once I got into it. I developed a “rhythm” and “momentum”. I started to “get” Joyce.
So I say “Go for it!”
PS – I read Ulysses before I read “Dubliners” and “Portrait….” (!!!)
I have yet to read Finnegan’s Wake.
@Donald-
It took me about two months to read “Ulysses”. I was determined to get through it, and I made an academic exercise of reading it. (I was working 40 hours a week at the time; I was otherwise unencumbered.) Every evening I would read for an hour or two, with “Ulysses Annotated: Notes for James Joyce’s Ulysses by Don Gifford” and a good dictionary by my side. I read very methodically, I read every note, in order, as I read the text, and I looked up every word I didn’t know (which was a lot of ’em). This is the only time I’ve ever made such an academic exercise out of reading something outside of being enrolled in a class. I am glad I did it, and I am a better reader now for it. Also, it was not so difficult once I got into it. I developed a “rhythm” and “momentum”. I started to “get” Joyce.
So I say “Go for it!”
PS – I read Ulysses before I read “Dubliners” and “Portrait….” (!!!)
I have yet to read Finnegan’s Wake.
“Publishing Genius is excited to announce that Fog Gorgeous Stag, by Sean Lovelace, will be published in the first part of 2011. Lovelace describes the book as “micro-fiction/poetry/hybrid/whatever/plop/lovely pancakes/celebrities/corn chips/thing.” The collection furthers Publishing Genius’s mission of killing literature.”
hehe…
“Publishing Genius is excited to announce that Fog Gorgeous Stag, by Sean Lovelace, will be published in the first part of 2011. Lovelace describes the book as “micro-fiction/poetry/hybrid/whatever/plop/lovely pancakes/celebrities/corn chips/thing.” The collection furthers Publishing Genius’s mission of killing literature.”
hehe…
Being “about” something may or may not be what makes a book good. But it’s what makes someone pick up the book and try to care about it.
And “about” is such a potentially broad, interesting mess … you could unpack it into a bunch of other words and put quotes around all of them, and go on and on. It could be the intent, the style, the mood. It doesn’t have to be the plot points.
In fact probably every short story collection is about something, although that thing might be a secret.
Being about nothing strikes me as really boring and depressing. Does that make me an old fart?
I was at a PowerPoint party in Sam Korman’s garage, where two articulate young women got up and defined a new art movement: Postconceptualism, Not to be confused with anybody else’s use of that word, but basically saying that some of today’s painters are taking heavily loaded symbols (stag! unicorn! rainbow! crystal! owl!) and doing intentionally meaningless things with them, to unburden them of their symbolism and return them to the world of pure form. It made perfect sense, but I wasn’t sure if they were joking. Some of the slides would make nice postcards, tho.
Being “about” something may or may not be what makes a book good. But it’s what makes someone pick up the book and try to care about it.
And “about” is such a potentially broad, interesting mess … you could unpack it into a bunch of other words and put quotes around all of them, and go on and on. It could be the intent, the style, the mood. It doesn’t have to be the plot points.
In fact probably every short story collection is about something, although that thing might be a secret.
Being about nothing strikes me as really boring and depressing. Does that make me an old fart?
I was at a PowerPoint party in Sam Korman’s garage, where two articulate young women got up and defined a new art movement: Postconceptualism, Not to be confused with anybody else’s use of that word, but basically saying that some of today’s painters are taking heavily loaded symbols (stag! unicorn! rainbow! crystal! owl!) and doing intentionally meaningless things with them, to unburden them of their symbolism and return them to the world of pure form. It made perfect sense, but I wasn’t sure if they were joking. Some of the slides would make nice postcards, tho.
i don’t think it makes you an old fart at all, mykle. seems like people have been writing books that are arguably about nothing for more than a century, and some people have preferred that books not be about nothing or at least seem that way for just as long. so it’s probably just preference.
for me, i don’t even want to read about a plot on the back of a book. if it seems like there’s a lot of conventional plot from the description on the back i start to wonder if i will like it.
i think i go more on the recommendation of critics and other people and the reputations of the authors as far as style and such, and i flip through the book to sample it.
for me it’s hard to take an earnest plot summary seriously, or something. i’d rather there was nothing on the back of the book, or some nonsense, or a quote from the text, or blurbs. tao’s last book has a non sequitur quoted from the text on the back. that works well for me (although i was confused when i realized it seems the words from the actual text have been flipped in the quote on the back cover; not sure if that was an error or not).
i don’t think it makes you an old fart at all, mykle. seems like people have been writing books that are arguably about nothing for more than a century, and some people have preferred that books not be about nothing or at least seem that way for just as long. so it’s probably just preference.
for me, i don’t even want to read about a plot on the back of a book. if it seems like there’s a lot of conventional plot from the description on the back i start to wonder if i will like it.
i think i go more on the recommendation of critics and other people and the reputations of the authors as far as style and such, and i flip through the book to sample it.
for me it’s hard to take an earnest plot summary seriously, or something. i’d rather there was nothing on the back of the book, or some nonsense, or a quote from the text, or blurbs. tao’s last book has a non sequitur quoted from the text on the back. that works well for me (although i was confused when i realized it seems the words from the actual text have been flipped in the quote on the back cover; not sure if that was an error or not).