― cutty (mcutt), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:17 (eighteen years ago) link
(There remains a slight generational "thing" around that, actually, one that I never see older people acknowledge. Wallace had something interesting about that in his television essay, from, what, fifteen years ago? And still I'll see older people advise writing techniques such as introducing every character with an overview of appearance, to which some younger people invariably react badly: "If we cared what everyone looked like we'd be in the film program!")
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:32 (eighteen years ago) link
Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): show your cock, sleek metal hole, lime crone, pink crone, attitudinal difficulties, bag from the bottom, heavy girl, your oatmeal, small bugs
― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― pr00de, where's my car? (pr00de), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 20:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― cutty (mcutt), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 21:07 (eighteen years ago) link
I think Nab. sounds a bit daft saying: "one of the good things about Smith was some pure gut-level vitality in the writing". He sounds a bit like (heaven help me)... Dave Marsh. I don't think Wood is stern, particularly. He is an aesthete, with a limited patience for sociology/cultural theory/pomo posturing. To put it bluntly, he wants novels about people rather than novels about ideas. As such, he is a timely response to the over-rating of DFW in the US and, especially, Rushdie in the UK.
Funnily enough, Wood is younger than many of the HRers he criticises.
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 21:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 22:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 22:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 22:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 15 September 2005 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
Zadie Smith has recently accepted Wood's criticism of her (though she defends Wallace against him) and seems to be moving towards a less "inventive" style, thank goodness.
Wood is no great fan of suburban realism - he has criticised Updike, and he likes Hamsun and Hrabal - but he dislikes the cartoonish element in serious fiction. For example, he criticises Smith for writing in places like Tom Sharpe:( '"Mickey . . .prised Samad's face off the hot glass with an egg slice." This kind of writing is closer to the 'low' comic style of a farceur like Tom Sharpe than it ought to be. It has a pertness, but it squanders itself in a mixture of banality and crudity.')
For me, the same tendency weakens Saunders. He is a gifted writer of sentences, but sometimes his sharpness cuts against itself: so, for me, parts of "Sea Oak" read two-dimensionally, and that interferes with my belief.
― All Bunged Up (Jake Proudlock), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― pr00de, where's my car? (pr00de), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― pr00de, where's my car? (pr00de), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:33 (eighteen years ago) link
Anyway, I hadn't heard of this guy before this thread, and I went from being interested to being not so interested in him. I suppose I wouldn't kick him out of bed, at least not at first.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:45 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200310/article_moffett.php
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:52 (eighteen years ago) link
http://maudnewton.com/blog/?p=5610
― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 15 September 2005 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
Being about systems and ideas is one field where books have the advantage over film. But when it comes to whimsy, the book/film connection seems to be something else: the literary novel is officially Not Important Anymore. There's something so half-ridiculous about the fact of even writing one that it's easy to see where the whimsy comes in: what the hell, it's your novel, people hardly even read books anymore, might as well have fun with it. The problem here isn't whimsy, or "books about ideas" versus "books about people," but the fact that neither of those categories usually packs the ambition to say something grand and far-reaching and real.
Still, though, I'm sensitive to seeing someone congratulate a writer for being "less 'inventive'," despite the scare quotes. Why? Because I don't trust the way things are written off as whimsy or wacky when they very often mean something completely unwhimsical, both to writer and reader. Since this is a Saunders thread, "Sea Oak" again -- it has the tone that many would call whimsical, but I can't sort out a single element in it that doesn't seem focused and meaningful and directly relevant to something serious (and serious-minded) to say about people. So I sometimes read charges about "hysterical-realist" books as being like charges about "pretentious" bands -- sometimes they're spot-on, but all too often they're a way of dismissing some perception of "style" without even bothering to notice that it's actually genuine substance.
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:41 (eighteen years ago) link
Naturally, I'm in favour of inventiveness that's natural and creative; but zaniness for the sake of it - like the talking turd in Frantzen, or the talking lawnmower in a story by Frances gapper that I read recently, or the relentless counter-realities in Eggars's flash fiction - strikes me as too easy. The hardest thing is to extrapolate from the real into something original, not to be original by sidestepping the real. I'm not against all surreal flights of fancy - I liked Arthur Bradford's "Dogwalker", for example - but I admit I prefer the writers who avoid it, for example Tobias Wolfe. I don't want to get polarised about this (I do like Saunders, and occasionally love him), but I'm uneasy about the relentless infiltration of fantasy tropes into literary fiction. (I'm just one of those people: as soon as a ghost, a miraculous occurrence, a post-modern conjuring trick, a metatextual irony, appears in a story, my heart sinks.)
― All Bunged Up (Jake Proudlock), Friday, 16 September 2005 17:45 (eighteen years ago) link
(a) Isn't that stuff partly the result of the film era and the Coover dictum -- i.e., you should write stuff that can only be written? (I think this is an idiotic dictum, for the record, but I do understand why modern-day writing would select for people interested in only-in-fiction tricks.) But then more importantly:
(b) Can you defend this "relentless infiltration" line? Like I said, it's certainly a trend, and it's one associated with the highest-profile young writers today. But it's also a "trend" in the opposite sense -- it's a limited cadre. I mean, can we get past just saying "relentless" and "everywhere" and actually justify this idea that "everyone" is doing it? Because so far as I can see the bulk of fiction, high-lit and low-lit, remains as traditional as ever.
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 16 September 2005 18:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 16 September 2005 18:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 16 September 2005 19:12 (eighteen years ago) link
I think it might be even harder to sidestep the real and make it work for an audience who are only familiar with the real.
(And since "making it work" is a writer's job and not "keeping it real"...)
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 16 September 2005 19:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― estela (estela), Friday, 16 September 2005 23:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 21 September 2005 12:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 21 September 2005 13:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Wednesday, 21 September 2005 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 September 2005 17:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 21 September 2005 18:09 (eighteen years ago) link
and hardly anyone would say that cream soda thing like that.
― John (jdahlem), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 23 September 2005 18:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Friday, 23 September 2005 18:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Monday, 26 September 2005 12:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Monday, 26 September 2005 12:15 (eighteen years ago) link
Arf. Saunders plays with those sorts of constructions all the time, yes. So can people like Wallace and Baker, when they want to. So does whoever writes The Gilmore Girls. Maybe I've been spending time in the wrong places, but so far as I know people often talk that way. It's normal, is what it is.
― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 26 September 2005 15:13 (eighteen years ago) link
someone give us another weird attempt at vernacular we can argue over.
― John (jdahlem), Monday, 26 September 2005 19:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 26 September 2005 20:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Monday, 26 September 2005 20:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 26 September 2005 20:56 (eighteen years ago) link
18. I think people could be encouraged to read through: Wearing "author" t-shirts, much like band t-shirts
And maybe George Saunders heard me, because check it out: go to reignofphil.com! You can buy Reign of Phil t-shirts! I have just purchased one.
― nabiscothingy, Sunday, 2 October 2005 17:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 3 October 2005 13:15 (eighteen years ago) link
I got the wig t-shirt, though, and got to be overjoyed when I came across the relevant part of the text. I guess for my high-lit t-shirt I will just have to get started on a Steven Millhauser Neighborhoodie. (Possibly it will say: "Rose Dorn / Rose Dorn / I am / forlorn.")
― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 3 October 2005 15:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 3 October 2005 15:26 (eighteen years ago) link
"Cruel freight" made me laugh.
― W i l l (common_person), Friday, 7 October 2005 06:03 (eighteen years ago) link
this story is very lovely!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/21/george-saunders-fox-8-short-story-man-booker-prize-lincoln-bardo
oh yeah, and he won the Booker Prize.
― Susan Stranglehands (jed_), Sunday, 22 October 2017 21:43 (six years ago) link
did anyone other than niels on here read lincoln in the bardo? i picked it up the other day and there is no way in hell i could read that book. that looked like the kind of book that people buy and then never finish but maybe i'm just dumb.
― scott seward, Friday, 5 April 2024 12:10 (one month ago) link
Same. I’ve read his other stuff but could only make it through the beginning
― calstars, Friday, 5 April 2024 12:18 (one month ago) link
i read it and loved it, but i could totally see picking it up and not finishing it.
i like his style a lot but, like carver, he's spawned a lot of imitators, and his style has some limits.
his turns toward the sentimental can be heartbreaking and also veer toward sap
― a (waterface), Friday, 5 April 2024 12:19 (one month ago) link
I liked it a lot, but it took a minute to get going iirc.
― Jordan s/t (Jordan), Friday, 5 April 2024 12:22 (one month ago) link
you aren't alone, scott. I got about halfway through it and realized I had no desire to continue down that path. It felt like a song stuck on repeat.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 5 April 2024 17:28 (one month ago) link
it does take a minute to get going, and to figure out that most of the characters are talking to themselves and not really responding to other characters. it's a series of overlapping narratives, which makes sense from a writer of short stories.
― the defenestration of prog (voodoo chili), Friday, 5 April 2024 17:30 (one month ago) link
I mean, it is about purgatory.
xp
― Jordan s/t (Jordan), Friday, 5 April 2024 17:31 (one month ago) link
I listened to the full cast audiobook. I think that's the way to get it done. Although, I will say that our book club (we are all Saunders fans) liked it in any format.
― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Friday, 5 April 2024 17:41 (one month ago) link
xp - Not quite purgatory. That's where one expiates one's sins in order to become purified and ascend to heaven, but the bardo, where regrets and desires keep one tethered to a past life, unable to move on to the next. So the bardo is a fruitless stasis. That makes for a tough challenge in terms of narrative and Saunders means of handling that challenge bogged down too much to repay me for the effort of finishing it.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 5 April 2024 17:44 (one month ago) link
His mix of gleeful cruelty and sappy sentimentality sets my teeth on edge. Liked the first couple of collections but it's been diminishing returns since then.
― Tsar Bombadil (James Morrison), Saturday, 6 April 2024 08:01 (one month ago) link
i finished L in the B, it did seem like a short story idea stretched out to novel length. Some of it was quite moving, some of it struck me as emotionally manipulative, either way it didn't make me want to read anything more by him.
― ledge, Saturday, 6 April 2024 10:08 (one month ago) link
i had never read any Saunders until Lincoln in the Bardo & i really loved it, i found it very moving.
― werewolves of laudanum (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 6 April 2024 15:43 (one month ago) link