Showing posts with label books and shit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books and shit. Show all posts

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Though you can't help thinking about it nearly all the time


Came across this story last night and wept. Wept. I get so sentimental about it. I remember the first time I heard it read, I thought that nobody had ever or would ever understand love, at least the way I saw it, like Lydia Davis. I got very emotional about it, and I still do. Her work could very possibly be more of a relieving comfort to me than anything in my life, maybe besides the first few drops of coffee in the morning and whisky after a particularly trying afternoon, which are in themselves, remarkably capable. It's like reading your own thoughts without having to do any of the work, and it's so. beautifully. cathartic. Which is an important thing for a writer to be able to do. Her story "Kafka Cooks Dinner" is pretty much a play by play of what goes down every time I reach out to someone. Books are important, bro. They have many reasons for being, and serve many different purposes, just as each of us seeks different things from them. More about this later.

Thursday, 28 October 2010

too many clauses should be avoided

Rhetorical Device of the Week: THA ZEUGMA

Monday, 25 October 2010

A Couple Points Regarding the Beginning of the Week

-Somebody needs to upload the intro to Gravediggaz's (unsure of exactly what to do with the apostrophe there) The Pick, the Sickle and the Shovel to Youtube so we can talk about whether it actually makes any sense or not.

-I started reading McSweeney's again, having unconsciously stopped sometime at the end of my senior year of high school. It's probably the funniest shit out there right now. Funnier than 30 Rock. Funnier than Portnoy's Complaint. Funnier than Charlie Croft talking about Native Americans via text message at 8 in the morning. Funnier than the Autobiography Ziggy Stardust's Personal Assistant. Wait. But it's also subtle, and ever wise. Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite recent pieces entitled, "Miles Davis's Container Gardening tips" (written by Ryan Abbott):

"This is it, this is the most important tip, so wrap it in tissue paper and take it out of here when you go. The space around everything is more precious than the items occupying the space...The space around your plants is what defines them. Save that space, relish it, drink it in. Give your plants room to walk, to be seen and heard, to develop deep and hungry roots with their own space to explore and invent, the freedom to create new shades and shapes, arms that reach through the empty air to carve fresh pockets in which to build an entirely new kind of fruit or flower. A type never tasted, something unheard of."

More impressive, however, is James Felming's Selections from the Cosby Codex, which, "represents an attempt to offer the definitive theoretical reading of The Cosby Show, a foundational text in Late Postmodern Western Culture, or a multicultural, post-cognitive text par-excellence," and which I'm not going to quote from because I'm pissed I didn't write it, it's so genius.

-This week's gonna be amazing.

-We're doing a radio show, on Mondays, starting next week. Don't really know who "we" entails at this point. Elliot and I and some meth heads. Forget what time it's at. The title of the show was supposed to be "Songs About Jesus," which is snappy and fun to say (with Nietzschean undertones), but Elliot managed to reword that into some bulkily sarcastic reference to the bible or some shit, which wasn't even the point. Will probably spend the majority of the first show bitching about this and discussing the Camden Family's views on marijuana, which will actually tie in, as Mr. Camden's obstinant response to the herb likely stems heavily from a certain paradigm of "morality" propagated by the church to which he is tied and his views on the implication of God. (In fact this kind of melodramatic outburst proves to be, when observed against the image of Mr. Camden established by the show --for the most part a"cool reverend" (and the WB's closest rendition of Atticus Finch): non-judgmental, understanding, and actually sometimes helpful; the sort of guy that you'd expect to respond rationally and judiciously to this kind of situation-- surprisingly out of character. For more on glimpses of deeply embedded socially constructed prejudices savagely bursting through the astute façades of archetypal television fathers, and the social implications, see Howard Cunningham Flipping Out When Richie Brings a "Beatnik" to Dinner (Happy Days, Episode 1.13.)) Link to show/less lofty details to be posted.

-If you're ever faced with the opportunity to take an English course centering on "Western American Expansion Fiction," decline immediately. You will read one really good Mark Twain book, some Cormac McCarthy (maybe) and Annie Proulx, and the rest will be bull shit yet require an enormous amount of your time and effort, because while a very good book does demand a heightened level of, well, mental work, a bad book is nearly fucking impossible to get through. Yes, I'm looking at you, James Fenimore Cooper: for all your grand ambition, you are a cliché, and a lousy writer, and getting even halfway through Last of the Mohicans was like pulling out my own teeth in front of an enormous screen with American landscapes projected on it. I think it was your underlying fear of miscegenation. (Actually, for an amazingly ruthless roast on Cooper, see Lawrence's essay "Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking Novels," which is full of wit, as well as a couple valid arguments regarding the aforementioned text.) I understand the importance of some shitty texts in the context of the history/evolution of certain kinds of literature. But I don't really get why one should be required to read them. So heed my advice, children. Study Chaucer.

-"If I wanted to watch an arrogant nerd act passive-aggressive for two hours I'd sit at home and Skype with my ex-girlfriend." A friend, on the Facebook movie, which I am officially done talking about.

-Bacon, egg, tomato, avocado, and Gruyère on toasted fucking wheat bread is the best fucking sandwich of all time I do noooot want to hear it

Thursday, 21 October 2010

"IS SUBJECTIVITY TEMPORAL OR AFFECTIVE?"

On top of a filing cabinet in room 6.11 of the English department in David Hume Tower, there are a few stacks of enormously thick, oversized leather-bound books, which upon further examination turn out to be a set of complete archives of the New York Review of Books. Shitloads of volumes. I feel like this is some sort of important discovery. Who is using these? Can I use them? Who do I speak to about using them? Does anyone know more about this?

And while we're on the subject: while I used to dispute with Shaun over whether or not Lee Spinks is the biggest hessian in the English department (I was always on team Millard, which is funny), I have indeed been swayed after today's lecture. Holy shit. Dude said more profound things in the last few minutes than most people say in their entire lives--it was literally is if he were competing in some contest to say the most esoterically intelligent things about lyrical poetry in under two minutes. I think everyone in the theatre experienced some sort of existential epiphany; I personally felt like my head was going to explode with them. I don't think there's enough words, at my immediate disposal anyway, to articulate how good this guy is at talking about literature, and making it seem important. I'm pretty sure he knows everything, and could talk about it, beautifully, all the time, forever. Absolute madness. It's like he turns a thing completely over to reveal the absolute truth of it, in perfect clarity.

Nerd alert.

Saturday, 9 October 2010

"In Syria, once, at the head-waters of the Jordan, a camel took charge of my overcoat while the tents were being pitched, and examined it with a critical eye, all over, with as much interest as if he had an idea of getting one made like it; and then, after he was done figuring on it as an article of apparel, he began to contemplate it as an article of diet. He put his foot on it, and lifted one of the sleeves out with his teeth, and chewed and chewed at it, gradually taking it in, and all the while opening and closing his eyes in a kind of religious ecstasy, as if he had never tasted anything as good as an overcoat before, in his life. Then he smacked his lips once or twice, and reached after the other sleeve. Next he tried the velvet collar, and smiled a smile of such contentment that it was plain to see that he regarded that as the daintiest thing about an overcoat. The tails went next, along with some percussion caps and cough candy, and some fig-paste from Constantinople. And then my newspaper correspondence dropped out, and he took a chance in that--manuscript letters written for the home papers. But he was treading on dangerous ground, now. He began to come across solid wisdom in those documents that was rather weighty on his stomach; and occasionally he would take a joke that would shake him up till it loosened his teeth; it was getting to be perilous times with him, but he held his grip with good courage and hopefully, till at last he began to stumble on statements that not even a camel could swallow with impunity. He began to gag and gasp, and his eyes to stand out, and his forelegs to spread, and in about a quarter of a minute he fell over as stiff as a carpenter's work-bench, and died a death of indescribable agony. I went and pulled the manuscript out of his mouth, and found that the sensitive creature had choked to death on one of the mildest and gentlest statements of fact that I ever laid before a trusting public." An abrupt digression at the end of a chapter dedicated to the description of sage-brush in Mark Twain's Roughing It. It is a fascinating chunk of writing.

Friday, 24 September 2010

"Together with Shakespeare and a handful of the greater novelists in English, Chaucer carries the language further into unthinkable triumphs of the representation of reality than ought to be possible. The Pardoner and the Wife of Bath, like Hamlet and Falstaff, call into question nearly every mode of criticism that is now fashionable. What sense does it make to speak of the Pardoner or the Wife of Bath as being only a structure of tropes, or to say that any tale they tell has suspended its referential aspect almost entirely? The most Chaucerian and best of all Chaucer critics, E. Talbot Donaldson, remarks of the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales that:

The extraordinary quality of the portraits is their vitality, the illusion that each gives the reader that the character being described is not a fiction but a person, so that it seems as if the poet has not created but merely recorded.

As a critical remark, this is the indispensable starting-point for reading Chaucer, but contemporary modes of interpretation deny that such an illusion of vitality has any value. Last June, I walked through a park in Frankfurt, West Germany, with a good friend who is a leading French theorist of interpretation. I had been in Frankfurt to lecture on Freud; my friend had just arrived to give a talk on Joyce's
Ulysses. As we walked, I remarked that Joyce's Leopold Bloom seemed to me the most sympathetic and affectionate person I had encountered in any fiction. My friend, annoyed and perplexed, replied that Poldy was not a person, and that my statement therefore was devoid of sense. Though not agreeing, I reflected silently that the difference between my friend and myself could not be reconciled by anything I could say. To him, Ulysses was not even persuasive rhetoric, but was a system of tropes. To me, it was above all else the personality of Poldy. My friend's deconstructionism, I again realized, was only another formalism, a very tough-minded and skeptical formalism. But all formalism reaches its limits rather quickly when the fictions are strong enough. L.C. Knights famously insisted that Lady Macbeth's children were as meaningless an entity as the girlhood of Shakespeare's heroines, a view in which Knights followed E. E. Stoll who, whether he knew it or not followed E. A. Poe. To Knights, Falstaff 'is not a man, but a choric commentary.' The paradox, though, is that this 'choric commentary' is more vital than we are, which teaches us that Falstaff is neither trope nor commentary, but a representation of what a human being might be, if that person were even wittier than Oscar Wilde, and even more turbulently high-spirited than Zero Mostel. Falstaff, Poldy, the Wife of Bath: these are what Shelley called 'forms more real than living man.'" Eternal hessian Harold Bloom, from his Introduction to Geoffrey Chaucer (1985, Chelsea House Publishers), because Chaucer is legit as fuck.

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

"Oh, I'll show you misogyny."

The feelings I don't have, I don't have.
The feelings I don't have, I won't say I have.
The feelings you say you have, you don't have.
The feelings you would like us both to have, we neither of us have.

The feelings people ought to have, they never have.
If people say they've got feelings, you may be pretty sure they haven't got them.

So if you want either of us to feel anything at all,
You'd better abandon all idea of feelings altogether.
[D. H. Lawrence, "To Women, As Far As I'm Concerned."]

Saturday, 18 September 2010

Events seem to be ordered into an ominous logic.

“In Gravity’s Rainbow a character remarks, speaking of the V-rocket, ‘We’ll all use it someday, to leave the earth. To transcend.’ In both novels technology, the instrument that man thinks can further his evolution to the superhuman, is really the death trap that hastens his reduction to the subhuman. The tendency toward the inanimate is, as Nathanael West put it, ‘a tropism for disorder,’ a tendency away from pattern,’ from certitude, from ways of knowing what has happened and what might happen next. Stencil disguises ‘to involve him less with the chase,’ to protect the scrap of humanity which the chase itself provides. What Stencil really fears is that, as in the case of Kilroy, humanity itself is only another disguise. ‘Approach and avoid’ is Stencil’s rule, because to find V. would mean the loss of everything. ‘Disguise is one of her attributes.’ She is metaphor for the connection that makes any meaning, knowledge, or humanity possible; and she may be, in Fausto’s terms, the Greatest Lie of all.” Richard Patteson, “What Stencil Knew: Structure and Certitude in Pynchon’s V.” (Critique Vol. 16, 1974)

Thursday, 26 August 2010

On Writing, Pt. 1

"I saw him only for a moment, and that was years ago. Boston had been beaten by the White Sox. It was a night game, and when it was over, as the crowd, including myself and my friends, pushed with that suppressed Occidental panic up the aisles toward the exit ramps, he, like the heavy pebble of gold that is not washed from the pan, was revealed, sitting alone, immobile and smiling, among the green seats. He was an old Chinese man, solidly fat, like a Chevrolet dealer, and he wore faded black trousers and a white shirt whose sleeves were rolled up. He sat with one arm up on the back on the seat beside him and smiled out toward the field, where the ground crew was unfurling the tarp across the foreshortened clay diamond and the outfield under the arc lights looked as brilliant and flat as a pool-table felt. And it flashed upon me, as I glimpsed this man sitting alone and unperturbed among the drained seats, that here was the happy man, the man of unceasing and effortless blessing. I thought then to write a novel, an immense book, about him, recounting his every move, his every meal, every play, pitch, and hesitation of every ball game he attended, the number of every house he passed as he walked Boston's three-decker slums, the exact position and shape of every cracked and flaking spot on the doorways, the precise sheen and rust of every floriate and convoluted fancy of ironwork that drifted by his legs, the chalk marks, the bricks (purple-tinted, ochre-smeared red), the constellations of lint and stain in his tiny bachelor's room (green walls, painted pipes coughing with steam, telephone wiring stapled along the baseboard), the never precisely duplicated curl of the smoke off his rice, the strokes of sound composing the hatchings of noise at his back, every stifled cry, every sizzle of a defective neon-sign connection, every distant plane and train, every roller-skate scratch, everything: all set sequentially down with the bald simplicity of a litany, thousands upon thousands of pages, ecstatically uneventful, divinely and defiantly dull.

"But we would-be novelists have a reach as shallow as our skins. We walk through volumes of the unexpressed and like snails leave behind a faint thread excreted out of ourselves. From the dew of the few flakes that melt on our faces we cannot reconstruct the snowstorm." John Updike, "The Blessed Man of Boston, My Grandmother's Thimble, and Fanning Island" from The Early Stories: 1953-1975

First of all, show me a more beautiful writer than John Updike, besides maybe G. G. Marquez and Pynchon at his most sentimental. I'm serious. Second, John Updike writes in first person, so can you. Third, how accurate. This story is extremely good, I think; it's a triptych of stories he never wrote, the first regarding this man, the second his grandmother, which I found very moving, and the third a group of men washed ashore an uninhabited Polynesian island, only to perish. I heard a quote a few months ago, I don't remember exactly where, but it was something along the lines of, "We're all writing Ulysses inside us all day, but what comes out is so much less." I feel like it may have been from a collection of Saul Bellow's correspondence. Anyway, it's true. The gap between what we harbor within our own minds and what we communicate is so frighteningly obtuse. I think it's easy for a writer to become enraptured by the task of pinning this gap down and raping it for information, details, (bountiful, pristine, details). But then what would be the point? Well, when you are actually writing Ulysses, or if your prose is as lyrical as Updike's, I guess you can just get away with it, and that's the point. But for the rest of us, tailoring becomes a tedious skill. Figuring out what you want to say. Weeding through the best possible ways to say it. And the ultimate dissatisfaction, nine times out of ten.

What a divine description of this moment, though. This moment that every writer experiences, all too often: the way the sun shines on that one day when that woman stands in the doorway to her building with her two obedient dalmatians; the image of that man in the wheelchair and that man sitting beside him on the grass on the hill, just the two of them silently watching the sun set; that house-cat running solitary through the immense, pastoral landscape in the middle of the night; that one bus in the city whose insides glow blue and cast azure shadows over its strange, nighttime inhabitants; the way the earth looks on that day when that blizzard hits and the roads bears no markings and there is no visible difference between the land and the sky, a muted horizon, and it is so silent too. Dozens of these fragments, stashed away in some dusty cavern of the brain's filing system, decidedly unexplored. You can't write about everything.

I think every writer starting out should be handed a copy of Updike's early stories; he's the master of detail, for real. Going through my copy, I find lines annotated that I can't even recall reading. There are smears from tear drops, ash stains, big blotchy pen marks from the days when I respected my books less. But when I think about reading them, I just remember them having this profound impact on the way I thought about writing. They are really solid. He knows what he's doing.

Monday, 14 June 2010

"Performing 'Ulysses' on Bloomsday at Symphony Space is the only way I'll ever finish the damn book." Stephen Colbert

Saturday, 8 May 2010

So Paige, what do you do when you're sad?

Read Lydia Davis stories.* Drink vodka. Drink vodka.

*"People did not know what she knew, that she was not really a woman but a man, often a fat man, but more often, probably, an old man. The fact that she was an old man made it hard for her to be a young woman. It was hard for her to talk to a young man, for instance, though the young man was clearly interested in her. She had to ask herself, Why is this young man flirting with this old man?" Lydia Davis, "What She Knew"

Monday, 3 May 2010


Credit for this shit straight up goes to Caroline Bottger's Facebook. Caroline is a third year English Literature student at The University of Edinburgh. She lives in Switzerland, enjoys being taller than her boyfriend, and doesn't really care about your health care reform.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

the portals of great jaws

"After three years of ripe, Southern indulgence to come upon this ash plain impregnated with a killer sea may have needed a strength not really found in nature: sustained necessarily by illusion. Not even whales could skirt that strand with impunity: walking along what served for an esplanade you might see one of the rotting creatures, beached, covered by feeding gulls who with the coming of night would be relieved at the giant carrion by a pack of strand wolves. And in a matter of days there would be left only the portals of great jaws and a picked, architectural web of bone, mellowing eventually to false ivory in the sun and fog." Thomas Pynchon, V.

Sunday, 11 April 2010

Monday, 5 April 2010

And then, she thought, I shall get older

"She could take an apartment by herself in the Village. She would meet new people. She would entertain. But, she thought, if I have people for cocktails, there will always come the moment when they have to leave, and I will be alone and have to pretend to have another engagement in order to save embarrassment. If I have them to dinner, it will be the same thing, but at least I will not have to pretend to have an engagement. I shall give dinners. Then, she thought, there will be the cocktail parties, and, if I go alone, I shall always stay a little too late, hoping that a young man or even a party of people will ask me to dinner. And if I fail, if no one asks me, I shall have the ignominy of walking out alone, trying to look as if I had somewhere to go. Then there will be the evenings at home with a good book when there will be no reason at all for going to bed, and I shall perhaps sit up all night. And the mornings when there will be no point in getting up, and I shall perhaps stay in bed till dinnertime. There will be the dinners in tea rooms with other unmarried women, tea rooms because women alone look conspicuous and forlorn in good restaurants. And then, she thought, I shall get older." Mary McCarthy, "Cruel and Barbarous Treatment"

I read this story on the plane back from Edinburgh, and was startled by how perfectly this passage encapsulated all of my fears regarding the upcoming year. I am excited to be alone, and I'm proud to be alone--there is something about it that's thrilling and freeing, especially in the face of friends who've hurt you. But there is still that uneasiness, especially when I consider those dark winter months, and the omnipresent possibility that, perhaps, I shall always be alone.

Sunday, 4 April 2010

Tell me about it, Norris Church

"The sex was always great. That was the glue that held all this mess together, or the honey.”[Norris Church Mailer, on life with Norman]

[The New York Times Magazine]

Sunday, 7 March 2010

Faulkner 3

"The dead air shapes the dead earth in the dead darkness, further away than seeing shapes the dead earth. It lies dead and warm upon me, touching me naked through my clothes. I said You don't know what worry is. I don't know what it is. I don't now whether I am worrying or not. Whether I can or not. I don't know whether I can cry or not. I don't know whether I have tried to or not. I feel like a wet seed wild in the hot blind earth." -As I Lay Dying

Sunday, 21 February 2010

Sunday Reading


"There is in these scenes rage, revenge and some garden-variety sexism, but they are — in their force, in their gale winds, in their intelligence — charismatic, a celebration of the virility of their bookish, yet oddly irresistible, protagonists. As the best scenes spool forward, they are maddening, beautiful, eloquent and repugnant all at once. One does not have to like Roth, or Zuckerman, or Portnoy, to admire the intensely narrated spectacle of their sexual adventures. Part of the suspense of a Roth passage, the tautness, the brilliance, the bravado in the sentences themselves, the high-wire performance of his prose, is how infuriating and ugly and vain he can be without losing his readers." Katie Roiphe, "The Naked and the Conflicted," NYT Book Review, Dec. 31 2009

Clean up: the past two months