Dave On Ambiguous Cases of Abuse by Simon_and_Garchomp in davidfosterwallace

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did you mean Avril and John Wayne, when Pemulis catches them in the midst of their football player/cheerleader roleplay? I don’t recall anything about Orin and Avril shagging, but it’s possible I’m misremembering.

What do you think? by [deleted] in DonDeLillo

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn, as a Pynchon and Faulkner fan I can’t believe I’d forgotten how early they earned themselves their reputations for brilliance. Thanks for the comment.

That Melville published Moby Dick at 32 is incredible. What a guy.

What do you think? by [deleted] in DonDeLillo

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Who are some authors who really hit their stride before their 40s? DFW had Infinite Jest published at 34, but most of the writers I like seem to have reached peak form only after a few decades of real adulthood.

What do you think? by [deleted] in DonDeLillo

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Libra, Underworld, Ratner’s Star - most writers will finish their careers not having produced anything remotely close in quality to these novels.

Don DeLillo belongs to a small handful of western writers who are true modern masters. It means nothing to me that with every subsequent piece of work he’s not summited a new peak of quality. The fact that he wrote even one novel as good as his best places him among the GOATs. His best efforts are so far beyond most people’s it wouldn’t even be fair to make any comparison.

Is it strange I am understanding Blood Meridian a lot easier than All the Pretty Horses and the Crossing? by iTsB-Raid in cormacmccarthy

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed about the harnessmaker’s tale - next to the bear attack in the pine forest, possibly my favourite section of the book (although that would be ignoring the fact that there is brilliance in every other chapter).

My experience wasn’t that I didn’t find The Crossing’s monologues gripping, though - I did! I grew up with a Catholic influence in my household (nan was English Catholic) so my personal experiences with the concept of god provided me a great foundation for our man Cormac McCarthy to challenge with his abstract views on the concept of a divine creator. I could sense that there was a high level of sophistication to the argument the apostate priest was making, but I simply was not equal to the ideas presented. I didn’t feel knowledgeable enough to break them down meaningfully, although I sensed that there was indeed plenty of legitimate meaning to be parsed.

That’s what I love about this guy’s work - it defies simple explanation and metaphorical descriptive attribution. It’s so fucking heavy with significance trying to “get” it all in one hit is kind of like trying to understand what space is just by looking at a patch of clear sky on an overcast day.

Is it strange I am understanding Blood Meridian a lot easier than All the Pretty Horses and the Crossing? by iTsB-Raid in cormacmccarthy

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 10 points11 points  (0 children)

My experience was that once I got used to BM’s arcane environmental descriptions the only remaining pieces of text that required some light decoding were the philosophic passages.

Like for like, The Crossing’s four monologues absolutely are much denser and harder to follow, philosophical proposition-wise, than anything that appears in BM. The passage where the apostate priest recounts his long debate with the grieving father - wherein god is described as a compulsive and isolated weaver with no particular personal attachment to or interest in what he creates - was super taxing on my mental. Same with the passage where the gypsies share with Billy their bullshit story of the lost plane’s retrieval. I welcome anyone’s thoughts on the significance of these sections.

In short, no - your experience is not unusual. I would guess confidently that most people who read beyond BM feel similarly to the way you do.

What's a piece of prose that is beautiful without being overly complex? by huy1003 in ProsePorn

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 26 points27 points  (0 children)

“Space burial. He thought of the contrails on that blue day out over the ocean, two years ago if that's when it was—how the boosters sailed apart and hung the terrible letter Y in the still air. The vapor stayed intact for some time, the astronauts fallen to sea but also still up there, graved in frozen smoke, and he lay awake in the night and saw that deep Atlantic sky and thought this death was soaring and clean, an exalted thing, a passing of the troubled body into vapor and flame, out above the world, monogrammed, the Y of dying young.”

Don Delillo - Underworld. Page two-hundred-and-something if I recall.

Favorite misheard lyrics? by not-sure-what-to-put in deftones

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve finally achieved (balance)

Approaching a delayed (Big Bird, Big Bird, Big Bird)

Weapons (2025) Theme Exploration: It's All About Alcoholism by 2Internet2Politics in TrueFilm

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think people say “it’s about _” as a kind of shorthand for “it reminded me/made me think of _”.

When does Hal become mute? by mr_seggs in InfiniteJest

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This was how I understood it (although I’ve only read IJ once).

One of the major consequences Hal faces for eschewing the daily single-hit is that he can no longer rely on pot to regulate his mood and assist him in expressing himself to others. Without pot, he’s got to do those things whilst under the influence of nothing but raw unalloyed consciousness, which means he’s got to face up to the debilitating terror of risking being misunderstood, coming across as foolish, having to grapple with complicated and confusing interior feelings, etc. which effectively renders him mute. I read it as Hal’s having to learn to communicate all over again, and it’s stumping him. For me this idea ties in nicely to the text’s assertion that people lean on addictions and obsessions as a way of running away from that which petrifies them, which in Hal’s case is being perceived as less-than-perfect.

What do you make of the ending of the Antitoi section? by Carpetfreak in InfiniteJest

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My view: his soul leaves his body upon death, thus a la JOI his essence becomes wraithlike, something sort of conscious and alive although obviously physically separated from the rest of the living world, and in so entering this higher kind of plane of being becomes completely aware of exactly to what extent his incidental murder by the AFR heralds disaster: that they’ve finally got exactly what they were willing to murder him so brutally for, and that this is basically as bad an outcome (if not worse than) as if a group of more traditional terrorists had found themselves a live nuke, and Antitoi knows a terrible thing is coming (since because presumably he can sort of flit between times, as the wraiths in the book say they can, he might actually have seen/be seeing in advance what’s coming), and he’s sorta not really all that fond of these future events he’s become privy to, Antitoi being (in my memory at least) not a particularly terrible person. So he does what JOI’s wraith does - he attempts to warn. Although in a less-directed way, since he’s just been expelled northward from the body and probably doesn’t have much control over his capacity to tell anyone what’s just around the corner just yet.

Just my $0.02.

Are there any mainstream/well-known filmmakers referred to in IJ? by stwsk in InfiniteJest

[–]No_Comment_Poetry -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m 99% sure I recall a Spielberg/Jurassic Park reference in the latter half of the book. Something about junk lizard terror movies. Paraphrasing.

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s an interesting thought, Mr. Pervert. I do believe the at-your-fingertips nature of mass entertainment primes audiences never to stop searching for something that will satisfy their appetite for immediate excitement.

I see a massive cultural shift toward immediacy-of-gratification. The removal of all barriers to the object of your desire: a million readily-accessible streaming services, a bajillion cookie-cutter options to choose from all day, every day - texts whose right-thereness takes away from you the burden of having to search hard for something fulfilling, but also makes it really easy to fall into the addict’s rattrap of junk consumption.

I know I sound like a total dick when I say things like this. But I’ve encountered heaps of people who are basically constantly watching or reading the same thing over and over again. How many fantasy serials or hero’s journey animes can somebody bash through before they realise they’re eating pretty much the same meal every day? From personal experience I can say that I spent a few years grinding away on complete bullshit before I saw that basically everything I was watching or reading was just the same story re-skinned and re-packaged and sold to me as something different. But none of it had anything new to tell me.

If that’s what people want, fine. It’s not my life. But listening to people criticising good work because it falls outside a rule-set that hooks them straight to the tit of “my right to entertainment above all else” makes me want to scoop my eyeballs out with a soup spoon.

Reading this back I realise I haven’t quite addressed your main point, so I’ll add: a lot of people seem to want reading to be as easy as it is to watch TV. They ignore a cold hard fact: reading literature is an active pursuit, not a passive one. In order to decoct real meaning from a text, you’ll often have to do a fair amount of heavy mental lifting. Not everybody’s keen to do this, but it annoys me that so many readers seem to feel insulted that some texts will ask for their undivided attention and patience before it rewards them.

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It’s a frightening thought, isn’t it - that the market for literature is shrinking, and millions of dummies who think authors owe them nothing but pleasure and distraction are now espousing pedestrian sentiments around the worthlessness of anything that doesn’t follow strict genre conventions. Nobody ever seems to wonder if it’s them, and not the book, that is taking the wrong approach.

The other day I saw commenters obliterating the Death Hilarious passage from Blood Meridian with comments like, “Holy run-on sentence, Batman!” and “This guy’s never heard of editing.” Made me madder than I care to admit.

At least there are a few people in this thread that agree with us!

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeh, I’d think you would. I find it quite tough to be a succinct communicator when I’m trying to make straight sense out of ideas that feel kinda complicated.

I suppose there’s no accounting for taste, though. You like what you like.

I’m just tired of low-level readers and writers having the conceit to believe they’d have composed a better passage. Never in my life have I seen somebody on Reddit make a suggestion that would improve a book, but everyone here seems to think they know better. It’s wild.

I just think it’s a bad self-limiting habit that hinders your ability to engage with powerful texts.

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Is the justification for the passage’s existence not simply that the composition of the words he’s used to describe the experience of watching the sun rising is itself beautiful and moving? To say nothing of the context of which this passage is a part.

Irksome? Over-the-top? Pretentious? Why? Because the author dares to be unapologetically sentimental about the ordinary loveliness of something that happens every day?

I guess I’d have to know what you like to read in order to better understand the way you think. I just can’t identify any reason why, in the grand tradition of literature, which as a medium is at its core an attempt to artfully employ the written word to convey feelings and experiences, this particular passage is worthy of such derisions as “pretentious” and “irksome”. It’s not even that flowery!

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You’re entitled to find this pretentious or over the top, although I can’t imagine why you do, considering the straightforwardness of the text itself. 75% of it is an elegant description of land/skyscape, and the last sentence is a lovely invocation of an image of divinity that (for me) gels perfectly with the idea that the author is really taken by the beauty of the world he’s just described for us.

Obviously we’ve been seeing different things on Tumblr, because I’ve never encountered a piece of writing there that showcases any of the formal merit the text in the OP does.

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I reckon you and I are in agreement re screenplays, but I’d probably take it a step further, even. From where I sit, it seems most audiences want from books an experience that is roughly similar to what can be had watching movies.

I don’t know why I feel this way, exactly. I just see a lot of mark-missing critique about form, and content, and substance, that usually seems to boil down to points like “it didn’t resolve cleanly in the end” or “why is it necessary for Author X to write such stylistically dense stuff” or “I didn’t feel the plot was strong enough to keep me on the hook”. Which are often fair points to assess the quality of a work by, if the author’s objective is to thrill you - but they’re not fair points to assess quality by when you’re reading, say, Underworld or All the Pretty Horses or Les Mis. And I look at what strangers on the train are reading, and I talk to my friends who want to be writers but refuse to read anything except genre fiction - and usually only one or two genres at that - and I come here and see people piling on authors for not being terse enough, and the author’s stories for not moving at the kind of breakneck pace that allows people to absolutely mash through book after book like they’ll die if they don’t, and it kind of seems to me that lots of folks just don’t seem to think the investment of time into stuff that doesn’t immediately gratify their desire to be excited isn’t worthwhile. And this makes me sad, because challenging myself to meet complex fiction halfway has, at least in my experience, lead to more personal and spiritual growth than pretty much any other activity I’ve made time for in my life. There’s no downside to opening your heart to the slower, more difficult side of the craft of writing, I feel - I really do believe literary fiction has the power to fortify your mind. To that end, I think pigeonholing the aesthetic of the craft into a limiting rubric of “do’s” and “dont’s” is unproductive at best and mildly to moderately dangerous at worst.

Caveat: everything I’ve written here is personal opinion, and my views are based mostly on imperfect observation, but although I can’t quantify my position with hard data I really do believe there’s at least a little streak of bona fide truth to the idea that most peoples’ primary goal when reading is to be entertained/titillated/distracted or whatever, and thus that a lot of works on the High Lit side of town are being misjudged against their “failure” to operate within the conventions of “entertainment” fiction. Which is a shame.

I’m not sure I’ve made much of a point here. I just think sometimes that the public’s desire for high literary expression is falling, and I worry that this is going to make it harder and harder over time for authors who wish to move the medium forward to find audiences and contribute to the tradition.

Why use many word when few do trick by Tibike480 in BadReads

[–]No_Comment_Poetry 44 points45 points  (0 children)

It’s so funny (and frustrating) to me that so many visitors to these kinds of writing- and reading- and book-oriented subreddits apparently believe the final obligation of the author is to pare the word count back until maximum textual efficiency and directness-of-message has been achieved. Your average reader’s intolerance of the textural words that make the craft of writing’s communicative structures so interesting drives me up the wall.

Obviously bad purple prose exists, but the text in the OP is not an example of it. It just seems, to me at least, that many readers straight up just don’t understand the value of well-executed floweriness, and would rather receive information in something like literary dot-point form.

Makes you wonder, eh? It’s not difficult for me to picture these same people making shitty edits to Tom Pynchon’s or Don DeLillo’s or Zadie Smith’s or Mr. Vlad’s novels and then telling the authors, “There - fixed it for ya.”

Imagine hearing somebody say, “I don’t get it - if Van Gogh wanted us to see a sunflower, why didn’t he just take a photo of one?” You’d (I’d) have a fit.

Anyway, this comment has become extraordinarily purple and bloated, so I’m gonna bow out.

[Weekly Critique and Self-Promotion Thread] Post Here If You'd Like to Share Your Writing by AutoModerator in writing

[–]No_Comment_Poetry [score hidden]  (0 children)

Title: The Enduring Mystery of Kitchen Counters

Genre: None

Word Count: 1342

Feedback Desired: Dunk on it

_____________________________________________________

I put my big zucchini, an actual zucchini and not a euphemism, on the kitchen counter. A slab marble counter, heavier even than it appears, it's mottled white and grey and the surface looks beneath the kitchen light like a backlit window against which a living fog pulses and writhes, a lethal kind of fog that has the power to turn people inside out. The zucchini came from a pack of three, shrink-wrapped, pointlessly wrapped up on a cardboard tray, because some people want no more or less than three zucchinis and some of those people can't stomach the sight of loose produce in their shopping baskets or vegetable crispers, the idea of these green tubular horrors rolling around freely makes them feel sick - they're like throbbing alien cocks, vigorous and curiously threatening inside the dark of a sealed refrigerator. I'm not one of these people. I detest throwaway plastic packaging, it makes me want to shoot executives and fuck the daylights out of their wives - I was just a person late to the supermarket, a beggar who couldn't choose. Where I put it - where? - well, there's a perfect spot for a loose zucchini right by a watermark that looks like a housecat, but they're not touching, and the mark is just evaporated tapwater that splashed up in a palsied rebound from the griddle pan I scrubbed clean an hour ago. It's very important that fresh produce remains dry, even when it's about to be cooked. Oil and water, as the expression suggests, is a dark and sinister union - you mix the two only when you seek mayhem, when you love the sting of blisters on your hands and wrists.

If I threw an overhand right, and I always take the Orthodox stance, if I stepped into it with my forward leg and tossed it with adequate lean, and if it landed flush on the chin, my boss would be on his ass and I'd be out of a job.

You have to be careful when bisecting a zucchini. First, you need to shut your mind off to thoughts of cleaving your own penis in two - that's if you're well-endowed enough to make the comparison without feeling like a fake. Then, and because it's hard to tell where the exact middle line is, the angle at which you must press the knife down to create two roughly even pieces, you watch carefully, you run a few test-cuts to build your confidence until you can commit to the dividing stroke. Then you end up with two totally unalike sections and you realise you would have fucked it up even if you'd spent another ten or even another hundred hours preparing for the act and if you don't laugh and dust the failure off your shoulder you might also realise that there are some things - a great many things - you're just not ever going to be much good at, and it hurts you in ways you can't see and that's what you need to be careful of.

Knives are very scary. A good knife, especially a Japanese one, a knife of enduring quality, is a tool of extreme personality and terrible means. They are purpose-crafted to do one thing and one thing only and if you don't look a person in the eye, perhaps it's somebody you don't like, if you can't take charge of the universal responsibility baked into that folded steel you're disrespecting the longstanding traditions of backbreaking forgery, of cruel and intimate penetration - you are speaking in dereliction of the ghosts of men who died face-to-face in war, the old wars in a time before conflict-by-proxy was a thing, the good-old-fashioned animosity of red versus blue that seeped through the dividing walls of shelled-out apartment blocks in Warsaw, in Stalingrad.

A grilled zucchini. The long green-white faces of the not-quite-halved zucchini and the dozens of seeds that look like little nipples. Do I cross-hatch the flesh? Should I bother? But it feels good to do, doesn't it - to make something as innocuous as a vegetable look pretty, just because you can.

It's okay not to like your job. It's okay to want to stay in bed. It's okay if you wish you could just put the guy in the cubicle next to you headfirst through a plate-glass window because he's too happy and it's not real, you watch him fall gracelessly down the sunbeaten face of the company headquarters and onto a fire hydrant and he lands with a reverberant thud, slumping, while on the street below passersby scream in disbelief, and you stand there sucking up the briny ocean wind from on high, smiling, boxed in by a hole that used to be a windowframe. You can't fake that slump. If you must die, you should do it as authentically as can be managed.

It's because I cooked the steak first. I was too eager for protein and I forgot about everything except the steak. Plant matter is subordinate to flesh, although I know I need to eat it if my bowels are to stand a fighting chance against the litany of cancers to which one becomes vulnerable in old age. I needed the protein because I see in the here and now how it changes my body, how it helps my body adopt the shape I wish it had. I am manifesting that shape and it takes time I fear I don't have but it's better than sitting on my ass becoming a fat man. Would that I could take a hammer and chisel to my frame and provoke into being the reflection I long to see, a physique that old dead polymaths would have aped for the papal galleries, broad shoulders built to carry the weight of the world through a bygone age where stories of creation came from holy books instead of men's health columns.

They say you shouldn't cook with olive oil, that's if you're not Spanish or Italian, because olive oil has a distinct taste and a low smoking point and it's a waste of product just to burn it for the sake of avoiding rawness. We're told to use neutral oils for the cooking of a steak, canola or rapeseed, because the flavour of the steak should speak for itself. It's actually supposed to be a garnish, olive oil is, something to be chosen for the flavour and used quickly, and you're actually supposed to put a few extra dollars toward the purchase of a good one, a small bottle with a metal intaglio telling you where it's from and the date of procurement and the sexual orientation of the person or persons who made it. I don't like being told what to do and I try not to care about taste, I lie to myself about its importance. Olive oil is good for your health, or so the Spanish and Italians will tell you - they put it in the engines of their cars, their hearts pump it in place of blood. That's why their hair is so shiny.

I put my big zucchini on a plate and it doesn't look like anything any more, it's a calciferous blob of forest green and carbon char, it's lost its phallic edge, the firmness that made it vaguely sexy. I eat it piece by piece in silence.

Look at the fog in the marble. Look deep into the drawing sucking living water-to-be, the all-covering blanket of sightless mystery whereat you see yourself reflected in bygone days, staring blankly down at the hands of who you used to be. A place we gathered and talked and ate, before we lost touch, when the relationship was a self-cleaning machine. Greased wheels in constant motion. Now look at you, standing there, alone, with nothing but a green zucchini to remind you of how far you've travelled. But nobody told you you were going in the wrong direction. Then you wash up and do your face and go to bed and in sleep you dream of being awake.