Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So Dickens is a cheap sentamentalist, psychoanalysis is "unimpressive," Freud's no good because of the ways in which he has been "egregiously abused," Stein is unimportant, and Austen and Conrad are just plain boring.

 

 I still the the Junot Diaz criticism holds up. 

Posted

From what I hear, Diaz is also a jerk in person. No redeeming qualities whatsoever, LET'S BURN HIM

Posted

Postmodernists typically have an edge on lists like this.  Thomas Pynchon, anyone?  I couldn't get past the first 40 pages of Gravity's Rainbow.  It was so bad that, in rage, I dug a hole and buried the book in it.  This is especially bad as it was a library book, so I had to dig it up again, but dang, it would have been a favor to future generations who somehow imagined it was worth a try.  John Barth is also up on the list for Giles Goat-boy.

Posted

Postmodernists typically have an edge on lists like this.  Thomas Pynchon, anyone?  I couldn't get past the first 40 pages of Gravity's Rainbow.  It was so bad that, in rage, I dug a hole and buried the book in it.  This is especially bad as it was a library book, so I had to dig it up again, but dang, it would have been a favor to future generations who somehow imagined it was worth a try.  John Barth is also up on the list for Giles Goat-boy.

 

This reminds me of a page from my all-time favorite webcomic.

 

2007-09-07.png

Posted

I tend to get turned off by a lot of contemporary "realist" novels written in the "Balzacian mode" that trade on flawed, (often quite sexist) characters written by the next great (almost always already white) male novelist. Also, re-iterations of metafictional techniques in contemporary novels/literary nonfiction is almost unbearable. But then, I'm a weirdo who tends to throw in with Burroughs, Kathy Acker, Clarise Lispector, Samuel R. Delany, David Markson, Ben Marcus, Lydia Davis, Anne Carson, Lydia Yukanavitch, etc. 

Posted

I tend to get turned off by a lot of contemporary "realist" novels written in the "Balzacian mode" that trade on flawed, (often quite sexist) characters written by the next great (almost always already white) male novelist. Also, re-iterations of metafictional techniques in contemporary novels/literary nonfiction is almost unbearable. But then, I'm a weirdo who tends to throw in with Burroughs, Kathy Acker, Clarise Lispector, Samuel R. Delany, David Markson, Ben Marcus, Lydia Davis, Anne Carson, Lydia Yukanavitch, etc. 

 

That's a cool, long list of authors. Would you describe David Foster Wallace's fiction as "realist"? Did he write in the "Balzacian mode"? Your facetious description of this type as "the next great (almost always already white) male novelist" seems to concern the way which these guys have been treated by literary journalists -- not the style or content of their work. I'm still not sure if the "realist dude-novel" refers to anything except a small, arbitrary group of authors you've decided you don't like. 

Posted (edited)

No, I wouldn't consider him to be a realist. He stands as a strange return to meta fictional modes, in a way (which I'm equally skeptical of--sorry for conflating the two).

 

Sure, this aspect of such texts may have something to do with the literary journalism, but the contemporary stuff (especially in the realist vein) is written for that market and for those literary journalists. The fact that Jeffrey Eugenides, for example, wins a Pulitzer because (primarily) he is able to slip between genders in his characterization is extremely annoying and frustrating. The reputations of these writers is built almost solely upon such troublesome readings. The only "realist" novel I've read in a while that I felt was worth its weight in paper is Teju Cole's Open City (it's a brilliant book).

 

Anyway, with getting back to DFW, his tendency toward conservative politics (he voted for Reagan), masturbatory masculinized intellectual posturing, and tendency to produce writing that comes to completely frustrating conclusions makes me dislike him immensely. One of my favorite poets called his writing "aimless virtuosity." I think that about captures it. 

Edited by bluecheese
Posted

Hey hey, let's be careful not to judge someone's WORK based on how they VOTED. Two very separate things, in my mind. 

Posted
I don't have anything to say about Eugenides' work or his Pulitzer, but do you consider Infinite Jest's treatment of emotional disorders, addiction and substance abuse to be "aimless virtuosity"?   
 
 
I'm surprised that someone who deplores "aimless virtuosity" would count him/herself as a Ben Marcus fan.
 
Posted

I don't have anything to say about Eugenides' work or his Pulitzer, but do you consider Infinite Jest's treatment of emotional disorders, addiction and substance abuse to be "aimless virtuosity"?   
 
 
I'm surprised that someone who deplores "aimless virtuosity" would count him/herself as a Ben Marcus fan.
 

 

I think you should stop asking bluecheese to defend an opinion that you obviously don't agree with. The point of this thread is just to vent about various things we don't like. Everyone has different tastes.

Posted

My freshman year of college I made out with a girl from MIT who said she bumped into Junot Diaz and found him to be absolutely delightful. The girl I made out with now tnkers with unmanned predator drones, professionally. So what does she know?

Posted

I am not very fond of most authors I read. Will this be a problem for me as I pursue my PhD? Or is it a strength? Check box, yes or no.

 

It all depends on how well you can channel your hatred into prose criticism. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use