Read Some Real Literature: Anyway hail satantango

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Read Some Real Literature: Anyway hail satantango

A human heart: Oct 10, 2012

blue squares posted:

Reading Recognitions and Gaddis's influence on Pynchon and Wallace is plain as day. Loving it.

Interestingly there's a Gaddis interview where he says(among other things) that he didn't think he influenced Pynchon at all, the whole thing is quite good and worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Czd7GwNy4

# ? Feb 1, 2016 04:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 13:43

Earwicker: Jan 6, 2003

Tree Goat posted:

PKD rooted out the truth that so-called "Stanisław Lem" was actually a committee of Soviet writers, and so "Pynchon" was the CIA's proportionate response. The pieces all fit together.

He also discovered "Richard Nixon" is actually the Emperor of Rome

# ? Feb 1, 2016 04:56

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

A human heart posted:

Interestingly there's a Gaddis interview where he says(among other things) that he didn't think he influenced Pynchon at all, the whole thing is quite good and worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Czd7GwNy4

The humor of Gaddis's sentences is very present in Pynchon, I think. Especially in terms of word choice.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 05:18

CestMoi: Sep 16, 2011

iccyelf posted:

Yeah man. I read poetry mostly. I can�t deal with novels over 200 pages.

I don�t think it�s crazy. I understand the argument (generally) that learning multiple languages makes you more linguistic sensitive. It just falls down in practice. Lydia Davis is not a better writer than Joy Williams. Dick Davis is not a better poet than Frank Stanford.

I think what your friend is chaffing at is how poetry is taught. Line breaks are rarely examined as form in undergrad courses. I don�t believe that poetry needs to be elitist in a world mediated primarily by letters. We read/write, mythologise the self, and curate a voice by participating in social media. In times past these are things people needed to practice and develop.

So for you the surrealists weren�t writing poetry? I get you but isn�t cadence embedded in language itself? I feel by your measurements that no one has ever written a good poem. You can find line flaws in poem if you look hard enough.

I got you. I want something different from poetry but that�s fair.

I'm not saying if you can read lots of languages you are necessarily a better writer than someone who can't, lots of people are multilingual and stupid. Just that to really get a feel of lots of different sounds of poems it's better to read those poems in the languages they were written in if you can. I thought Rimbaud was kind of bad til I read French RImbaud and then you understand how well he plays with the words to make them do what he wants etc you can't really translate that.

I think saying every line needs to be perfect mightve been me overstepping the mark a bit, but the sort of idea that I want to convey is that in a good poem every line is exactly as it should be. There's no chaff, there's nothing that doesn't serve at least one and often a lot more purposes. There's no loose imagery, there's no arrhythmia unless there;s an express purpose to it. So yeah, Surrealist poetry is poetry because everyone calls it poetry, it's part of the poetic tradition. Whether it's good poetry I would debate, I'd tend to say it's good if I like the sound of it even if it doesn't actually fit the criteria I was saying earlier because it's sort of its own thing? I can enjoy meaningless nice sounding babble, Ursonata is a really cool poem. I think a lot of that sort of thing is played out now tho and if you're writing poetry nowadays you need to be trying to achieve line by line virtuosity and making language charged with teh greatest possible meaning and making something that sounds beautiful all that crap because otherwise why write poetry?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 10:31

Lunchmeat Larry: Nov 3, 2012

Tree Goat posted:

PKD rooted out the truth that so-called "Stanisław Lem" was actually a committee of Soviet writers, and so "Pynchon" was the CIA's proportionate response. The pieces all fit together.

PKD almost certainly doesn�t belong ITT but he owned

# ? Feb 1, 2016 10:39

iccyelf: Jan 10, 2016

CestMoi posted:

I'm not saying if you can read lots of languages you are necessarily a better writer than someone who can't, lots of people are multilingual and stupid. Just that to really get a feel of lots of different sounds of poems it's better to read those poems in the languages they were written in if you can. I thought Rimbaud was kind of bad til I read French RImbaud and then you understand how well he plays with the words to make them do what he wants etc you can't really translate that.

I think saying every line needs to be perfect mightve been me overstepping the mark a bit, but the sort of idea that I want to convey is that in a good poem every line is exactly as it should be. There's no chaff, there's nothing that doesn't serve at least one and often a lot more purposes. There's no loose imagery, there's no arrhythmia unless there;s an express purpose to it. So yeah, Surrealist poetry is poetry because everyone calls it poetry, it's part of the poetic tradition. Whether it's good poetry I would debate, I'd tend to say it's good if I like the sound of it even if it doesn't actually fit the criteria I was saying earlier because it's sort of its own thing? I can enjoy meaningless nice sounding babble, Ursonata is a really cool poem. I think a lot of that sort of thing is played out now tho and if you're writing poetry nowadays you need to be trying to achieve line by line virtuosity and making language charged with teh greatest possible meaning and making something that sounds beautiful all that crap because otherwise why write poetry?

Fair enough. You have high standards, that's for sure. There would be as many reasons as there are writers but how about because it's incredibly self-actualising? Does every creative act have to be in the pursuit of perfection? That seems like a drag.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 10:50

CestMoi: Sep 16, 2011

I've got absolutely no problem with someone sitting down and writing whatever they want to write and calling it poetry if that's what they feel it is, but if you are going to get something published, then yeah I'd say it needs to be as near to perfect as you can get it. I write stuff all the time that doesn't fit what I've said I think good poetry needs to be, I don't even necessarily try to make it fit that, it's just to get a feel for the words and rhythm of things, to practise writing etc. But I'm talking about how we judge actual poems written by actual poets and presented to the audience as poetry, and that I feel needs to be held to a pretty high standard. What would you say poetry needs to be then, if not the sort of stuff I've been saying?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 11:07

Shibawanko: Feb 13, 2013

Everything I've ever written has been Pure poo poo.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 11:25

iccyelf: Jan 10, 2016

CestMoi posted:

I've got absolutely no problem with someone sitting down and writing whatever they want to write and calling it poetry if that's what they feel it is, but if you are going to get something published, then yeah I'd say it needs to be as near to perfect as you can get it. I write stuff all the time that doesn't fit what I've said I think good poetry needs to be, I don't even necessarily try to make it fit that, it's just to get a feel for the words and rhythm of things, to practise writing etc. But I'm talking about how we judge actual poems written by actual poets and presented to the audience as poetry, and that I feel needs to be held to a pretty high standard. What would you say poetry needs to be then, if not the sort of stuff I've been saying?

To be clear, I think what you�ve said is valid. I think poetry should delight, by any means necessary. On a more idealistic level it should also enrich the life of the reader. If strict form does the job, great. I don�t think poetry should be tied to that standard though. If breaking form and function (i.e E.E Cummings) is getting high-school kids into poetry then that�s also great. The thing that separates poetry from prose is that there is something for everybody. The novel�s form is much harder to break. What I mean is, there are a lot more expectations from a prose reading public which narrow it�s appeal. I know that's a contentious opinion. I'll try to demonstrate.

I know people who don't know what metre is but love: http://internetpoetry.tumblr.com. That�s awesome. They might not read like we do but if a poem like that affects them and makes them think about something then it is good poetry.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 11:33

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

my dad gave me a signed copy of howl once so i guess he thinks i am gay or something

# ? Feb 1, 2016 12:26

Cercadelmar: Jan 4, 2014

iccyelf posted:

To be clear, I think what you�ve said is valid. I think poetry should delight, by any means necessary. On a more idealistic level it should also enrich the life of the reader. If strict form does the job, great. I don�t think poetry should be tied to that standard though. If breaking form and function (i.e E.E Cummings) is getting high-school kids into poetry then that�s also great. The thing that separates poetry from prose is that there is something for everybody. The novel�s form is much harder to break. What I mean is, there are a lot more expectations from a prose reading public which narrow it�s appeal. I know that's a contentious opinion. I'll try to demonstrate.

I know people who don't know what metre is but love: http://internetpoetry.tumblr.com That�s awesome. They might not read like we do but if a poem like that affects them and makes them think about something then it is good poetry.

Fixed your link

# ? Feb 1, 2016 14:27

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

e: wrong thread

BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Feb 1, 2016

# ? Feb 1, 2016 16:20

mallamp: Nov 25, 2009

What are THE books to be reading now when you've read the obvious towering three (city on fire, little life, purity)?
And wasn't the new DeLillo supposed to come soon, goodreads says May now :negative:

# ? Feb 1, 2016 16:59

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

mallamp posted:

What are THE books to be reading now when you've read the obvious towering three (city on fire, little life, purity)?
And wasn't the new DeLillo supposed to come soon, goodreads says May now

The Sellout

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:02

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

mallamp posted:

What are THE books to be reading now when you've read the obvious towering three (city on fire, little life, purity)?
And wasn't the new DeLillo supposed to come soon, goodreads says May now

Fates and Furies is the other big one, no actually turned out to give a poo poo about Purity

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:06

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Oh yeah I really need to get that one. I'll wait for the paperback though

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:07

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Also new Louise Erdrich comes out soon and if you aint hype for the Erdrich you can gently caress right off

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:09

mallamp: Nov 25, 2009

I thought Purity was pretty crappy too but it was still new Franzen you know
Getting Sellout and Fates and Furies, never heard of their authors, Arcadia sounds familiar though
No idea who Louise Erdrich is, what I'm hyped for is Noise of Time which just came out

mallamp fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Feb 1, 2016

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:11

Mr. Squishy: Mar 22, 2010; A country where you can always get richer.

mallamp posted:

I thought Purity was pretty crappy too but it was still new Franzen you know.

I confirmed the first part of this sentence by reading the second.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:24

mallamp: Nov 25, 2009

If you didn't like Franzen before Purity is new kind of bad, because I love it all.. Corrections and Freedom and that biographical middleclass childhood essay thing, Strong Motion is good too, but Purity.. meh. I guess he does need that 9 years to write good stuff

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:28

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Corrections and Freedom are good and Franzen's much deserved negative reputation shouldn't affect that the books are really good.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:42

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

I liked Purity.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 17:57

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

I havent read it and probably never will

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:01

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Purity is not the book I saw every reviewer claim it is; it's not Franzen's attempt to sum up the information age and Wikileaks. It's the character study of a strange man who hates himself, with all that extra stuff in the background. The girl, Pip (Purity Tyler), isn't even the main character.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:27

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

blue squares posted:

It's the character study of a strange man who hates himself

So an autobiography then

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:30

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Mel Mudkiper posted:

So an autobiography then

holy poo poo I loled

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:33

Cloks: Feb 1, 2013; by Azathoth

Purity is full of weird sex stuff that makes me wonder if Franzen should be writing female characters

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:39

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Cloks posted:

Purity is full of weird sex stuff that makes me wonder if Franzen should be writing female characters

My life is full of weird sex stuff. Sex is weird, get over it :argh:

blue squares fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Feb 1, 2016

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:42

Cloks: Feb 1, 2013; by Azathoth

blue squares posted:

My life is full of weird sex stuff. Sex is weird, get over it

Do you get wacky and switch hands sometime?

There were few if any relationships in Purity that portrayed sex positively - it was only a tool used for power. The sex also seemed inextricably linked with characters putting themselves into negative situations, where they had to cede their agency. This might have been a point in the book that I'm blithely missing.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:47

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

I just hate that cliche that if a male writer writes weird sex stuff the male writer doesn't understand women and should stop trying. It's one thing if you're talking about guys like GRRM or Patrick Rothfuss, but give Franzen some credit. His past works certainly prove that he can write women who have agency and control over their sexual encounters.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 18:56

mallamp: Nov 25, 2009

Men writing women and women writing men is usually recipe for disaster. Literature allows insight beyond common knowledge and science, when you write opposite gender just to be equal or something, you're mostly basing on just that and giving up that advantage for no reason. If I want to read feminine thoughts, I really don't want to read what someoine like Franzen, as much as I like him, thinks are feminine thoughts

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:11

Cloks: Feb 1, 2013; by Azathoth

You're right, he has written women much better in the past, especially in Strong Motion and Freedom.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:15

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

mallamp posted:

Men writing women and women writing men is usually recipe for disaster. Literature allows insight beyond common knowledge and science, when you write opposite gender just to be equal or something, you're mostly basing on just that and giving up that advantage for no reason. If I want to read feminine thoughts, I really don't want to read what someoine like Franzen, as much as I like him, thinks are feminine thoughts

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:41

Nakar: Sep 2, 2002; Ultima Ratio Regum

Yeah there's no point trying to understand or enter into the thought processes of someone who isn't the same as you. Why am I even reading books anyway?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:52

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Ah, women, those unknowable and foreign beings

# ? Feb 1, 2016 19:58

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Men are from Mars, Women are from the eternal and undying abyss beyond the boundaries of our stars where they slumber in terrible silence until the day they return to feast on our world.

I don't think Franzen is bad at writing women as much as he is bad at writing anyone younger than 35

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:09

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Mallamp drop whatever you're doing and read Middlesex. It's incredible and would be good for you.

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:28

mallamp: Nov 25, 2009

blue squares posted:

Mallamp drop whatever you're doing and read Middlesex. It's incredible and would be good for you.

I've actually read it years ago and even though I expected to hate it, I mostly liked it, didn't make me stop believing in genders
I like Jeffrey Eugenides

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:34

paradoxGentleman: Dec 10, 2013; wheres the jester, I could do with some pointless nonsense right about now

mallamp posted:

Men writing women and women writing men is usually recipe for disaster. Literature allows insight beyond common knowledge and science, when you write opposite gender just to be equal or something, you're mostly basing on just that and giving up that advantage for no reason. If I want to read feminine thoughts, I really don't want to read what someoine like Franzen, as much as I like him, thinks are feminine thoughts

The idea that you are only supposed to write about your own gender is upsetting to me. It feels so limiting. There are probably milions of walks of life that an author will never experience in their lifetime nor be able to research, should all of those be ignored because the author cannot properly get in the mindset?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 13:43

mallamp: Nov 25, 2009

paradoxGentleman posted:

The idea that you are only supposed to write about your own gender is upsetting to me. It feels so limiting. There are probably milions of walks of life that an author will never experience in their lifetime nor be able to research, should all of those be ignored because the author cannot properly get in the mindset?

# ? Feb 1, 2016 20:35

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Read Some Real Literature: Anyway hail satantango

«‹›682 »