I love this man's writing. He is just absolutely great at times at being a very clear window into a postmodern experience, in that his writing and the stories feel very much like the things I experience or hear about or contemplate in the modern world, without drawing too much attention to the author/ narrator/ intent to be postmodern. This is in somewhat stark contrast to two other favorite authors of mine who could be called postmodern, J. D. Salinger and Kurt V., who, bless their hearts, draw very much attention to the author.

I think Ive realized in Don's writing that what I crave most in a modern story is the subtle commentary or reflection on modern experiences which comes from skillfully writing about the bizareness of our world today without devolving into pure or overt satire. Don is serious, even when he isn't. White Noise at times is definitely overtly ridiculous, but his short stories for example are often not at all. The one about the runner seeing a kidnapping for instance. Maybe one of the best short stories I've ever read.

theres something to be said about "Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters", though.

This is a nice book about a normal guy who shaves his beard to surprise his wife and his side chick.

But when he does, both him and you will start losing your minds

and questioning reality about what is actually going on.

Who is acting and who is not?

Who is on your side, and who is against you?

Is everything against you? Are you crazy? Or are you going to get them? How will you get them?

I recommend reading this short book with the background music of "Saw 1 Hour."

The end is....

Always find myself returning to Japanese literature--I took a class on post-1970s Japanese feminist lit my senior year and it was the best. I recently read Yumiko Kurahashi’s The Woman with the Flying Head and Other Stories (trans. Atsuko Sakaki) and have now picked up Scorpions (trans. Michael Day), the newer Wakefield Press novella release, and found a copy of The Adventures of Sumiyakist Q (trans. Dennis Keene) through interlibrary loan and my University (some crazy prices online lol I even submitted a request to NYRB's recommendation box to maybe someday get it reprinted).

I also found out today that Kurahashi also translated Shel Silverstein’s The Missing Piece into Japanese, which felt very random but amazing. She also apparently translated Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince, of which my younger sister collects various translations.

Has anyone encountered or read Kurahashi? What were your thoughts? I wish she had more works available in English (or that I could read in the original Japanese), but so the story goes for many authors!

To start, I can understand why so many people find this book difficult to get into. Most people aren't going to see themselves in the characters or relate to their nihilism. Very few people have ever been rich, drug-using young socialites in a major metropolitan city, but there's another demographic whose opinion on the book I'm curious to hear from: the subculture kids in the punk and hardcore scenes.

Much of my youth was spent in punk circles, and a vast amount of the book echoes my experience, down to the music. Interestingly enough, several of the referenced bands I have seen multiple times, and for some, I found their inclusion to be thematically significant. For example, the band they were going to see in the book, Fear, is a punk band whose themes are closely aligned with the attitudes of the characters. Give "I Don't Care About You" and "I Love Livin' in the City" a listen. Some people would be shocked to learn how closely connected the young dregs of society are to rich, elitist youths. Some might be surprised to learn how often we share spaces, even uncomfortable ones, or how often WE are shocked by THEIR depravity. The book does a fantastic job of highlighting "how" and, in some philosophical way, "why" these young adults choose to place themselves in these spaces despite their extraordinary material privilege. Like we see in the book, they can leave anytime they wish; they just don't.

That is why this book felt captivating to me. I've known a few Clays, Julians, Blairs, and Rips. I've encountered the random rockabillies and the young girls whose parents never cared to know where they were, when they'd be back, who they were with, or what they were doing. I've been in their homes after shows, seen the drugs, been their confidant when they didn't think their well-to-do friends and family would understand them, and had a front-row view of their specific brand of indifference that sometimes masquerades as contempt.

I don't think my experience here is unique. There must be others who were able to see these characters through the same lens.

I won’t reveal what the spoiler is, but I’m deeply disappointed having just purchased The Last Hurrah (1956) by Edwin O’Connor and the fate of the main character being spoiled in the introduction by Jack Beatty.

I understand the book was published ~75 years ago, but what’s the point of spoiling the ending on page xiii? Are new readers never supposed to read this full novel? Why not a warning?

Truly frustrated and disappointed - going to finish the book as I am from Boston and interested in the subsection of Irish-American history and politics but I truly can’t believe someone would include that in an introduction. I can’t imagine O’Connor, who has since passed away, would appreciate that.

From James Marriott in The Times today:

"Back then [the 18th century], long before public libraries & the paperback revolution, books were still rare and prestigious artefacts. And readers demanded not merely 'delight' from their reading matter but also 'instruction' and 'improvement'. It was the great age of sermons, edifying novels and moralising children's literature. And so is ours. The front tables of Waterstones groan with secular sermons (in the form of 'manifestos' on climate and race), and novels with improving messages about diversity and tolerance... As books are outcompeted as entertainment devices, their future will be worthier, showier and more self-conscious".

Interested to hear if others have noticed the proliferation of books as edifying and moral forces, and if you regard this as a good thing.

I was never an avid book reader, I watch movies, games, and read comics (and even with these I struggle due to audhd) but I bought audible that allows me for multitasking and keeps me focused

I personally really liked the first chapter of this story, it instantly established empathy through the animals POV and made it very understandable, it’s a unique thing I have not seen much in media, and that would make Major which I would assume is the protagonist, a freedom fighter for the oppressed

That can turn out to be extremely interesting, as usually the oppressed can become oppressors, and I won’t be surprised but PLEASANTLY accepting if major becomes a hypocrite, with all the discourse of no animal having any kind of “man-like” behaviour or becoming a tyrant towards its own kind, because it’s also set up well
“All animals are equal”
“All animals are friends”
“All animals are brothers”
That can be a very good setup and foreshadowing, if I were to be the writer, I would have twisted these words, using these words to mean something else, and to highlight how (if it becomes a hypocrite/becomes close to the thing he hates) he distanced himself from even animals and fell into the same pitfalls he once hated

This can also introduce several themes regarding morality, nature vs nurture, the world’s cycle (possibly even in a somewhat deterministic way)

I really liked how the book was grammatically written and expressed
“He fired number 6 shots…” I don’t know what’s about that kind of expression, but I love it, it’s extremely smooth, and it reminds me of how my Italian grandpa writes, he doesn’t write English or uses the same expressions, but the way he uses descriptions and these kind of details remind me of him, it hits close to home and is somewhat charismatic, the way he writes and talks gives me a “vintage” vibe, I am 20 but I really like these kinds of things

The only con I found (but that’s my taste, I think) is that the book tends to hammer a lot on the same concept and kinda drags it out a bit, but that could actually be intentional/a way to set up the story for later

I give this chapter a solid 8.1/10 it’s great, and a MASSIVE step up from what people say it’s a masterpiece in media (I have no mouth and I must scream) COUGH COUGH

Also, I know that this is probably not that well written as a review, as never read books so many things and technical terms might not be known by me, simply wanted to share my thoughts and my review, I usually have a problem with the “critic” approach, as you can do similarly by tackling the overall story, even if it’s not intentional, I don’t like watching or reading things with the predisposition of “criticizing” because I may nitpick and have fallbacks on my own approach

I just read One Hundred Years of Solitude for the first time last week, and besides really enjoying it, I had some thoughts on it regarding an inversion of a religious allegory and was curious if that was a popular reading.

Namely I think the Buendía family is a stand in for humanity with Ursula and José Arcadio Buendía being a stand in for Adam and Eve and the original sin being the first instance of incest.

In this way everything sort of works in reverse with José Arcadio Buendía tempting Ursula instead of Eve tempting Adam, and instead of being cast out of the garden, they are cast into the garden which in this case is Macondo. And from then on, they are cursed with solitude.

There’s a lot of blatant religious symbolism like the Prophesy by Melquiades, and the endless rain, even the insomnia acting like a pestilence.

Each generation they’re cursed by the initial incest, often with each of the men seeking out the women in the family (Rebeca and Jose Arcardio - I know Rebeca wasn’t a blood relative but she was ‘family’ that was prevented from branching out with Pietro Crespi, Arcadio and Amaranta, Aureliano and Amaranta Ursula,etc.) Only to fall victim to it again, with people external to the family offering the only salvation that gets rebuked time and again.

Ultimately the family ends with Aureliano deciphering the prophesy and it being a metaphoric and literal apocalypse.

My big hang up is it seems a lot of its referential to Colombian history which I don’t really know that well so I wonder if I’m just missing that and in reality it’s a pretty straight allegory for the development of Colombia.

I’m curious if it’s one or the other, or a little bit of both, or if I just completely missed something.

Appreciate any insights or discussion. Thanks.

*edit names

This is going to be a somewhat strange request. I remember reading a quote from a critic that "so-and-so does not have characters in their novels, they have people"* referring not just to the believability or relatability of the characters, but to the respect the author had for them, in treating their fictional lives and emotions as one might a real person they were responsible for. I don't remember if it was a quote on the book itself or just in general criticism around this author, though I cannot find it in my collection.

In searching, I have previously thought the author might be William Faulkner, Daša Drndić or Toni Morrison, but I would appreciate anyone who can help track down this quote, or at least knows an author about whom this has been said.

Thank you so much!

*it is possible (and likely) a variation of this and not these words exactly

The Rostovs to me are definitely the heart and soul of the novel, alot of the book’s most emotionally impactful scenes can be traced back to them. I particularly like the scene where Natasha is dancing to folk music at Uncle’s house, as well as the one where the whole family dresses up in costume, both moments are quite charming to me.

The battle sequences are quite comedic, and also showcases the idea that Volume III starts with: History is not shaped solely by the actions of “great” individuals in charge but rather by predetermined causes from everyone. Curious to see where he goes with this as the book progresses.

Tolstoy is genuinely the goat at describing people, physically and emotionally. Every character is basically given their own mini-biography when they’re introduced.

I enjoy the use of nature to evoke transformative moments in characters: The Oak Tree, The Lofty Sky, The Comet. These moments often have beautiful writing

Briggs translation is definitely the move. His choice of words isn’t overly verbose but they all flow together so well and are very satisfying to read. Will definitely read the Maude on a re-read tho.

But yeah so far this book has been great, could be up there with Moby Dick as one of my faves.

With all the Anne Carson/Nobel Prize talk lately, I've been trying to read more her poetry and translation work and poetry in English in general, but I keep running into the same problem. English-language poetry often sounds really clunky to me.

The big exception is Shakespeare's sonnets. I love how rhythmic and musical they are, and how naturally the lines seem to flow when read aloud.

I'm curious how other people feel about rhythm and musicality in English-language poetry. Which poets or poems do you think make especially good use of rhythm, and what makes it work for you?

Man, Idek where to start. I just started reading it and have not gone as far so no spoilers from future, but my genuine confusion is why do people side with Anna and loves Vronsky, when Alexey is the one who ended up with the shorter stick. He has like 3 flaws, I counted so far; He doesn't really ask her for consent before intercourse(but I'm sure as far as I've seen, if she refused, he'd understand and not push, unlike Vronsky, I can bet on that) and second he thinks in almost mechanical/logical way, but he never shows this outside so we can't make the point that Anna noticed that or something and lastly he shrinks away from issues that are too much can't really blame him as this is like a survival mechanism that he developed. But I do understand why women love Vronsky and hate Alexey (mainly coz of the last 2 reasons) as they like a man who would rather die courageously than survive meekly. And there are other points too, like Alexey gives full freedom to his wife and isn't jealous as he understands that his woman is not really "his" woman, she is just a person with her needs and life and all he wants from her is the emotional & spiritual connection(as when he confronted his wife, he immediately clocked that she was lying and has shut off her connection with him from just one sentence from her, which shows how attentive he is to her and how sensitive he is, eventhough Anna believs otherwise) which again is unlike Vronsky as he literally says that she and him are one(co dependent) and he gets jealous and tried to un-up others constantly, trying to be the center figure, all of which is desirable to women, but in actuality is toxic beyond measure (Dear women, if you meet someone like Vronsky, run the other way don't think it'll be nice). This brought me to the original doubt, Did Tolstoy purposely write his characters like this? Uk to get more female audience or just to plainly show a character that is extremely flawed as the main and good ones? Or was it just the times? Like the times then had people believe these virtues were bad and these virtues were good? And my final question is, do the characters take a 180 in future chapter, which would make Alexey so bad that Anna (who is already) cheating on him a good thing?

I am honestly so confused coz people were really supporting their relationship and loving Vronsky and stuff. ( I only saw comments as such from (mostly) women on both the movies and the books, and which is why I specified women, sorry for that)

Also, please avoid spoiling the future chapters and just say if Alexey does something bad in future chapters if the whole dynamic changes and nothing more.

Recently read Good Morning, Midnight by Jean Rhys and greatly enjoyed it. I did keep thinking of Hopscotch throughout as they were so similar I had to look up if Hopscotch was paying homage to it? From what I found there seems to be no link between the two but they seem so similar in story, vibes and plot that I have a hard time believing Julio Cortazar was not inspired or influenced by it.

Anyone else get a similar feeling or know if there is a link between the two?

Edit: Ignore the typo. I meant BRAVE NEW WORLD

I am reading the 2007 vintage classics edition whose cover states "Introductions by David Bradshaw and Margaret Atwood." There are two introductions in the book before Huxley's foreword, both credited to David Bradshaw. I thought this was a printing error but the copyright page cleared up by doubts. The first introduction is for the book and the second is a biographical introduction -- both written by David Bradshaw. Margaret Atwood's name is not on the copyright page.

Can anyone else, who has the same edition, check if they have Atwood's introduction?

I just heard of a public school teacher [1] (who continues to be one) Margaret Edson who wrote only one play: Wit (1995) --- the play managed to win the 1999 Pulitzer Prize and spawned a made-for-TV adaptation that also won the 2002 Emmy Award. Since then she declined writing any new works and instead continue be a public school teacher.

That makes me interested in other such authors whose story is like hers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Edson

From what I've read, dark carnival was published first and has 27 stories in it, while October Country was published few years later and contains 15 of those stories and plus 4 others. Now that part is clear, but I've also read that those 15 stories in October Country are actually revised/rewritten, so they are not the original versions.

Has anyone actually read them both and can explain to what extent where they rewritten? And which version do you prefer?

I read this quote in the latest James Marriott Substack, and thought it might be appreciated in this sub:

"There is such thing as greatness. More specifically, there is such thing as thickness. Great works of fiction—for that matter, great works of any art—unfurl in response to your attention. The more time you spend with them, the more you get out of them. That kind of responsiveness is so addicting that it can lead people to do crazy things, like try to teach literature to high schoolers."

I think it’s also dependent on the teacher’s style, but I just feel like the subject at school is kinda repetitive and rigid with literature terms. Honestly, I enjoy reading independently way more and I do also love literacy commentary books (I suppose at a point it does kinda come into repetition but way less). Though I gotta admit I do find some of the discoveries/teachings to be kinda new and affecting how I perceive the work, its just that Im supposed to follow an exact view of it and hear the teacher say the same thing over and over again that loses me.
Note: I’m talking about my nation’s teaching of the subject tho Im quite curious about other countries’

This refers to both snobs and reverse snobs. By snobs, I mean those who sneer at “popcorn” fiction or dismiss modern romance as “book porn.” Just because I want to relax with a favorite fantasy romance after a difficult day doesn’t make me a lowbrow idiot. And just because I mentioned enjoying a sci-fi romance series doesn’t mean I “learned about science fiction from sci-fi porn.” The first long book I ever read in English was “The War of the Worlds,” while “Solaris” by Stanisław Lem will always be one of my favorites.

By reverse snobs, I mean those who roll their eyes at fans of classic literature or literary fiction and believe that the only reason people willingly read “serious” literature is to check titles off a “highbrow” reading list and show it off later.

I’ve read and enjoyed a great many classics of Russian, French, British, and American literature. Yes, “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy really is my favorite work of pre-Soviet Russian literature. No, I’m not saying that just to show off. I’m Russian, and I love Tolstoy.

Also, I don’t care for Dostoyevsky. I know, I know! The horror! The sacrilege! The book snobs are going to have a field day with that! However, just the other day, I used a Ouija board to ask the great man himself whether he cared that I read his books before bed to fall asleep faster. He said, “М-Н-Е-Н-А-С-Р-А-Т-Ь.”

What I’m trying to say is that you don’t have to share someone’s taste, but you don’t have to shit on it either. There’s a difference between criticizing a book and mocking someone for loving it. If something isn’t up your alley, just move on and let people enjoy what they enjoy.