EPTRead Knausgard's Min Kamp bookwyrm.
What Are You Reading 2014 - Page 36
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
Read Knausgard's Min Kamp bookwyrm. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
That said French poetry looks a lot deader than the novel. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On May 28 2014 04:21 Boblion wrote: For some reason i really don't want to know the answer lol. ikr :D that's kind of my point! On May 28 2014 05:17 dmnum wrote: The only way the novel is a household cat is that people keep pronouncing it dead and it still manages to come back to life. Read Knausgard's Min Kamp bookwyrm. I will, but it says that this is an autobiography! Just because the novel is dead don't mean things can't grow on its corpse :D Did you guys ever read The Dead Father by Donald Barthelme? @zulu I don't know that we're going to be able to communicate. What do you think are some really great novels that have been written in the last couple decades? (at any rate, I hope I've achieved my goal of saying something provocative enough to derail this horrible tedious discussion that's been going on for the last four pages about how everybody sucks because they aren't zulu_nation8) | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:43 corumjhaelen wrote: I'm certainly not capable to say anything worthwhile about wether the novel is "dead", but I think you guys might misunderstand what bookwyrm is saying. The parallel is the following : I don't think anybody disagrees French poetry has been dead for more than a century, but people only took noticed about 50 years later, and few people claims Mallarmé and Rimbaud are the only two french poets that matter. The question is what does one mean by dead. That said French poetry looks a lot deader than the novel. Villon, Hugo, Baudelaire, Verlaine, etc. etc. etc.? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:47 bookwyrm wrote: @zulu I don't know that we're going to be able to communicate. What do you think are some really great novels that have been written in the last couple decades? Are you asking because you can't think of any or what? | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:50 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Villon, Hugo, Baudelaire, Verlaine, etc. etc. etc.? They all came before. And it goes on a bit after with let's say Apollinaire, and some guys like Aragon Eluard or a few others, but then it more or less stops, and for 60 years french poets have been in lots of trouble. Wait, I think the problem was that my sentence was unclear. What I meant is that despite the death of poetry coming with Rimbaud and Mallarmé, they are not the universally seen as the "best" poets, whatever that would mean. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:05 corumjhaelen wrote: They all came before. And it goes on a bit after with let's say Apollinaire, and some guys like Aragon Eluard or a few others, but then it more or less stops, and for 60 years french poets have been in lots of trouble. Wait, I think the problem was that my sentence was unclear. What I meant is that despite the death of poetry coming with Rimbaud and Mallarmé, they are not the universally seen as the "best" poets, whatever that would mean. Oh I see you mean French poetry died with Mallarme and Rimbaud. This is not at all a "problem" (emphasis on the quotes) with French poetry in particular, but rather just a subset of the larger canonicity issue, which I am too lazy to get into. It's silly to conflate that into a [x] is dead discussion though. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: Are you asking because you can't think of any or what? Would it change your answer? Why don't you just name some, since you're championing the genre. On May 28 2014 07:10 zulu_nation8 wrote: I genuinely hope no one actually ignores novels because they think theory is superior or that they're not fashionable. if you read what I wrote, you'd notice that I went out of my way to avoid saying this. On May 28 2014 07:10 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: the larger canonicity issue, which I am too lazy to get into. Why not? I think the problem of "canonicity" is very interesting and far from settled. | ||
|
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:47 bookwyrm wrote: I will, but it says that this is an autobiography! It's more of an autobiographical novel, but I don't know if even that qualifies it. It's different than anything I've ever read. I don't want to overhype, so I'll stop talking. I like Zadie Smith aswell, but I don't know if I would qualify her as innovative. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:11 bookwyrm wrote: Why not? I think the problem of "canonicity" is very interesting and far from settled. On May 28 2014 07:10 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I am too lazy. On May 28 2014 07:14 Salteador Neo wrote: I liked this thread way more when it was just fantasy book covers, now I'm just scrolling down text that I don't read hoping to find one. Ok. Thank you for your contribution. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:14 dmnum wrote: It's more of an autobiographical novel, but I don't know if even that qualifies it. It's different than anything I've ever read. I don't want to overhype, so I'll stop talking. I like Zadie Smith aswell, but I don't know if I would qualify her as innovative. That's kinda my point though. The novel has been blown into a million pieces and everything is a little bit of a novel and nothing is "The Novel"... and thank baby jesus for that! Here's a book that I'm reading in my quest to understand why the hell everybody is suddenly a neo-Spinozan. At least Jane Bennett understands the art of brevity: ![[image loading]](http://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/Books/978-0-8223-4633-3_pr.jpg) | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:11 bookwyrm wrote: Would it change your answer? Why don't you just name some, since you're championing the genre. if you read what I wrote, you'd notice that I went out of my way to avoid saying this. Why not? I think the problem of "canonicity" is very interesting and far from settled. ok.. I found Austerlitz by W. G. Sebald pretty good. The subject matter is historical but I thought it like, captured a certain spirit of the age pretty well, and it was just a great read. Nevermind that you never responded to my post though. I'm sorry I have poor reading comprehension, I must've misread when you said theory is alive and the novel is dead, and that theory is the more exciting literature. I took that as your meaning the novel is "out" and theory is "in." Hope I'm not being too wild with my perusing of your posts here. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
My claim is just that either 1) the notion of "The Novel" is so emptied of content to apply to everything, in which case let's just talk of "writing" and "writers" or 2) If you do have a content-ful notion of "The Novel" then it's dead. At any rate, I certainly *do* think that the most interesting "writers" are producing "writings" that are more like theory and less like novels. But that's just, like, my opinion, man. And I'm talking about the center of gravity of a literary culture as I see it, not really trying to be making some ponderous theoretical pronouncement, let alone (god forbid) a prescriptive claim about what people should write lest they violate my holy writ. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:10 zulu_nation8 wrote: It's cool if you guys wanna read what you want, and I'm sorry I called corum posturing, I guess he genuinely likes purely the highest of the highbrow and so does everyone else apparently. I'm pretty sure I do not, because I don't even know what is the "highest of the highbrow". I don't think Joyce is the greatest thing ever either (sorry dmnum), but I still enjoyed part of it a lot. I don't pretend think I'm any kind of authority in litterature you know. On May 28 2014 07:10 zulu_nation8 wrote: But I hope people don't genuinely think they've read enough literature to call it dead, or believe in online literary magazines trying to get clicks because it sounds cool and you can tell it to girls at parties. Just because you've read Barthes doesn't mean you suddenly have the omniscience to speak of the state of the novel or make equally sweeping claims as if you are him. I genuinely hope no one actually ignores novels because they think theory is superior or that they're not fashionable. I certainly haven't read enough litterature to call it anything, and not even ten pages of Barthes you know :p On May 28 2014 07:10 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Oh I see you mean French poetry died with Mallarme and Rimbaud. This is not at all a "problem" (emphasis on the quotes) with French poetry in particular, but rather just a subset of the larger canonicity issue, which I am too lazy to get into. It's silly to conflate that into a [x] is dead discussion though. It's a pity you're lazy ( :p ), because, because the way I was presented that problem was exactly the contrary : that it is a specific (but not isolated of course) phenomenon. In the only lit course I took after I school btw. I mean it seemed clear that the idea that French poetry is dead pervades the thought of almost all post-1950 french poets. Also the idea of "canonicity" (that I only met here on tl) wasn't even mentionned by my teacher once. Comparing ideas would be interesting, because to tell you the truth, I am not really convinced right now. Just a bit lost. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
You accuse me of being a toady repeating the opinions of the Literary Establishment and Roland Barthes, and then you complain that I don't cite anyone? And the Silver Jews kick ass. You take that back right now. | ||
| ||
