Bad editor! Bad!

[Bub, Andrew]

"I love `The Godfather,' and just kept thinking about those characters. I wanted to see more,'' Jonathan Karp, a vice president and executive editor at Random House, said Tuesday. In an e-mail sent to literary agents last week, Karp wrote that he was looking for `someone who is in roughly the same place in life Mario Puzo was when he wrote `The Godfather' _ at mid-career, with two acclaimed literary novels to his credit, who writes in a commanding and darkly comic omniscient voice.''

FWIW The Godfather is widely considered an awful novel that Coppolla somehow turned into the finest movie Tom Chick stubbornly and without reason refuses to see.

[Anonymous]

I vote for Jonathan Franzen or Michael Chabon.

Or better yet... Dave Eggers! I just got his new book in the mail today.

[Jim Preston]

FWIW The Godfather is widely considered an awful novel that Coppolla somehow turned into the finest movie Tom Chick stubbornly and without reason refuses to see.

[drops the monocle from his eye in shock]
Bub, I won't have you besmirch the good name of Tom Chick with this pernicious accusation. No serious student of cinema could be a stranger to one of the best American films in the latter half of the twentieth century, nor have an opinion on whether The Godfather II was better than the original. Why don't you suggest Tom has never played Half-Life while you're at it?

[rubs his monocle with a kerchief and slides it back to his eye]

[Bub, Andrew]

Hey, it was your silly little website that employed this non-Godfather watching guy as a film critic. Don't blame me if you guys didn't check his credentials first.

[Anonymous]

Ooh, JK Rowling... she'd be perfect.

[Alan Dunkin]

I'd imagine Tom's reversion has something to do with the whole mafia, organized-crime, glorification stuff. I can halfway agree with that.

--- Alan

[Jason McCullough]

Did you mean aversion or revulsion?

As much as I do like the first two movies (make that "the only two movies"; anyone who tells you there was a part three is a filthy, filthy liar), they've had a disturbing social effect.

[wumpus]

As any viewer of MTV's Cribs can easily tell you, Scarface had a much more disturbing social effect. Many of the rappers featured on the show have full-on, I kid you not, shrines for that movie in their homes. One had a framed cigar above one of his doorways that was purportedly from the movie. A few of the guys even had the movie playing in the background while the MTV cameramen were there. And woe betide the rapper who does not own Scarface on DVD. If such a rapper even exists.

[wumpus]

Or better yet... Dave Eggers! I just got his new book in the mail today.
Man, fuck that guy. We saw him when he came to speak in the area, and I actually waited in line to tell him how much I disliked his book. A chapter of cleverness for cleverness' sake I can deal with, but an entire book of that.. painful. It was like.. an entire forum full of Sparky postings.* Of course, I was obligated to provide the opposing viewpoint, since my wife loved the book.

On second thought, maybe you and my wife should get married, Steve. You could hang out all day listening to Sleater-Kinney records, reading Dave Eggers books, and playing NOLF2. It'd be great.

* I hear when OMM reopens, this is what it will be like

[Jason McCullough]

Jesus, wumpus, what kind of asshole are you?

I stand corrected on Scarface, though.

[Murph]

Jesus, wumpus, what kind of asshole are you?

How many kinds are there?

[Sparky]

It was like.. an entire forum full of Sparky postings.

Well, I can't stand Eggers either, so I'll give you a +2 damage modifier on that attack.

[Ron Dulin]

We saw him when he came to speak in the area, and I actually waited in line to tell him how much I disliked his book.
I don't understand the hatred Eggers generates. His first book was partially annoying, partially good, and occasionally great. It made a lot of money, and it seems like he's using that money to do good things (funding a youth center in SF, among other things). I'm not arguing with taste, I'm just baffled by the lengths people will go to declare their dislike for him and his work.

Personally, I like his writing better than either of the other authors Steve mentioned above. The Corrections was good for about 20 pages, slowly descending into nonsense and name dropping. Kavalier and Clay started strong as well, then it just became a soap opera with an inordinate number of genitalia-sniffing descriptions. For that, Chabon got the Pulitzer Prize.

[Anonymous]

A chapter of cleverness for cleverness' sake I can deal with, but an entire book of that.. painful. It was like.. an entire forum full of Sparky postings.* Of course, I was obligated to provide the opposing viewpoint, since my wife loved the book.
Hmm, I don't remember the passages about his parents being "clever for cleverness' sake." I actually thought they were sorta, what's the word, moving... a guy who is clever trying to reconcile his cleverness with his actual grief, and battling the po-mo tendency toward irony and detachment when, you know, things sorta sucked.

Of course I question your opposition to them, since most of your posts are clever for cleverness' sake. It's not quite as insufferably "Look at Me, I'm Clever!" as some people's (I'm pointing at you, Tom and Erik), but c'mon, dude. Are you just jealous that Eggers is better than you at it? Or just being the contrarian so you can argue and see your own clever messages?

On second thought, maybe you and my wife should get married, Steve. You could hang out all day listening to Sleater-Kinney records, reading Dave Eggers books, and playing NOLF2. It'd be great.
Is she hot? I only date hot chicks.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the hatred Eggers generates. His first book was partially annoying, partially good, and occasionally great. It made a lot of money, and it seems like he's using that money to do good things (funding a youth center in SF, among other things). I'm not arguing with taste, I'm just baffled by the lengths people will go to declare their dislike for him and his work.
He's successful using a style most of us use. He's just better at it.

Personally, I like his writing better than either of the other authors Steve mentioned above. The Corrections was good for about 20 pages, slowly descending into nonsense and name dropping. Kavalier and Clay started strong as well, then it just became a soap opera with an inordinate number of genitalia-sniffing descriptions. For that, Chabon got the Pulitzer Prize.
I did like the Corrections, but I didn't care for Kavalier and Clay either. I think Chabon's other books, particularly Wonder Boys and his short stories, are phenomenal. I think Erik said it best when he said, "He writes like a motherfucker."

[Bub, Andrew]

Wonder Boys is one of the best books I've ever read. K & C I've argued with Erik about, I think he won, but I still didn't like it. I just put down Summerland for the last time. On page 125. I feel like I'm reading an author indulging his whimsey in a way only he thinks is fun.

Children's book (sort of, too boring for a child I think)
*really false sense of wonder and magic
*paint by numbers pastiche
*short faerie baseball players (this is a saving grace)
*All versus the Native American trickster Coyote with at least a litre of Norse mythology thrown in to make it muddy.

Everything in the book feels too much like "Michael Chabon's VERSION of something you've read before!"

Ugh.
Coraline was similar, but Gaiman does children's prose and gothic scariness well enough to make that a fun read. Coraline also clocks in at 300 pages LESS than Summerland. What was Chabon thinking?

[Anonymous]

Are you just jealous that Eggers is better than you at it? Or just being the contrarian so you can argue and see your own clever messages?
Steve, the guy auditioned for real world San Francisco. And he wanted it. He was upset when he didn't make the cast. He's not a starving artist struggling for expression, he's showing off for your benefit.

I like to think of myself as the younger brother in the book, who is constantly calling Eggers on his insufferable pretentiousness. Eggers is obviously talented, but I don't want to read 12 chapters of clever noodling. I want a coherent story, which the book doesn't deliver. So sue me.

He told an interesting anecdote when he spoke here that kinda summed up my feelings on the issue. His brother went with him to a book signing, and mocked the way Dave signs books with the same general pattern over and over-- a clever phrase, a cryptic diagram, and then a signature. Can't just sign the books-- only squares do that! Gotta be CLEVER!

Once Eggers falls out of love with himself, he could produce an interesting book. Theoretically.

[Anonymous]

Steve, the guy auditioned for real world San Francisco. And he wanted it. He was upset when he didn't make the cast. He's not a starving artist struggling for expression, he's showing off for your benefit.
And how exactly does that change the enjoyment of a book? I could care less if he's poor or if he's a Carnegie.

And if you believe the book, he tried to get on Real World to help promote his magazine.

And what writers aren't guilty of showing off? Isn't every post you make trashing Tom Chick you showing off how superior your tastes are? Why point out the flaws in others' arguments unless you're doing it to put yourself above them?

I want a coherent story, which the book doesn't deliver. So sue me.
I found a completely coherent and, dare I say it, touching story about a guy being forced to confront his cynical jadedness when he had some actual tragedy enter his life. Then he had to grow up and be a father. That was a coherent story. I really didn't find the majority of the book "too clever" for its own sake; I thought the whole "reader's guide" was funny, though I can also see how it poisoned the opinion for some who are turned off by that clever style.

What's odd is that I really dislike cleverness, in large part because I'm jealous that I'm not as smart as those clever people (and I'm looking at Chick and Erik again). But I didn't find Eggers too clever.

Once Eggers falls out of love with himself, he could produce an interesting book. Theoretically.
Well, I'm reading his new book, which is straight fiction. Though it's about 27 year olds, so it's virtually guaranteed to be clever, post-modern, hip, full of irony, detatchment, etc., because that's what those wacky kids dig.

[TomChick]

That was me. I forgot to log in.

Not really, but I've always wanted to do that after some inane post to see whether anyone would believe it. I also plan on faking my own death to see who shows up at the funeral.

I loved Eggers' book. It was steeped in just enough self-doubt to keep it from being precious and was honest and self-aware enough to keep it from being snide. So what if it was indulgent?

And what's with this backlash against cleverness? What's the alternative? You guys want more morons writing? Don't we have enough of those already?

-Tom

[TomChick]

Doh! Dammit, Bauman, you got in the way of my "that was me" gag! My post was supposed to come right after whatever wumpus-a-like posted as Guest and probably didn't even get past the picture of the stapler.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

"I also plan on faking my own death to see who shows up at the funeral."

The entire cast of "Rent."

[Anonymous]

And what's with this backlash against cleverness? What's the alternative? You guys want more morons writing? Don't we have enough of those already?
Nah, but cleverness in the hands of some comes across as show-off-y one-upmanship. People can make their point without playing, "Look at how obscure my reference is... ain't I clever?"

What bugs me more than anything is the tendency for incredibly smart people to act stupid. Is it because they hate overly-pretentious smart people, therefore they're sorta embarassed that they're actually just like them? It's like they want everyone to think they're really "down with the normal people," most of which don't get the joke.

[Anonymous]

He's successful using a style most of us use. He's just better at it.
What else are you gonna do on a messageboard. Wumpus has a point about Sparky, but what's the alternative? You can't get around the fact that it's a messageboard filled with people who, no matter what Michael Murphy thinks, you don't know and are not your "friends." Save those deeply personal conversations for face-to-face encounters with people whose opinions actually matter (to you).

Oh, you were talking about books.

[Mark Asher]

When you're reading a novel and you're struck by how clever the author is, the author's sorta failed. You shouldn't be thinking about the author.

[Ron Dulin]

I generally agree with your sentiment, Mark. But I disagree with it in this particular case because Eggers' book isn't a novel. It's a sort-of memoir about a period in his life, and so being aware of the author is all but impossible.

Actually, thinking about the post below, I'm not even sure I generally agree with your sentiment. The wonders of EDIT POST.

[Anonymous]

"When you're reading a novel and you're struck by how clever the author is, the author's sorta failed. You shouldn't be thinking about the author."

That's totally dependent on what aesthetic school you subscribe to. Your statement would be correct if you're judging a novel on naturalistic grounds. Not all authors are attempting to create an illusion of transparency in their fictional works. Formalists would not fall into that category.

[wumpus]

I smell a Bruce Geryk.

[Anonymous]

I think Mark has a point. The author should be virtually invisible; if you see him at all, it should be as an actor in the story, and not as the author.

This subtlety seems elude a lot of fiction writers. I see authors in their work all the time these days--intent less on entertaining and informing the reader than on pleasing themselves and showing us all how quick-witted they are.

"Writing to impress the girls," an acquaintance of mine once called it.

I haven't read Eggers, though I got some sense of him from the blow-up over a less-than-fawning NY Times story a year or two back. I've -tried- to get into The Corrections several times. But every time I do, Franzen appears before me, being clever, and I put it down.

Peter

[Anonymous]

What else are you gonna do on a messageboard. Wumpus has a point about Sparky, but what's the alternative? You can't get around the fact that it's a messageboard filled with people who, no matter what Michael Murphy thinks, you don't know and are not your "friends." Save those deeply personal conversations for face-to-face encounters with people whose opinions actually matter (to you).
I don't follow. Are you saying that because this is a message board full of people who don't know each other, it's really just a contest to assert our alpha male cleverness?

I dunno, it's probably possible to just... discuss things with complete strangers, in a civil, semi-rational and/or coherent manner just for fun... okay, so maybe in my Utopia that happens. But a guy can dream.

[Jason McCullough]

What else are you gonna do on a messageboard. Wumpus has a point about Sparky, but what's the alternative? You can't get around the fact that it's a messageboard filled with people who, no matter what Michael Murphy thinks, you don't know and are not your "friends." Save those deeply personal conversations for face-to-face encounters with people whose opinions actually matter (to you).
I don't follow. Are you saying that because this is a message board full of people who don't know each other, it's really just a contest to assert our alpha male cleverness?

I dunno, it's probably possible to just... discuss things with complete strangers, in a civil, semi-rational and/or coherent manner just for fun... okay, so maybe in my Utopia that happens. But a guy can dream.

Typical of a neo-academic revisionist ratbag. ;0

[Anonymous]

I think Mark has a point. The author should be virtually invisible; if you see him at all, it should be as an actor in the story, and not as the author.
Of course Eggers was writing a memoir, so that sorta changes things.

I've -tried- to get into The Corrections several times. But every time I do, Franzen appears before me, being clever, and I put it down.
Maybe I don't understand what "being clever" means, or maybe it's different to every person. Maybe it's one of those, "I know it when I see it things," i.e. people who don't like a certain author's style just say, "Oh look, he's being clever" to dismiss something they don't like. Which is cool, but I never got a sense of Franzen being clever. He's a good writer, just like Chabon, in the sense that he writes clear prose but uses language in a beautiful way that I personally don't find too clever, precious, or attention-grabbing.

I like fairly naturalistic writing, without too much "writerly" writing, and again, I don't find that Eggers, Chabon, or Franzen fall into that like, say, Don DeLillo... Tom and I are both big fans of his, at least "The Body Artist," which I liked for about 10 pages until it totally turned into writerly, incomprehensible ickiness.

Another example ot something that, to me, is completely beyond any comprehension is someone I know Ron really digs, and I bought a couple of his books specifically because he's so hot on him (but he did warn me) and that's William Gaddis. I can't even wade through more than a few pages of his books without saying, "Woah, this dude is a WRIT-OR". Was he being clever?

But reading something like that makes me feel stupid, so I go back to writers with simpler styles. Simple style, complex ideas/themes/emotions/whatever.

[Anonymous]

Typical of a neo-academic revisionist ratbag. ;0
*Sniff*, that takes me back... memories, oh memories...

[Murph]

What else are you gonna do on a messageboard. Wumpus has a point about Sparky, but what's the alternative? You can't get around the fact that it's a messageboard filled with people who, no matter what Michael Murphy thinks, you don't know and are not your "friends." Save those deeply personal conversations for face-to-face encounters with people whose opinions actually matter (to you).

I don't get why you can't have actual, honest-to-goodness friends through a messageboard.

I wouldn't count everyone here as such, of course, but some of them...Well, I know I'd go out of my way to do them a favor, if they needed me to. (That's certainly a much smaller percentage here than it was at the old board, but that's neither here nor there.)

I'll argue to my death that you don't have to know someone face-to-face to know (and like) them well enough to call them "friends."

[wumpus]

But reading something like that makes me feel stupid, so I go back to writers with simpler styles. Simple style, complex ideas/themes/emotions/whatever.
When I think of simple and deep, I think of something like Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn.

As far as HWOSG goes, individual chapters were brilliant, but as a whole, it's lacking. Eventually that stream-of-consciousness list of minutiae/tangents that seemed so cool, so edgy, so darn hip in chapter 1 begins to wear on you. And then, eventually, you realize all this cleverness and self-deprecation is an elaborate cover, a smokescreen-- and a poor substitute for depth. But don't ask me: ask Toph. He'll tell you the same goddamn thing.

From the amazon.com editiorial review:
Eggers comes from the most media-saturated generation in history--so much so that he can't feel an emotion without the sense that it's already been felt for him. What may seem like postmodern noodling is really just Eggers writing about pain in the only honest way available to him.
Which I guess means he never read Huckleberry Finn.

Maybe I don't understand what "being clever" means, or maybe it's different to every person.
Currently the editor of the footnote-and-marginalia-intensive journal McSweeney's (the last issue featured an entire story by David Foster Wallace printed tinily on its spine),
I hope that answers your question.

[Jason McCullough]

But reading something like that makes me feel stupid, so I go back to writers with simpler styles. Simple style, complex ideas/themes/emotions/whatever.
When I think of simple and deep, I think of something like Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn.

As far as HWOSG goes, individual chapters were brilliant, but as a whole, it's lacking. Eventually that stream-of-consciousness list of minutiae/tangents that seemed so cool, so edgy, so darn hip in chapter 1 begins to wear on you. And then, eventually, you realize all this cleverness and self-deprecation is an elaborate cover, a smokescreen-- and a poor substitute for depth. But don't ask me: ask Toph. He'll tell you the same goddamn thing.

Which, you know, is why you've got to specifically tell him you hate his book.

Currently the editor of the footnote-and-marginalia-intensive journal McSweeney's (the last issue featured an entire story by David Foster Wallace printed tinily on its spine)
I hope that answers your question.

Yes, how dare they be, I don't know, FUNNY.

[mtkafka]

Who the hell's this Dave Eggers?

Must be some EGGHEAD!

HAH! Now thats comdey!

etc

[mtkafka]

BTW, forget american novelists... they suck! Except some. Its always about money, commerce and sociology and how it affects the self absorbed farthead writer who painfully cant tell the difference between showing off and just writing a goddamn novel.

etc

[Toddy]

Personally, I like his writing better than either of the other authors Steve mentioned above. The Corrections was good for about 20 pages, slowly descending into nonsense and name dropping. Kavalier and Clay started strong as well, then it just became a soap opera with an inordinate number of genitalia-sniffing descriptions. For that, Chabon got the Pulitzer Prize.

I couldn't agree more. If anyone deserves to be abused at a book-signing, it's Franzen. Him and that Jonathan Safran Foer guy who wrote Everything is Illuminated.

[Anonymous]

Yes, how dare they be, I don't know, FUNNY.
Mr. Show is funny. McSweeney's is writing wrapped in cleverness and slathered in smarmy sauce.

[voltaic]

Dostoevsky rocks. I just started reading Notes from the House of the Dead for the third time last night.

[Jason McCullough]

Yes, how dare they be, I don't know, FUNNY.
Mr. Show is funny. McSweeney's is writing wrapped in cleverness and slathered in smarmy sauce.

Perhaps you missed this (http://www.mcsweeneys.net/archives/index_press98.html).

[Slothrop]

Wumpus has a point about Sparky, but what's the alternative? You can't get around the fact that it's a messageboard filled with people who, no matter what Michael Murphy thinks, you don't know and are not your "friends."

I come to Qt3 for the industry insiders, but I stay for the cleverness! If there's going to be a referendum on clever qua clever postings around here, let me put in a vote in support of snideness, silliness, non-sequitors, smart-ass comments, irony, and obscure media references.

[mtkafka]

Dostoevsky rocks. I just started reading Notes from the House of the Dead for the third time last night.

Thats right!

Alot of 19th century Russian Lierature rocks!

BTW Note from the Dead was used as a starting point for Taxi Driver! And Kurosawa considered Dostoevsky and Chekov as important influences in his films! So not all literature is just fartsy stuff!

etc

[wumpus]

Which, you know, is why you've got to specifically tell him you hate his book.
Well, I'm exaggerating a little. I didn't exactly walk up and give him the finger, in fact, I pretty much choked when I got to the head of the line. I can't remember exactly what I said, but trust me, it was lame. Curse you Eggers, you've won again!

Riddle me this, Bauman: if it's such an expressive and heartfelt memoir about a sad, clever boy and his sad, not-so-clever brother losing their parents to cancer, why are there all of maybe two pages about his father in the book? Ah, yes, because he's not telling us everything. I won't say he's telling only part of the story to cover his ass and/or his feelings, but it's hardly honest. I don't buy the apologists for HWOSG who explain it as some crazy double-entendre parody of a memoir-- it's like realizing you've told a joke that isn't funny, then trying to play it off as if the fact that the joke isn't funny is part of the joke.

[junior allen]

Riddle me this, Bauman: if it's such an expressive and heartfelt memoir about a sad, clever boy and his sad, not-so-clever brother losing their parents to cancer, why are there all of maybe two pages about his father in the book? Ah, yes, because he's not telling us everything. I won't say he's telling only part of the story to cover his ass and/or his feelings, but it's hardly honest. I don't buy the apologists for HWOSG who explain it as some crazy double-entendre parody of a memoir-- it's like realizing you've told a joke that isn't funny, then trying to play it off as if the fact that the joke isn't funny is part of the joke.

I agree completely with this. Although I would say "he's telling us only part of the story to cover his ass and/or feelings". Indeed, I'd say that's the real theme of the book.

In some other context in the book Eggers declares that he shows only what he wants to show, and compares himself to a passerby throwing a quarter in a bum's cup (ie, his readership). I think that's a perfect metaphor for the book as a whole: there's a smirk behind HEARTBREAKING WORK, a kind of contempt for his readership that I find very annoying.

I find it very very odd that anyone would be moved by the story, but each his/her own. Tragic situations are not by definition emotionally engaging, especially when the writer fails to connect with his readership, emotionally involve him in the tale. And that's just beyond Eggers abilities -- he's too narcissistic to care much about anyone beside himself.

I saw Eggers read in Philadelphia last year, and he can be quite funny. He's essentially a lightweight talent, though, who's being praised as a heavyweight, and that I think is the source of many people's irritation. Eggers did a bit then about a failed sitcom pilot and it was really quite good. I can easily see him doing television work -- it's really his forte.

junior allen

[junior allen]

I like fairly naturalistic writing, without too much "writerly" writing, and again, I don't find that Eggers, Chabon, or Franzen fall into that like, say, Don DeLillo... Tom and I are both big fans of his, at least "The Body Artist," which I liked for about 10 pages until it totally turned into writerly, incomprehensible ickiness.

Another example ot something that, to me, is completely beyond any comprehension is someone I know Ron really digs, and I bought a couple of his books specifically because he's so hot on him (but he did warn me) and that's William Gaddis. I can't even wade through more than a few pages of his books without saying, "Woah, this dude is a WRIT-OR". Was he being clever?

Dude, Eggers is a lot of things, but "naturalistic" is not one of them. Hell, in his own way he's as experimental as Gaddis -- maybe more so, because Gaddis at least is trying to adapt form to better represent what he thinks reality is, while Eggers is basically just playing with form to point out the artificialness of memoir as a genre.

And don't you think bits like the self-interview, the long forward to HEARTBREAKING where he points out all the flaws of the book, and the strained epiphany of the concluding pages are all moments where Eggers is screaming I'M A WRIT-OR?

Eggers is certainly more accessible than Gaddis, if that's what you're trying to say, but accessibility doesn't equal naturalism.

junior allen

[Anonymous]

Riddle me this, Bauman: if it's such an expressive and heartfelt memoir about a sad, clever boy and his sad, not-so-clever brother losing their parents to cancer, why are there all of maybe two pages about his father in the book? Ah, yes, because he's not telling us everything. I won't say he's telling only part of the story to cover his ass and/or his feelings, but it's hardly honest.

So he's not permitted to be selective in what material he chooses to use? A memoir is not a history nor an affidavit; it is an individual's selective remembrance. Perhaps the stuff about his father wasn't entertaining enough, or threw off the tone of the work, or didn't fit in with his themes. I'm not defending Eggers, whom (as I mentioned) I haven't read, but a writer's right to choose.

Peter

[Anonymous]

When I think of simple and deep, I think of something like Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn.
So do I. And? Eggers isn't Twain, nor is his book on the same planet as Huck Finn.

From the amazon.com editiorial review:
So is it at all possible for you to make points without letting others talk for you? Sheesh, should I go browse for all the positive reviews of HWOSG? I'll win, you know, because I can pick more positive sources. Oh, and by your Counter-strike debating skill, it also sold well and influenced a lot of other writers (mostly for worse, just like Counter-strike), which means it's BIG AND IMPORTANT AND INFLUENTIAL. End of discussion.

Which I guess means he never read Huckleberry Finn.
Sure, if you take that review as gospel, and speaking for Eggers as opposed to some reviewer's opinion of why he thinks Eggers does what he does. Which you probably can't.

I could say, "The developer of Sniper, Poland's Mirage, come from such a ravaged place that it can't help but be reflected in the low-resolution textures and poor level design. It's a manifestation of their confusion. The bleeding bus is a metaphor for the pain they feel about their country's past; people walking through doors before they open a sign of how society is opening its arms to bigger and more beautiful things."*

*Note: this might make more sense, or possibly less, if Poland was some ravaged, war-torn country. But I'm not clever enough to make this work. Sorry.

I hope that answers your question.
There's a fine line between being clever and making a joke. Depends on whether you get it or find it funny, I guess.

And David Foster Wallace... there's a guy I can't quite "get."

[Anonymous]

Riddle me this, Bauman: if it's such an expressive and heartfelt memoir about a sad, clever boy and his sad, not-so-clever brother losing their parents to cancer, why are there all of maybe two pages about his father in the book?
Aside from the obvious question I have, "So which review did you pull this point from?", I'd say... well, I'm fairly certain the book isn't about his father, but I could be wrong since I read it a couple of years ago and haven't looked at it since. But when I'm done with his current book, I may re-read it and count those pages just for you.

[Anonymous]

Eggers is certainly more accessible than Gaddis, if that's what you're trying to say, but accessibility doesn't equal naturalism.

Okay, fair enough, I'm not up on my literary terms. By naturalistic, I just meant it was full of words I could read, pronounce, and mostly knew the definitions for, and the way they were strung together was clear and didn't confuse me. Accessible, naturalistic, easy-to-read, whatever.

[wumpus]

Sheesh, should I go browse for all the positive reviews of HWOSG? I'll win, you know, because I can pick more positive sources.
Then you've already won, because the amazon.com editorial review I quoted from is positive. If you bothered to actually read it.

[wumpus]

I'm not defending Eggers, whom (as I mentioned) I haven't read, but a writer's right to choose.
I really wish people would limit themselves to expressing an opinion only AFTER they've read the book, or played the game, or whatever. Opinions are worthless enough as is without you clowns adding fuel to the fire.

NOTE: this rule does not apply to me and Dark Age of Camelot.

[Anonymous]

I really wish people would limit themselves to expressing an opinion only AFTER they've read the book, or played the game, or whatever.
Or at least people should read a lot of other people's reviews and use them to bolster their own non-opinion. They can even say, "Yeah, what this guy said" or "He said it better than I could ever say it" and make it sound like they do actualy have an opinion.

[wumpus]

Oh, god. Here we go. Maybe someday you'll invite me to visit this mythical land of absolute objectivity that you and Tom Chick evidently live in. Of course, everything you guys write is wholly original and not influenced in any way by anything you've read or heard SINCE YOU WERE BORN.

Yeah.

And for the record, my wife and I both read the book. She originally brought up the point about the "memoir" barely covering his father. At least that's where I heard it first. Naturally, you'll want to email her directly and verify that she's the first person on planet earth to have this opinion, and not some kind of low down, dirty punk who reads other people's reviews and uses them to bolster her own non-opinion.

[Anonymous]

And for the record, my wife and I both read the book. She originally brought up the point about the "memoir" barely covering his father. At least that's where I heard it first. Naturally, you'll want to email her directly and verify that she's the first person on planet earth to have this opinion, and not some kind of low down, dirty punk who reads other people's reviews and uses them to bolster her own non-opinion.

Yeah, interesting about that, huh? Particularly interesting is the little offhand comment Eggers makes somewhere in the book that Daddy was an alcoholic. You would think something like that might be worth going into a bit more, but no, there's just a brief mention and then we move on to more Gayness.

One of the things that supports my notion that HEARTBREAKING is a study in avoidance. Re Peter: of course authors have the 'right' to make whatever choices they want, that's a truism. That doesn't make them immune from criticism for their choices, however.

junior allen

[Anonymous]

Oh, god. Here we go. Maybe someday you'll invite me to visit this mythical land of absolute objectivity that you and Tom Chick evidently live in.
Well, neither of us feels compelled to cleverly footnote our own opinions with those of others as a way of making them seem stronger.

Oh, and how does your trashing of Tom's review of "The Thing" jibe with your "people should give opinions only after playing the game" comment? Do you need to play a whole game like the person you're criticizing? Or your trashing of Sleater-Kinney? How many listens does it take before you're just "adding fuel to the fire?"

It's kinda stupid, eh?

Anyway, as for AHWOSG, whether it's a "study in avoidance", "full of gayness", or "touching," whatever, I dug it. Which probably means I'm gay, I guess. But I can see why others don't dig it, which is probably the difference between you and me, wumpus.

But most of the criticism of Eggers stems from the media reaction to his book; as junior allen said below (above?), "He's essentially a lightweight talent, though, who's being praised as a heavyweight, and that I think is the source of many people's irritation." Which has nothing to do with Eggers, or his book, but with the media for latching on to him. (Why media coverage should even enter into a discussion of a specific work is certainly questionable.)

But if he is such a lightweight, as others seem to think of Franzen or even Chabon, why do so few people see this? Why or how are book reviewers duped? Are they just stupid, while people like you guys are smart? I mean, we get this kind of reaction to movies, music, games, etc., as well.

[Anonymous]

Oh, god. Here we go. Maybe someday you'll invite me to visit this mythical land of absolute objectivity that you and Tom Chick evidently live in.
Well, neither of us feels compelled to cleverly footnote our own opinions with those of others as a way of making them seem stronger.

Oh, and how does your trashing of Tom's review of "The Thing" jibe with your "people should give opinions only after playing the game" comment? Do you need to play a whole game like the person you're criticizing? Or your trashing of Sleater-Kinney? How many listens does it take before you're just "adding fuel to the fire?"

It's kinda stupid, eh?

Anyway, as for AHWOSG, whether it's a "study in avoidance", "full of gayness", or "touching," whatever, I dug it. Which probably means I'm gay, I guess. But I can see why others don't dig it, which is probably the difference between you and me, wumpus.

But most of the criticism of Eggers stems from the media reaction to his book; as junior allen said below (above?), "He's essentially a lightweight talent, though, who's being praised as a heavyweight, and that I think is the source of many people's irritation." Which has nothing to do with Eggers, or his book, but with the media for latching on to him. (Why media coverage should even enter into a discussion of a specific work is certainly questionable.)

But if he is such a lightweight, as others seem to think of Franzen or even Chabon, why do so few people see this? Why or how are book reviewers duped? Are they just stupid, while people like you guys are smart? I mean, we get this kind of reaction to movies, music, games, etc., as well.

[Anonymous]

Duh, double post, I suck.

[Anonymous]

Well, neither of us feels compelled to cleverly footnote our own opinions with those of others as a way of making them seem stronger.
Sure you do. You do it every day; I just take the time to document mine.

Are they just stupid, while people like you guys are smart? I mean, we get this kind of reaction to movies, music, games, etc., as well.
Yes. I mean no. What's with the chip on your shoulder? Just becase we think it's a duplicitous, self-serving piece of crap doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. I think it's amusing that you even bring this up. I look at it this way: if people tell me something sucks that I enjoy, I purposely enjoy it even more just to spite them. So, really, you should be thanking me.

[Anonymous]

Do you need to play a whole game like the person you're criticizing? Or your trashing of Sleater-Kinney? How many listens does it take before you're just "adding fuel to the fire?"
I hope this isn't a trick question, because my answer is: once. Play the game once, or listen to the album once. If you truly hate it, you shouldn't be required to slog all the way through it, either, but that should be reserved for stuff that's clearly bad by any objective metric (eg, Sniper), and not something that's simply not your cup of tea (eg, Nascar racing games).

Oh, and how does your trashing of Tom's review of "The Thing" jibe with your "people should give opinions only after playing the game" comment?
The Thing PC GameSpot score -- 7.7. Average user review score -- 8.0
The Thing Xbox GameSpot score -- 8.4. Average user review score -- 8.8.

There I go again, cleverly footnoting my own opinion with those of others. I'm a bastard.

[Anonymous]

Sure you do. You do it every day; I just take the time to document mine.
Er, right. Well, okay, you got me. When I was discussing The Thing, I was paraphrasing my own review. I haven't actually read anyone else's, though, so I can't really back it up with anything other than my own review.

Just becase we think it's a duplicitous, self-serving piece of crap doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.
That's just it, you spend hundreds of messages berating Tom Chick for disliking or liking something you don't. You're trying to convince him he's wrong and you're right. Or you're just trying to publicly humiliate him. I'm not sure which is weirder.

[Anonymous]

I hope this isn't a trick question, because my answer is: once. Play the game once, or listen to the album once. If you truly hate it, you shouldn't be required to slog all the way through it, either, but that should be reserved for stuff that's clearly bad by any objective metric (eg, Sniper), and not something that's simply not your cup of tea (eg, Nascar racing games).
Um, so how does your praise of The Thing qualify? You said you weren't done, yet you decided to trash Tom's review. You don't truly hate it, so should you actually play the entire game before singing its praises? Because it actually gets worse, just as a crap game could get better (which may still make it a crap game, but if you're reviewing a game, you're sorta obligated to suffer through as much of it as humanly possible... I finished Sniper, damnit!).

There I go again, cleverly footnoting my own opinion with those of others. I'm a bastard.
An opinion which isn't based on completing a game you apparently enjoy, but don't let that detail get in the way of a good attempt at humiliating Chick.

Anyway, Gamespot is clearly more in touch with the common gamer, or at least its own readers. Or maybe their review system skews everything a wee-bit higher, so its 8/10 = our 3/5. Or something.

[Anonymous]

Um, so how does your praise of The Thing qualify? You said you weren't done, yet you decided to trash Tom's review.
Where did I say that? I completed The Thing; it's a fine game. It's certainly no worse than that other ultra-gimmicky third person shooter, Max Payne. Much better story, too.

haven't actually read anyone else's, though, so I can't really back it up with anything other than my own review.
C'mon. You're just pissed because nobody ever plagiarizes your reviews. Of course, to do that, they'd have to read it first. That might explain it.

[Anonymous]

Where did I say that? I completed The Thing; it's a fine game. It's certainly no worse than that other ultra-gimmicky third person shooter, Max Payne. Much better story, too.
Well, I must have imagined you commenting on it a while back, because in my three-minute attempt at finding it, I failed.

Of course you're backpedaling here, saying it's "no worse" than Max Payne. You were really singing its praises, if I recall. Though as we all know, my memory sucks.

C'mon. You're just pissed because nobody ever plagiarizes your reviews. Of course, to do that, they'd have to read it first. That might explain it.
Hah, personal dig!

Lots of people used to plagiarize our reviews and previews when we used to post them online. And instead of airing it out in public, I'd contact the site and point out the similarities. I might consider going public if they didn't remove or alter the article, but everyone just yanked 'em.

Nowadays, people just scan entire pages of the magazine. Magazine warez, you gotta love it.

[Desslock]

Nowadays, people just scan entire pages of the magazine. Magazine warez, you gotta love it.

My favourite example of this was courtesy of our friends (in a Mafia kind of way) at GameSpot U.K. They would repost my articles, which they technically weren't entitled to do but it was a reasonable presumption on their part since they were generally entitled to GameSpot content, but then they'd not only remove my name, they'd give the credit for the articles to one of their own writers. Amazing.

Stefan

[Anonymous]

Nowadays, people just scan entire pages of the magazine. Magazine warez, you gotta love it.

My favourite example of this was courtesy of our friends (in a Mafia kind of way) at GameSpot U.K. They would repost my articles, which they technically weren't entitled to do but it was a reasonable presumption on their part since they were generally entitled to GameSpot content, but then they'd not only remove my name, they'd give the credit for the articles to one of their own writers. Amazing.

Stefan

Back when I was running a game web site some years back, every so often the tech guys would upgrade the system to a bigger and better engine. I recall that, in one change-over, the byline section in the data entry form had to be filled with a name that was already in the database. When it wasn't, the system (or someone running it) improvised. We eventually fixed it, but for a while there, the concept of "byline" was kind of meaningless.

Peter

[voltaic]

Where did I say that? I completed The Thing; it's a fine game. It's certainly no worse than that other ultra-gimmicky third person shooter, Max Payne. Much better story, too.

I hate to jump in here, girls, but Max Payne was an horrible waste of time except that the storyboarding/scene transitions were cool as hell.

[Anonymous]

My favourite example of this was courtesy of our friends (in a Mafia kind of way) at GameSpot U.K. They would repost my articles, which they technically weren't entitled to do but it was a reasonable presumption on their part since they were generally entitled to GameSpot content, but then they'd not only remove my name, they'd give the credit for the articles to one of their own writers. Amazing.
You're kidding? My lordy, that's... just wrong on so many levels. I mean, okay, so they remove the name altogether, maybe. But adding someone else's, yow. That's balls-y. Or something.