Tag: books

Easton Ellis on Foster Wallace

Brett Easton Ellis kind of likes the movie about David Foster Wallace, he just doesn’t recognize the character in the movie:

For many of us who couldn’t get through the David Foster Wallace novel Infinite Jest
(and tried a few times), and found the journalism bloated and minor-key
condescending and thought the puling Kenyon commencement speech was
pure BS, and resisted the coronation of Wallace since his suicide in
2008 as St. David, based on a particular and very American brand of
sentimental narrative, the new film about Wallace, The End of the Tour, is surprisingly easy to take even though it’s reverential to a fault….

Wallace is presented as a guy who was just too sensitive for this world —
and that strikes a certain emotional chord, especially with younger
viewers and actors. The movie portrays Wallace as an angelic Pop
Tart-sharing schlub, a lovable populist, a tortured everyman and
ex-addict who loves dogs, loves kids, loves McDonalds, exudes “realness”
and “humanity,” and the movie completely ignores referencing the other
Wallace: the contemptuous man, the sometime-contrarian, the asshole with
an abusive side, the cruel critic — all the things some of us find
interesting about him. This is the movie that prefers the Wallace who
was knighted into sainthood with his Kenyon commencement speech called —
deep breath — “This Is Water: Some Thoughts Delivered on a Significant
Occasion About Living a Compassionate Life,” which even his staunchest
defenders and former editors have a hard time stomaching, arguing it’s
the worst thing he ever wrote, but which became a viral sensation as
well as a soggy self-help guide for lost souls.

And the David in this movie is the voice of reason, a sage, and the movie succumbs to the cult of stressing likability. But the real David scolded people and probably craved fame — what writer isn’t both suspicious of literary fame and yet curious in seeing how that game is played out? It’s not that rare and — hey — it sells books. He was cranky and could be very mean and caustic and opportunistic, but this David Foster Wallace is completely erased.

I never bought into the cult of DFW. Unlike Ellis, I actually read Infinite Jest, and it struck me as one part genuine literary talent, one part imitation Irving, two parts literary posturing, and three parts unrealized ambition. He was hailed as great when he did nothing more than show potential, and I suspect that had more than a little to do with his self-inflicted demise.

Nazis, Nazis everywhere!

The SJWs are extending their thought-policing from SF to romance:

For Such a Time by Kate Breslin is an inspirational historical romance between a Nazi concentration camp commander and a Jewish prisoner. It was nominated by the Romance Writers of America for Best First Book and Best Inspirational Romance in 2014. It won neither category, but the book’s presence as a nominee has upset a growing number of people.
At Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, we undertake a community review project to try to give every RITA_nominated book a review before the awards are announced. The review for this book was written by a guest reviewer named Rachel, and it is extraordinarily good in my opinion.
Rose Lerner and her BFF have compiled a collection of the 5-star reviews for this book, as well.
After the RITA awards, which were held on July 25, 2014, I wrote a letter to the Board of Directors of Romance Writers of America to explain (or try to explain) why this book’s nominations were so offensive and upsetting. I sent this letter via email and received a response from the president of RWA. But in the conversations I’ve had online over the last few weeks, I’ve suggested people let the board know about their feelings as well.

You vill not read vat ve do not VANT you to read. Make no mistake, the SJWs are thought police and they have NO problem declaring that a book is unmeritorious on the basis of its content.

Why men don’t read

We already know that 90 percent of the genre imprints in the UK are run by women. I wonder what percentage of the editors responsible for “premier fiction debuts” are female? Here are the names of the writers Publishers Weekly has declared are Writers to Watch: Fall 2015: Anticipated Debuts:

Elisabeth Egan, Ruth Galm, Lauren Holmes, Naomi Jackson, Alexandra Kleeman, Julia Pierpont, Eka Kurniawan, Gabriel Urza, Christian Kracht

Of the three male authors, one is Indonesian (writing about Indonesia), one is Swiss (writing about a Teutonic explorer), and the only “American” man is a second-generation Spanish immigrant who wrote his debut novel about “a politically-charged act of violence that echoes through small Spanish town.”

Now, these novels may be great. They may be forgettable. But just looking at the list is enough for the average American man to know that these are not books that are very likely to be of much relevance, or interest, to him. Do you know anyone who is anticipating any of these debuts? I certainly don’t.

No wonder the bookstores are turning into potpourri-filled gift stores. Those that remain open, anyhow.

A perspective on Seveneves

I’ll write my own review of Neal Stephenson’s Seveneves soon, and it will have very little in common with this one:

As my co-reviewer discusses elsewhere: on page one the moon blows up for no reason, and Earth is doomed. All life on the surface will be dead within a year. There’s barely any hope – the only conceivable path forward is, basically, to start launching rockets as fast as we can, and that won’t be fast enough to put more than a few hundred people with minimal survival infrastructure into orbit. It’s a rough situation, but I’m sure we can trust that Humanity will all come together as one in the face of this disaster and put aside our petty ahahahaha.

This story more than any other features a direct, explicit conflict between characters espousing pro-freedom/democracy/egalitarian principles and others defending order/security/hierarchy/meritocracy. Two teams shall enter a nightmarish swarm of tiny orbital habitats, one shall leave. So where does the literary simulation lead us?

The authoritarians consist of scientists, engineers and ex-military. They’re the guys who you would want in charge of a risky space mission. Note that Red Team don’t identify as authoritarians, they just want to accomplish the mission – a dangerous rendezvous with the fragmented core of the moon – and they think doing it right is more important than achieving consensus. Humanity is at stake, after all.

The collectivists consist of everybody else who was shot into orbit for various other reasons. Their plight is understandable. They mostly lack the technical skills to contribute to the mission, but that doesn’t stop them from having opinions on what needs to be done. Many of them don’t agree with the lunar rendezvous plan, for example, yet that mission requires that all available resources be devoted to it. Would you like to be dragged along on a dangerous Moon mission when you would prefer to try burning for Mars instead? Don’t you want a vote?

So naturally the two ideologies can’t cooperate. The collectivists retreat into a scattered swarm of tiny habitats, the authoritarians take the retrofitted International Space Station up to the lunar redoubt.

Both teams do pretty badly at the task of survival. The odds are stacked against them. The collectivists fly off in one direction and the authoritarians fly off in another and when they meet again, neither group is really too far behind the other in terms of body count.

It’s interesting that in light of the reviewer’s statement that Stephenson’s “most interesting and subversive contributions lie in his sociological and political thinking” that he completely leaves the book’s very strong socio-sexual elements out of this review.

I have to admit, I have seldom been more interested in interviewing an author, simply because I cannot tell if Stephenson is writing with a straight face, or, as I strongly suspect, taking the piss out of Pink SF. I mean, if I wrote exactly the same novel, word for word, there would be no question of the latter.

Protecting the competitive edge

Apple loses, E-book decision stands:

In a major decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 margin, has affirmed Judge Denise Cote’s 2013 finding that Apple orchestrated a scheme to fix e-book prices.

“We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise e-book prices, that the conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Act, and that the injunction is properly calibrated to protect the public from future anti-competitive harms,” wrote Debra Ann Livingston, for the court. “Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.” Judge Dennis Jacobs, who made headlines with his tough questions at oral arguments, dissented.

In addition, the court also upheld Cote’s final injunction, rejecting an appeal by Macmillan and Simon & Schuster which argued that the final order illegally amended their consent decrees.

This is good news for independents and self-publishers, as it prevents the major publishers from ganging up against them to protect their margins.

As we’ve seen from Tor Books, some publishers believe they are too big and too important to be held accountable. But unless Citi or Goldman get into publishing, that’s unlikely to be the case.

Locking and loading

Given the false defense presently being offered by Tor’s senior executives, which is that they are not being contacted by large numbers of unhappy science fiction readers but are instead being spammed by a bot-net at my disposal, their response to a prospective boycott is entirely predictable. If Macmillan does not act on the basis of the considerable evidence it will have acquired by now and we find it necessary to proceed to the boycott that Peter Grant and others have contemplated, Tor’s senior executives will undoubtedly claim that those threatening a boycott are not customers of Tor Books.

There is, of course, an easy way to anticipate and disprove their expected lies.

As you can see in the photo to the left, I currently have 38 hardcovers and 15 paperbacks published by Tor Books that retail for a cumulative $1,019.64. Some of them were sent to me by Tor, many of them were bought by me. This does not count any of the Tor ebooks that I have purchased, or any of the many Tor paperbacks I got rid of in a move some years ago, which I recall included at least six Wheel of Time books and a number of Orson Scott Card novels, among others. I figure that I would be wise to not lay claim to have had any books that I cannot prove I presently possess, but I estimate that I have probably spent an additional $500 more on Tor books than I can demonstrate today. As it happens, I have been a Tor Books customer since 1986, when I was still in high school and I bought a copy of Isaac Asimov’s The Edge of Tomorrow from B. Dalton’s. I still have it; you can see it third from the bottom on the right.

I can’t pretend to be a Tor Books fanboy. In rooting through my collection, I learned that I appear to harbor a very strong predilection for Del Rey, as I have more than 1,000 Del Rey books. But I have probably bought more than 100 books from Tor Books over the years, which should suffice to demonstrate that something happened at some point in time to turn me against the organization. If you look closely at the titles, you will be able to discern that the newest copyright date on any of the books is 2005. I wonder what might have happened in 2005 to turn a loyal customer of 19 years standing against Tor Books and its editors?

If you happen to own any Tor books, I recommend that you gather them together and take a similar picture. Then add up their total retail value. Go through your Amazon account and list how many Tor ebooks you have purchased, calculate the total retail value, and then add the print and Kindle totals together. And do it now, so that you’ll have everything prepared to preemptively counteract the likely lies of Tor’s SJWs if events proceed in the way that some are anticipating.

UPDATE: Tor Books author Mary Robinette Kowal tempts fate on Twitter:

Mary Robinette Kowal
‏ @RizziWorld @ClaireRousseau @jimchines @torbooks Fair enough. I do want to be fair here and say that I have inside info. She won’t be fired.
5:20 PM – 10 Jun 2015

Mary Robinette Kowal
‏ @RizziWorld How about this. If they fire Irene, I will return the advances on my next two books and pull them.
7:23 AM – 14 Jun 2015

Day vs Sandifier: the transcript

Upon reading this, I think I made a better case against THE WASP FACTORY than for ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM, but on the whole, I’m content with how the debate turned out.

Day: And this also touches on my third part, which is: this is an idiot plot. I mean, this is what Roger Ebert described as – you know, he said that “the idiot plot is any plot that would be resolved in five minutes if everyone in the story were not an idiot.” So, you’ve got somebody who literally has never looked in her pants to discover that she’s got a vagina, you’ve got the father who is beyond idiocy with the whole story about the dog and the creation of the fake genitals just in case she ever asks, and then of course you’ve got Eric, who apparently never figured out that his sister was actually his sister either. I mean, this is an idiot plot. There’s no way around that.

Sandifer: This is grotesque, it’s a grotesquery. I think that the ludicrousness of it is a joke in the same spirit as “killing three people was just a phase I was going through.” I don’t think it’s an idiot plot so much as it is a parody of rural grotesquery that is deliberately at the absolute limits of what is even remotely plausible.

Day: I personally think it’s well beyond those limits, and, you know, I’m not saying that there’s no humor to it, but, you know, I didn’t find it funny, for the most part. The occasional one-offs, like you mention, you know, those were mildly amusing, but just to wallow in that depth of depravity and violence and murder, you know, it’s literally disgusting, and I didn’t find it funny, I didn’t find it edifying. Like I said, the plot is a literal idiot plot. Whether you want to say it’s because it was parody or not, it’s still an idiot plot. I’m not one of those people who finds… What’s that show, the guy from The Office…

Sandifer: U.S. or U.K.?

Day: Ricky Gervais.

Sandifer: Yes.

Day: He has that television show where he pretends to be retarded or something, and every ad he’s gurning, you know what I mean? It’s a relatively new show. I don’t find that funny either. And so, maybe the fact that it’s got an idiot plot but it’s a parody, therefore it’s supposed to make it intelligent, but to me, the plot is still what the plot is, and so I found it very, very disappointing, because the whole plot is totally dependent on the three major characters being and behaving like complete idiots.

And the problem I have when you talk about the whole psychosocial aspect of Frank is Banks, in my opinion, gets the characters completely wrong. Frank is not convincing in any way, shape, or form as a girl who believes she’s a boy, and that sort of thing. I’m pretty sure that Iain Banks never had any daughters, because if you’re a parent, and you’ve got both boys and girls, there is not a chance in hell that a little girl, even if you raise her as a boy, is going to behave like a boy.  This is where I think it goes beyond parody and is a level of absurd that is not credible. I would have found it much more credible if Frank had some female attributes and characteristics in his thinking that he couldn’t explain. But instead, like you said, he’s more of a parody of a hyper-male, and that to me makes no sense whatsoever.

Sandifer: I agree that there’s an element of extreme implausibility, obviously, to some of the plot elements. I do think, going through, I note that Banks takes care to find some explanation for pretty much all of the elements of it, so that he at least has a sort of nice Aristotelian unity, where everything is either made necessary or likely by some other event, even if the characters are certainly very extreme. But it seems to me like your objection is less that you don’t believe that Frank would have physically figured it out – because there is the explanation, for instance, of the male hormones enlarging the clitoris so that it looked like the stump of his penis.

Day: Yeah, I get that, but where did the vagina come from?

Sandifer: I would assume that Frank just assumed it was the mutilated and tattered remnants of the wound.

Day: Well, except for the fact that the urine is not coming of the stump of the clitoris. And the fact that it kind of goes pretty deep. I mean, we’re dealing with somebody who is literally retarded, which we know from his behavior he’s not.

Mailvox: favorites in A GAME OF THRONES

AL is curious about the characters in A GAME OF THRONES:

Who is your favorite character? Would you be interested at all in a discussion on that on your blog? Maybe you discussed it before but after searching through your posts I couldn’t find who you thought your favorite character is.

I think one has to distinguish between the characters as written in the books and the characters in the TV show. For example, I think Roose Bolton is creepy and disgusting in the books, but I rather like him on the show. The former is The Leech, the latter is not.

On the show, easily my favorite figure is Littlefinger, Lord Peter Baelish. He might occasionally overreach himself, but I like his ambition, his ruthlessness, his confidence, and his style. I don’t like the Littlefinger of the books as much, as that Littlefinger is more of a self-conscious social-climber who tends to lack the confidence and style of the TV Littlefinger.

In the books, I liked the two Starks, Ned and Robb, although I found their cluelessness about the nature and behavior of evil, untrustworthy men to be as frustrating as it is realistic. I see them in many a conservative who is determined to lose as nobly and graciously as possible. I liked Tywin Lannister of the books and absolutely loved Charles Dance in that role – how could you not – although I found his hatred for Tyrion to be somewhat inexplicable given that he has no other heirs. I also found it highly implausible that he didn’t free Jaime from his Kingsguard oath; these are not people who respect oaths, priests, or gods.

The female character I find most attractive is Myranda, the psycho little daughter of the kennelmaster. The female character I most disliked was Caitlyn Stark, in the books and on TV. She was nasty to Jon Snow and kept trying to interfere, ineptly, in things of which she knew nothing. The showrunners were wise to leave her undead version out of the TV show. And the Sansa of the TV show is much more interesting and complex than Martin’s Sansa, who appears to exist mostly to absorb Martin’s Gamma hate for female innocence and hope.

ONE BRIGHT STAR vs THE WASP FACTORY

Or, if you prefer, Phil Sandifer vs Vox Day. This is the Pex Lives podcast featuring the interview-debate I previously mentioned concerning the perceived merits and demerits of John C. Wright’s Hugo-nominated novella “One Bright Star to Guide Them” and the late Iain M. Banks’s much-lauded debut novel The Wasp Factory.

You can also download an MP3 of the nearly two-hour interview (94MB). I understand a transcript will be forthcoming.

The descent of literary criticism

Natalie Luhrs will be live-tweeting her feelz about THE WAR IN HEAVEN, beginning June 11. I wonder if she’ll like it?:

Before Theodore “Vox Day” Beale was the central figure in the Sad/Rabid Puppies Hugo Awards hacking, he wrote a series of religious-inspired fantasy novels for Pocket Books. And blogger Natalie Luhrs is going to live-tweet his debut novel, Eternal Warriors: The War in Heaven, for charity.

Here’s how it works: You donate money to RAINN, a charity that operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline. (Or to a similar organization in your own country.) You send proof of your donation to Luhrs. And for every $5 you donate, Luhrs will livetweet a page of the book, starting June 11 with the hashtag #readingVD. She will also republish her tweets, with additional commentary, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, on her site, Pretty-Terrible. If people raise $2,000, she’ll do the entire book. (She is currently at $920.)

Yeah, probably not. I’d be considerably more impressed if she’d chosen A THRONE OF BONES instead. And it’s kind of a pity that she didn’t choose THE WORLD IN SHADOW, I would have been genuinely interested to see her reaction to that. I’m rather dubious that 300 tweets that alternate between snarking about how bad the writing is and how stupid the author is will prove to be very entertaining for long.