28 March 2007
Barthelme-ed
I've noticed that we all seem to be creating these elaborate (okay, maybe not so elaborate) metaphors to explain our relationship with Barthelme's stories. We all seem to like him in ways (differing ways), and dislike him in others. I find the metaphors the most interesting thing of all, though. Have we all finally been sufficiently challenged as readers, which then challenges us to respond sufficiently as writers? I'm probably over reaching, but I don't care as long as it gets me more interesting metaphors to read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was just saying on Bret's page that what I find the most interesting is that all of us liked Barthelme and loathed Barthelme for nearly identical reasons; however, every one of us favored different stories. Hmm.
Good questions, Katie. Unfortunately, I am unable to answer them. The answer always escapes me. It is true.
I maintain that Barthelme is no more "out there" than George Saunders or Denis Johnson or, say, Aimee Bender.
If you want to see why I feel this way, read some of the writers I would associate with a contemporary American fiction avant-garde: Kelly Link, Gary Lutz, Ben Marcus, Shelley Jackson, Chris Bachelder, Sam Lipsyte, Mark Leyner, and Brian Evenson (for starters). Some of them make Barthelme look like a practitioner of linear narrative and stick in the proverbial mud.
Post a Comment