Found Short Stories, Volume 3

(Found in an essay entitled "Political Commitment in the Past Two Decades of Swedish Poetry" written by Gunnar Harding and published in the "Art and Guns" issue of Poetry East)

A boy ran up to me
I ran up to my father
Your son is burning, I said
My son came up to me and said: I'm burning
First we have to put out the fire, I said
My father went up to me and said:
can't you see that the boy is burning?
First we have to put out the fire, I said
My son ran up to me and said:
a boy ran up to me and said:
I ran up to my father and said:
can't you see that your boy is burning?
My son is my father, a boy who is running
I no longer see anyone, I said: it's burning
We've got to put it out: you and I are disappearing

(translated by Gunnar Harding and Frederic Will from the Swedish original, "Napalm," written by Bjorn Harkannsson)

Coincidence in the Novel

From William Logan's wild ride on the tails of Pynchon's Against the Day in the VQR:

The Novel as Juggernaut

A long novel is as difficult to shift from its course as an ocean liner; and Pynchon is no novice captain of the stout tug Coincidence, the favorite of every clumsy novelist since Thomas Hardy, if not long before. (The line of coincidence starts with Oedipus Rex—Shakespeare, Defoe, Charlotte Brontë, and many another have kept it alive.) Novels are famously more conservative in their social physics than in their propriety; random acts offend the reader’s expectation of a moral fate and undermine the Whig view of history on which much modern fiction is based. Novels that embrace the Mode of Perennial Accident—sometimes generated, like the productions of Oulipo, by chance method—often comment upon fiction in a meta-novelistic way. These are gestures of an art fatally uneasy with its means.

The Novel vs. The Short Story #1

A good portion of Elif Batuman's inflammatory essay in N+1 on the death of the short story seems unfounded, but this paragraph seems worth consideration:

Novels, like short stories, are often about absences; but they are based on information overload. A short story says, “I looked for x, and didn’t find it,” or, “I was not looking anymore, and then I found x.” A novel says, “I looked for x, and found a, b, c, g, q, r, and w.” The novel consists of all the irrelevant garbage, the effort to redeem that garbage, to integrate it into Life Itself, to redraw the boundaries of Life Itself. The novel is a fundamentally ironic form; hence its power of self-regeneration. The short story is a fundamentally unironic form, and for this reason I think it is doomed.

In the Beginning #1:

From a Review by Richard Gehr of James Ellroy's The Cold Six Thousand :

This is how Don DeLillo's epic Underworld opens: "He speaks in your voice, American, and there's a shine in his eye that's halfway hopeful."

And this is the way The Cold Six Thousand, the second volume of what James Ellroy has called his "underworld U.S.A." series begins: "They sent him to Dallas to kill a nigger pimp named Wendell Durfee."

Note the contrast.

Published in the Village Voice.

So You Want to Be a Writer

So this early Christian sect, the Syphileans, after life on the outskirts of the late Roman Empire had become completely unbearable, and they simply had to get out, the Syphileans wandered east—not unlike, they thought, the old Israelites in the desert—ending up, many years later, on a small island off the coast of India, a place where life was really, really miserable, in some ways even more miserable than it had been for them back when they'd been living under the thumb of Rome. The irony in all this was that, back in the old country, the Syphileans had been the strictest of any of the early Christians when it came to their religious laws; they stuck to the Bible's injunctions more rigorously than just about anybody. Remember, in that area at that time—I mean, the basic promised-land region—it was full of all sorts of different groups along the Jews-and-Jesus spectrum, who were all asking things like What do we do with this dead Jewish prophet guy? and What do we do now that there's no Temple? And they all had different answers, naturally; but the Syphileans were hard-core, so much so that when British anthropologists discovered the Syphileans a hundred years ago—having missed out on, you know, the Council of Nicea, Luther and his Theses, the Spanish Inquisition, whatnot—they were almost unrecognizable as Christians. They were like some old, beautiful, Middle Eastern fly, or flies, caught and preserved in amber. And one of the ways in which they were stuck in time was how throughly they were still sticking to all the laws about how to punish people who'd messed up. The trouble, though, was that the one copy of the Pentateuch that they'd been able to smuggle out of the old country with them had gotten sopping wet on the trip out to their new island home, and had partly rotted away in places, had completely fallen apart in others, and had had to get gently patched back together, with a little bit of educated guessing going into the patching, such that—and this was partly what was so confusing to the anthropologists—they still had all these strict laws, and they adhered to them strictly, but they'd gotten garbled up a bit. Did a man who sold doves for a living lie with his brother's wife after her monthly seclusion, but before she'd taken her ritual bath? Then they had to stone him to death. Did an angry woman drive her uncle's cattle to market and sell them for an unfair price to the priests? Then they had to mock her in the town square for three days, and then stone her to death. Did a man with a red or green boil on his skin forget to wash his clothes for a week before going to battle? Again—and, to be fair, this was how things usually played out in the original, pre-remix version, too—stoning. The great difficulty for the Syphileans was that, on this tiny little island in the Indian Ocean, there weren't any stones. And they couldn't find any adequate substitute either, like, say, coconuts, or a nice winter squash. Their island was all soft sand and dirt, and the trees were all rubbery, and the fruits and vegetables were all sort of pulpy, like ripe tomatoes. So what were they supposed to do? The priests all met to discuss the problem; after a while, they decided that, following the principle of an eye for an tooth, a tooth for an eye—some parts had just gotten slightly off—their god would accept a punishment that, even if it wasn't quite what was being asked for, was almost exactly as unpleasant. And they still had a knife they'd managed to bring along with them, and so when someone screwed up—carried burning food across running water, fondled his uncle on the Sabbath, and so on—after a brief trial, one of their judges would take the offender, cut open his stomach with the knife, and then gently slip into the incision one or two of the island's tiny, toothy, and highly irritable mongooses. Then the guy would get chased down the beach, around the outside of the island, by his family members—parents, ideally, if they were still around, but if not, siblings or children were okay, too—until, after this miserable, horrendous combination of the worst physical torture, and public humilation, and this high-school gym-class discomfort of exercise on top of all that, he died.

So you see what I mean? That is what writing should feel like. Otherwise, what the hell are you doing? Masturbating with a self-help book? Getting busy with a typewriter? That might be fun for a while with an old manual, like a classic Underwood or something, but definitely not an electric, no, because eventually, you come to the automatic carriage return, and then you'll know for sure you're not writing, because then, zip goes the platen, and, well, you're fucked.

The Diets of the Novelists (A Roman/Pompeston Collaboration)

We writers are all familiar, from our days of rote memorization back when we were apprentices just starting out in MFA programs, with the list of those legendary novelists who would, and did, consume everything under the sun. The canon of the gourmands starts with Rabelais and moves on down to Cervantes, L'Abbé Prévost, and, not the least among them, Defoe. Who can forget how our writing instructors drilled these giants into our minds? Who doesn't remember their names on the chalkboards, their images raised up before us as icons, beacons of how we, too, should grow up to write everything and eat everything, our words spilling off the page like our fatty soups, our bellies gorgeously bursting the confines of our pants?

For writers, we are taught, excess is second nature. We devour the whole enchilada; we disgorge the kitchen sink; we admire most those novelists who set the bar of superabundance high. But in our private moments, we worry: Can any of us novices ever really be Dos Passos, eating everything and vomiting it all back out again on the page? Why bother aspiring to models like Melville, when it is now not just inadvisable but actually illegal to eat whaling ships in their entirety, from the hard tack to the sea anchor to the first mate to the mizzen? We throw up our hands; we cry out: We will never be Bellow!—consuming great platters spilling over with feasts of blood and offal, fabulously obese widows and skinny young shop girls, juice-soaked copies of The Forward and the Declaration of Independence—and so we hide in our basements, jotting down self-loathing haiku in pencil, weeping softly, nibbling on leftover matzo.

But the truth! The truth liberates. And time reveals all. So many of the models our writing programs hold up for us—these spectacular, all-devouring gods of the world of letters—were, in reality, we discover much later, considerably more human than the myths that have been built up around them. Young writers all know that Joyce's hunger was legendary—but are any of them ever taught that his taste was limited, quite literally, to the scatological? Tanizaki liked vast, seven-course meals prepared for him by gangs of prostitutes, it's true; but as scholars have recently discovered, he only ate the appetizers. Alas, if only more young writers knew that, although Kerouac indeed did swallow all the road kill he could find from New York to San Francisco, he didn't chew, more of them might still be around to tell the tale! Balzac claimed that he ate, drank, smoked, slept with dozens of women, and wrote—all at once—for sixteen hours a day, but almost all of his ninety-seven novels, as recent biographies have pointed out, were outsourced to Bulgarian temp agencies. Are any young writers ever taught that Hemingway, in all his many adventures around the world, only ever ate dry toast? And Dickens—magnificent Dickens!—ate anything he could find lying about in the streets of London, or abandoned in the gutters, or stuck to the insides of his chamber pot—but only if it was thinly spread on a sliced-open half of a muffin.

And what of the less omnivorous novelists? The picky eaters, the allergics in the attic, the vegetarians squirreled away in their garrets? These careers—the lives and diets that do not humble us into inaction—are even less well known. If only our writing programs would make mention of, say, the life of Fielding, who ate a reasonable three square meals a day, or Sterne, whose only dietary sin was a minor addiction to mercury! Then there's Diderot, who abused nothing but oyster shells, or Rousseau, who occasionally ate small parts of himself. Writing teachers! Don't you see that we are all of us particular in our sins, each of us unique in word, deed, and food? Thomas Wolfe smoked banana peels, had a thing for French girls wearing paper bags on their heads, and never did like the taste of anise seed; Wallace Stegner loved turned milk, smoked Gauloises from the age of six, and all his life insisted that his mother cut the edges off his sandwiches. Steinbeck was a lifelong virgin who bit the heads off ducks; Iris Murdoch painted Communist slogans on the flanks of cows as they slept in their fields; Conrad couldn't get enough of his beloved Mexican-jumping-bean-and-French-fry stew. Willa Cather led a double life as a born-again traveling icebox saleswoman with four husbands in three states and a fondness for opium; Flaubert started each day with whiskey on his corn flakes; Edith Wharton repeatedly contracted bad cases of the clap from shared bottles of near beer.

We could go on—we might mention the secret dinner parties thrown by James, Proust, Mann, and Woolf, where the four greats ate and drank nothing but air; or the cookie recipes swapped back and forth between Nabokov and O'Connor, their ingredient lists limited to ground chickpeas, sand, and the shorn wings of insects. But we'll stop here. Perhaps knowing the truth could give you some comfort; perhaps these examples could offer the young writer shoes that his or her human feet might actually fit? Perhaps this realistic glimpse of mortal, restrained, dietetic lives might provide some of you with solace—as it has done for us.