2. These writers, Nabokov is also like this, are puzzle writers. Part of their appeal to academics is the interpretations that can be applied to their work. Their “difficulty” is partly down to their modernism. The point was to be jagged & break everything up.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. It was fairly self-conscious and intentional. I have to say that I, like most men, don’t really “like” fiction. I like it even less now I’m in my 30s. It becomes silly after a while. Real life better. I like philosophy, history, and—above all—essays and increasingly poetry.
Show this thread -
4. As far as “fiction” goes, I prefer people like Henry Miller or Orwell. People who were basically writing their lives so that you can’t tell whether it’s an essay or fiction really. I’m convinced people who are Joyce fanatics or whatever don’t like him.
Show this thread -
5. It’s an intellectual exercise in showing off. There are lots of opportunities to spin papers off it. You don’t get the same things around Miller or Orwell because what you see is what you get. There’s little opportunity for status signalling with them.
Show this thread -
6. It’s pretentious and phoney. I say that as a pretentious person. Poetry is ultimately king, because it conveys the truth with absolute concision and all novelists are degraded poets.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.