For two weeks I had little energy or appetite for writing, but watching videos takes little energy.
The Huns - genetics
Sarah Paine: Something Huge is Happening to the Global Order: Comanches v. Apaches: What if Britain stayed out of WWI Austro-Hungarian Army1066 fails Response to AlternateHistoryHub... Highland Regiments: Most Jacobite Town in Scotland: 5 Vatican mysteries: Grumman F7F: Belle Gunness: Axe Man of New Orleans:
TR - what Trump aspires to and is too incompetent to stand the test:
It is an old problem: how not to become what we behold, how not to
transform into one’s enemy—how to be sure anti-fascism doesn’t become
fully indistinct from fascism itself. Given our psychology, with its
tendencies toward projective and dichotomous thinking, and given
political realities, which often make violent confrontation seem fated,
this may be an insoluble problem. Perhaps every anti-[X] is doomed by
the occult law of similarities to become [X]; perhaps our time is better
spent in simply not being [X] rather than defining ourselves against
and therefore by [X]. The strongest fiction, if it is too complex to
serve as historical evidence, succeeds in its world-making complexity by
alerting us to these flaws inherent in the soul—the human soul, northern, southern, or otherwise.
The several outward crises of Leverkühn’s life are erotic, and are to a striking degree surmised
rather than being verified by Zeitblom. (For all of Nabokov’s hatred
for what he took to be Mann’s lumbering Dostoevskean overinvestment in
ideological fiction, Doctor Faustus is a novel of almost
Nabokovian trickiness, about which more later.) As a young man,
Leverkühn deliberately contracts syphilis by coupling with a prostitute
named Esmerelda; later, he becomes involved in a love quadrangle with a
male violinist who is his friend and lover and with two women in their
social circle. This entanglement ends, in a passage of shocking
melodrama for this slowest of novels, in a public murder on a streetcar.
***
In fact, Mann, who received a teenaged Susan Sontag in his California
exile, seemed almost unable to write without deploying illness as
metaphor, a metaphor above all for artists’ Nietzschean dalliance with
the Dionysian forces of nature’s primordial flux. This dangerous
encounter with Dionysus is necessary to make artists’ ordered Apollonian
images vital enough to command and console an audience. Doctor Faustus does for syphilis what Death in Venice does for cholera and what The Magic Mountain
does for TB. (By the way, the limitations of this metaphor can be shown
by recent scholarship’s recision of some high-profile syphilis
diagnoses: for instance and to the best of my knowledge, neither
Nietzsche nor Wilde are currently thought to have had the
sexually-transmitted disease, as they once were.)
***
So it appears that Doctor Faustus is, for all its dense and riddling disquisitions on modernism and music, a story with a very clear moral: Mann comes out for humanism, reason, moderation, and against
modernism’s Faustian ambition and romance with the inhuman. On the
other hand, who wants to read a tract? And does the novel not frequently
raise the possibility of parody, to say nothing of irony? There is that
Nabokovian trickiness I mentioned at the outset. Could so staid a
narrator as Zeitblom, who is always telling us just how staid he is,
just how “eerie” and “uncanny” he finds the story he is telling us, be
unreliable? Yes: simply because he is always telling us we can trust
him, we should suspect him.
Doctor Faustus uses a narrative mode that Anglophone readers will recognize from Melville’s Moby-Dick, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby:
all of these books feature narrators of self-proclaimed humanism and
enlightenment who tell us about the grand catastrophes of other, very
different men, “ungodly god-like men,” to borrow from Melville. Yet each
of these books, Doctor Faustus no less than the others,
carefully shows us the secret yearning, even the erotic longing, of its
stolid narrator to be more like its tragic anti-hero.
...It was a vital component of his self-analysis in the aftermath of his
father’s death even though Sophocles’s luckless Oedipus is innocent of
both a patricidal and an incestuous tendency. He is a tragic hero
without a tragic flaw. As Cynthia Chase aptly observes, “Sophocles’ play
portrays Oedipus as the one person in history without an Oedipus
complex in the conventional sense: he has murdered his father and
married his mother in an appreciation of expediency rather than in
satisfaction of a desire.” Unlike Roy, whose toxic relationship is
sublimated in the search for a shibboleth or vocation that is neither
inherited nor imbibed but auto-generated in privation and pain, Oedipus
is left babbling “unholy words” in his mother tongue, begging to be
released from the house under a curse that is his own. The name Oedipus,
“Swellfoot” or “Knowfoot,” is a found object, like the foundling in
swaddling clothes, not a moniker given by a mother or a father to shape
the son’s destiny but merely a banal descriptor of his disability (or
special ability). Parents traumatize the feet as they cast him away; the
Sphinx tries to further constrict and strangle the unwanted life. Yet
the myth drags on. This text is the plague we turn to generation after
generation for incredible prophecies that yield sick truths.
LILY
FELSENTHAL: You’ve published four novels—two in English, two in
French—and this is your first collection of short fiction. When you have
an idea for a story, how do you know if it’s destined to be a condensed
piece or something longer?
CAMILLE BORDAS: I
think I don’t really have ideas in general. I mean, as the story
develops and decides to go in a certain direction, I will kind of build
the ideas that the characters need to survive. But as a writer, I don’t
start off with a premise or a theme that the story should touch on—I
usually start with a weird thing that someone is thinking and try to
pull that thread. It happened once that I wrote a novel and it ended up
being a story. I spent three years on a novel and I was really
disappointed with it; I realized the only thing that interested me was
this one character and this particular job that he had, and so I wrote a
story from his perspective. But usually I kind of know what I’m doing
in terms of is this long or short form?—I know it pretty
instantly from the kind of problem the narrator has. If the problem is
very clearly and quickly there, I’m like, That’s going to be a story. And if the problem takes a little time to arise, I’m like, Okay, this sounds like a more complex web of things to untangle.
One refuge from the news is small stakes literary scuffles. What else
are we on literary Substack for, anyway? One silly discourse that
caught my attention was bickering about whether William Shakespeare was a
“genre writer” or a “literary writer.” I’ve hidden the user names
because I’m not trying to dunk on any individuals (and I think the
“outright literary” poster is being at least a bit tongue-in-cheek).
Still, anachronistic shoehorning of past writers into “teams” based on
contemporary literary divisions is a pet peeve of mine. Was Jane Austen a
commercial Romance writer? Did Homer write fan fic? Should we call
Anton Chekhov MFA fiction? No. Be quiet. Isn’t Tumblr still around to
quarantine these takes?
Seriously though, I write a lot
about the question of genre fiction and literary fiction because I think
these are interesting traditions and that learning about them can
deepen your understanding and appreciation of literature. As I wrote in
my “The Grand Ballroom Theory of Literature”
essay, I like to think of literature as a unending part in a vast
ballroom the stretches throughout time. Genres and styles are
conversations that take place between authors (and readers, editors,
etc.) in that ballroom. Genres aren’t mere marketing labels. They are
conversations where authors speak, rebut, compliment, and subvert each
other. This, for me, is an illuminating way to think about books.
It is tempting to see Infinite Jest as one final
act of heroism in the name of fiction. Certainly, I think it’s no
stretch to say it’s unlikely we’ll see another book like this in our
lifetimes. Ten years from now, Infinite Jest may exist as an artefact of
an era when humans still wrote, from a writer who could describe the
weather with detail as compelling as the realists, a work that combines
Shakespearean lexical boldness with literary brat-pack
druggie precocious cool and mainstream momentum to create one of the
enduring literary successes of the 20th century.
When
I was approached to celebrate the novel’s 30th anniversary edition,
it was perhaps hoped that I might assist in assuaging the unfair,
outsized connotations of what it means to be a David Foster Wallace reader, which, at its worst, has come to signify misogyny, and at its best, someone who’s just slightly annoying.
When
I emerged from those weeks of dedicated reading I had a feeling of
intensified mental acuity, but more importantly, there was the sensation
of grief. It was a type of mourning I had not experienced before, one
contingent on the fact that this book had demanded so much of
my attention for so long a time. I missed these characters. I had lived
with Hal, Joelle, Orin, Stice, Pemulis, and meaty, square-head,
heart-of-gold Don Gately, witness to their deformities and obsessions so
meticulously detailed and made so alive on the page, and
suddenly without them I felt hollow. And just as with real grief, I
found myself wanting to be surrounded by fellow mourners, to seek them
out and convene in our collective memory, people who I realised were
defined by a set of attributes wholly different from those I had
assumed, people who had committed an act of defiance and tenacity,
curiosity and rigour, and after it all, were sad to see its end.
I can agree with all of that, even if I am still uncertain about my feelings towards this novel.
Continuing some items I gathered while down with my sinus infection and then recuperation. I am still off on my daily reports.
I have taken to reading Angela Yuriko Smith's Substack on writing and life - only I got behind in that reading. What follows are my notes from two of her posts.
With all the rejections piling up, I begin wondering is it the story or my prose? The former means to me that I have not written a compelling character. The latter makes me question how I have put the story together - structure overall and at the sentence level, dialog's content; the technical stuff.
As writers, we know the difference between a character who wants something and a character who is constructed to move through the story in a particular way. Want alone doesn’t carry a narrative. A character can want many things and still remain inert on the page.
Construction is what gives desire traction. It’s the combination of values, limitations, habits, fears, and boundaries that determine how a character responds when the story applies pressure. Craft is what decides whether a character hesitates or acts, bends or breaks, compromises or holds the line.
One is aspiration. The other is architecture.
***
Traditional intention-setting asks: What do I want to achieve?
Craft-based intention asks: What kind of character am I writing and what choices would make them believable?
One chases outcomes. The other establishes coherence. And coherence is what sustains us when motivation fails.
We
don’t need a vision board for this. We don’t need more classes, more
books, or color-coded clutter in matching bins. We need to unearth
ourselves.
Most meaningful change doesn’t arrive as a dramatic turning
point. It arrives as a line edit. In writing, a single sentence can
change the entire tone of a chapter. We can shift a motivation slightly,
clarify a value, remove one false note, and suddenly the character
reads as truer, more coherent, and more alive. The plot hasn’t changed,
but the experience of the story has.
Our lives work the same way.
We
tend to imagine change as something sweeping: new systems, new
identities, new declarations. Those are complete rewrites. What we want
instead are developmental edits. What we’re practicing here is revision.
Revision happens at the sentence level.
A one-sentence shift might sound like:
I don’t have time for thiscanbecomeThis isn’t a priority right now.
I should say yescanbecomeI’m allowed to pause before deciding.
I’ll do it perfectly or not at allcanbecomeI’ll do the next honest version.
These
are not empty affirmations. They’re edits. They don’t ask us to believe
something new. They ask us to tell our truth more precisely.
Micro-decisions are how authorship becomes visible.
And there is also to be savored how Ms. Smith applies these concepts to a philosophy of life.
Thanks for sending "Coming Home" our way. We're grateful for the opportunity to read your work but unfortunately are not able to publish this story. We're sorry for not being able to reply more personally, but the number of submissions makes that difficult.
Best,
NF
“Coming Home” with its second rejection of the day:
Thank you for submitting to Augur Magazine—we’re honoured you trusted us
with your work. Unfortunately, we are only able to accept ~1% of
submissions, and will not be purchasing Going For The Kid for an
upcoming issue of Augur Magazine.
Thank you
for sending us "A Heart’s Judgment Judged." I greatly appreciate the
chance to read it. Unfortunately, this one doesn't wholly feel like a
match for me as a reader and I am going to pass.
Thanks again, and best of luck with this!
Sincerely,
Aaron Burch
Editor, Short Story, Long
2/7
Coming Home:
Thank you for submitting your work to Grist. After careful consideration, we regret that this story is not a fit with the upcoming issue. We hope that you will keep us in mind for the future, and we wish you the best of luck placing this piece elsewhere.
Thank you
for giving us the chance to consider "Coming Home" for publication. We
have decided to pass on your work at this time, but appreciate your
interest in the magazine and your commitment to your craft.
We ask that you wait 3 months before submitting new work.
Thank you
for submitting The Dead and The Dying for consideration by Bard Books.
We understand and appreciate the effort it takes to send a book to a
publisher.
We have completed our review, and this book was not
chosen for publication. Every writer and every book is distinct, and
many factors inform our decision, including taste. We therefore hope you
will not consider this note a reflection on your writing.
Although Bard Books will not be publishing The Dead and The Dying, we hope it finds a good home.
Bard Books
***
Thank you very
much for sending us "Coming Home." We appreciated the chance to read it.
While, unfortunately, the piece is not for us, we wish you all the
best in finding a home for it.
Thank you for submitting your work to Bright Flash Literary Review.
Unfortunately, it was not quite the right fit for us. Good luck as you
continue your writing journey.
Thank you for submitting "Agnes" to CRAFT.
We appreciate that you thought of us as a potential home for your work.
Unfortunately, we have to say no at this time. We wish you luck placing
this piece elsewhere soon.
While I have been reading and submitting, I listened to the following:
(Because I never understood why Stephen Stills was considered a Big Deal.)
(Because I do think smartphones are addictive and dangerous to our well-being—also a bit of Michigan/national politics.)
(Words make us, even if we do not always get to make the words.)
Some videos about Indiana:
Listening to Sarah Paine will make us all smarter (even if it is too late for me):
Some historical stuff - between amusement, a movie watched, and a fascination with Mexican history:
I read “The Yellow King” while in prison and thought it was typical Victorian weird fiction. While there I also watched a lot of “True Detective.” I did not know that the latter had anything to do with the former, or vice versa.
And I finish with David Mamet; herein, I found him cantankerous, a bit of a jerk, and insights on art and writing that made me glad to have put up with the other bits. It might also be that I agree with him about Sinclair Lewis not being a great writer, albeit one whose stories I find can sneak up on you. (Not that I will ever go back to read Main Street or Babbitt!)
I thought of saving this charming and informative video essay about Gulliver's Travels (another book I possessed for a long time but did not read until prison) for a separate post, but here it is,
I finished watching "Conduct Unbecoming" over dinner—I had seen a bit of it decades ago. Not bad, but there are points where time or direction let down the whole thing. I would call it a 6 out of 10. It could be a good starting point for discussing honor - which is almost extinct nowadays - and the entanglements of comradeship. Songs for the day: sch