Books That Made You Want to...

Reading Salinger always makes me want to write.

the first thing i thought of when i read this thread title was the song "things that make you go hmmm" by c&c music factory. totally stuck in my head now.

[QUOTE=vidalia]the first thing i thought of when i read this thread title was the song "things that make you go hmmm" by c&c music factory. totally stuck in my head now.[/QUOTE]

Likewise. Damn you, you're infectuous like chicken pox.

I'd say T.C. Boyle started to get me interested. It was a short story about a track runner and I forget the title of the story.

[QUOTE=vidalia]the first thing i thought of when i read this thread title was the song "things that make you go hmmm" by c&c music factory. totally stuck in my head now.[/QUOTE]

Christ. Now reading that has got that fooking song stuck in my head.

'Senorita Sin' and 'Princess of Hollywood' by Pleasant Gehman, they're flash story collections and the stuff is so short yet so good, I thought fuck all I can do that.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Likewise. Damn you, you're infectuous like chicken pox.

I'd say T.C. Boyle started to get me interested. It was a short story about a track runner and I forget the title of the story.[/QUOTE]
infectious like chicken pox sounds vaguely hip hopesque. i feel like i should blend that into my custom rhymes or something.

When I was in third grade, I went on a reading tear. We got little stars on a board for each book report we did, and there was this little clique of brainy & cute girls that were lighting up the board. I decided to take them on, and on running out of Otis Spofford/Ramona Quimby stuff, Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries, I stumbled on Peter Benchley's [I]'Jaws.'[/I]

At that point I knew the story only as a movie my parents wouldn't let me see, but they didnt' see a problem with me reading it. Go figure.

I gave an oral book report on it, the teacher kept telling me that was 'enough,' and I kept going. I couldn't help it, I could see my classmates squirming and making faces as I described the discovery of the first body, the cops puking in the sand, and the next thing you know, I'm in the principal's office. I think that was the first time I realized how powerful a book could be, that just retelling it could be threatening to the order of the school. I know I didn't think of it in quite those terms, but that was what I was tuning into.

Other than that, it's hard to point to a single book. I read [I]'Bridge to Terabithia'[/I] that year, as well as Thomas Harris' [I]'Black Sunday,' [/I] and some other books I found in my Dad's book shelves.

I also remember in sixth grade, when my Dad was starting a 'neighborhood association' in reaction to an insurance office built near our house he described as a 'death star,' he borrowed a fancy electric typewriter from a neighbor who had a home office. He had a couple of old-fashioned manuals I'd tinkered on, but this electric, the type was so crisp, and it had such a smell to it, I sat down and tried to write the great American novel right there. He stopped me because he was worried I was wasting the neighbor's ribbon. So from an early age, besides loving to tell stories, I loved the trappings of being a 'writer.' Even after I got onto word processors, I came very close to buying a Selectric in a pawn shop with the idea that I'd do my 'real' writing on it.

My first choice was always to be a professional musician, but being a writer was always a close second. I guess narrowing it down to one book, because of how far back the roots go, is as hard for me as figuring out what album made me want to be a rock star, or later to be playing New York jazz clubs....

[QUOTE=Chixulub]When I was in third grade, I went on a reading tear. We got little stars on a board for each book report we did, and there was this little clique of brainy & cute girls that were lighting up the board. I decided to take them on, and on running out of Otis Spofford/Ramona Quimby stuff, Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries, I stumbled on Peter Benchley's [I]'Jaws.'[/I]

At that point I knew the story only as a movie my parents wouldn't let me see, but they didnt' see a problem with me reading it. Go figure.

I gave an oral book report on it, the teacher kept telling me that was 'enough,' and I kept going. I couldn't help it, I could see my classmates squirming and making faces as I described the discovery of the first body, the cops puking in the sand, and the next thing you know, I'm in the principal's office. I think that was the first time I realized how powerful a book could be, that just retelling it could be threatening to the order of the school. I know I didn't think of it in quite those terms, but that was what I was tuning into.

Other than that, it's hard to point to a single book. I read [I]'Bridge to Terabithia'[/I] that year, as well as Thomas Harris' [I]'Black Sunday,' [/I] and some other books I found in my Dad's book shelves.

I also remember in sixth grade, when my Dad was starting a 'neighborhood association' in reaction to an insurance office built near our house he described as a 'death star,' he borrowed a fancy electric typewriter from a neighbor who had a home office. He had a couple of old-fashioned manuals I'd tinkered on, but this electric, the type was so crisp, and it had such a smell to it, I sat down and tried to write the great American novel right there. He stopped me because he was worried I was wasting the neighbor's ribbon. So from an early age, besides loving to tell stories, I loved the trappings of being a 'writer.' Even after I got onto word processors, I came very close to buying a Selectric in a pawn shop with the idea that I'd do my 'real' writing on it.

My first choice was always to be a professional musician, but being a writer was always a close second. I guess narrowing it down to one book, because of how far back the roots go, is as hard for me as figuring out what album made me want to be a rock star, or later to be playing New York jazz clubs....[/QUOTE]

Good story...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]Good story...[/QUOTE]
right? chix is the go-to guy for good stories

which kind of brings me to my point that i've never wanted to be a writer. i am a reader, tried and true, and the first book i can remember not wanting to put down is [i]Harry The Dirty Dog[/i]. "harry was a white dog with black spots who liked everything, except taking a bath."

Hmmm, I can’t say I ever really felt this.
Maybe a brief stint with Raymond Carver.
But mostly whatever I read, be it good or bad, makes me know I *don’t* want to write.

The last thing I finished (LaBute’s stories) was very similar to my ‘style’ (aside from his seemingly steaming hatred for women), and it makes me almost think, “yeah, I could do that’.
Great writers moreso make me think, “shit, I couldn’t do that” (and therefore: why even attempt). [kind of like standing in front of a Schiele, a Klimt or a van Gogh makes one want to burn the sketchbooks]
While shitty writers, of which there are an abbbbbbbbundance, don’t make me say, “I could do better than that”; that’s a reflex that doesn’t even have to be thought.
But it doesn’t encourage me to put anything forth.
I’m quite simply not into any form of exhibitionism (the occasional ranting posts aside, I guess).

I guess what it comes down to is pretty much whittled down nicely into a character in a Freidrich Dürrenmatt novel (_The Execution of Justice_), this character is known by his peers as a “writer”, but no one ever recalls him writing (or maybe moreso publishing) anything. He says something damn close to, “when I think of all the people writing, I figure why bother.”
[not that I consider myself a “writer” (or an ‘anything’), and anyone that does and doesn’t get paid for it is just trying to flex some in-dire-need-of-spinach muscles.
That’s called, whattayacallit, posing. – and anyone that says they “need to write” is delusional and, again, posing.]

Shit, I’m kinda ranty today, sorry.

I used “aside” at least twice in one post, sorry.

But the Chix-as-a-boy story was nifty (and Rod, I *will* finish your email one of these days…)
j(ay)

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Never spent a moment thinking about writing till reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for the first time in high school. He's a man who cares a great deal about language and painting a well-crafted image. There was a point where he refers to the death of the sixties and the hideousness of the next decade and its ugly consumerist impulses by saying you could see the wave of peace and love wash up from San Fransisco bay east where it crested at Vegas and rolled back into the ocean. It really stuck under my skin and my interest had been picqued.

[/FONT]

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]Good story...[/QUOTE]
Gosh, I'm embarrassed.

On top of the entire book being inspiring, to break it down a little more, was there ever a phrase, or a scene, or an instant in a particular book that after you read it, that you felt something inside changed at that exact instant, and the phrase stuck with you and could wow you long after you read it?

[QUOTE=moe.ron]right? chix is the go-to guy for good stories

which kind of brings me to my point that i've never wanted to be a writer. i am a reader, tried and true, and the first book i can remember not wanting to put down is [i]Harry The Dirty Dog[/i]. "harry was a white dog with black spots who liked everything, except taking a bath." :)[/QUOTE]

Thanks Moe! And J(ay), too! I do aspire to publication, despite the fact that my publication career to date would fit Jay's definition of being a poser (unpaid), and I don't lack an appreciation for the fact that we need people who want to buy & read books, not just people who want to write them.

Much as with jazz music, good literature is becoming in some respects an inbred Apalachian family. The players are playing for the other players, and it's a closed circuit.

That's why I differ with some people's (ahem) assessment of Chuck's younger fans. I personally don't find his attempt to extend adolescence beyond all known limits to be anything but positive. And by introducing readers into the mix who might not have gotten away from their PlayStations otherwise, he necessarily introduces genetic material into the clan.

Especially since he tends to be the gateway drug to a different set of writers than a Stephen King or Tom Clancy...

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]JH, sarcasm?

[/FONT]

[QUOTE=angrylush][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]JH, sarcasm?

[/FONT][/QUOTE]

no...why?

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Just checking. Off topic, wrong forum, you mentioned a writer's workshop meeting for all parties interested, held at some random city provided people could functionally get there and spare the time and ... TORONTO. That's right, I called dibs. Ahhh. Don't feel bad. The dollar's moving around so much it's practically Mexico up here, for now.

[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Chixulub]

Especially since he tends to be the gateway drug to a different set of writers than a Stephen King or Tom Clancy...[/QUOTE]

I think you hit that right on, and it's very well said. I think Chuck Palahniuk, though not as large mass media wise, is a lot of the Stephen King of the 80's for today's generation of writers/readers, and a lot of them get a bad wrap because the people who don't read his books, or don't want to understand his books, are the ones who are the most vocal to codemn them.

Being 26 I am older than that generation. But thank God I had a teacher in college who saw how powerful his novels were and decided to start teaching them in her Lit. classes.

As for what I said, about a certain passage really hitting you, for me it was this one from Stephen King's novella, [I]The Body[/I], which for those of you who don't know was turned into the movie [I]Stand By Me[/I]. (and done fucking well I might say)

I was 17 when I first read this, sitting on the second floor of the community college that I was going to, waiting for my boring ass Sociology class to start. At that time I had been writing poetry mainly for three or four years and knew that I wanted more of myself, and my writing. And then I read the beginning to this story...

[I]"The most important things are the hardest to say. They are the things you get ashamed of, because words diminish them--words shrink things that seemed limitless when they were in your head to no more than living size when they're brought out. But it's more than that, isn't it? The most important things lie too close to wherever your secret heart is buried, like landmarks to a treasure your enemies would love to steal away...That's the worst, I think. When the secret stays locked within not for want of a teller but for want of an understanding ear."[/I]

...and right away I was a changed person. From reading that one time I memorized it almost verbatim to where I can recite it even now, nine years after first reading it. And everytime I am doubting that I should say something in my writing, or thinking about holding something back--which is more or less self-censorship--I think back to this passage and say, "fuck it."

Anyone else?

[QUOTE=jay]Hmmm, I can’t say I ever really felt this.
Maybe a brief stint with Raymond Carver.
But mostly whatever I read, be it good or bad, makes me know I *don’t* want to write.

The last thing I finished (LaBute’s stories) was very similar to my ‘style’ (aside from his seemingly steaming hatred for women), and it makes me almost think, “yeah, I could do that’.
Great writers moreso make me think, “shit, I couldn’t do that” (and therefore: why even attempt). [kind of like standing in front of a Schiele, a Klimt or a van Gogh makes one want to burn the sketchbooks]
While shitty writers, of which there are an abbbbbbbbundance, don’t make me say, “I could do better than that”; that’s a reflex that doesn’t even have to be thought.
But it doesn’t encourage me to put anything forth.
I’m quite simply not into any form of exhibitionism (the occasional ranting posts aside, I guess).

I guess what it comes down to is pretty much whittled down nicely into a character in a Freidrich Dürrenmatt novel (_The Execution of Justice_), this character is known by his peers as a “writer”, but no one ever recalls him writing (or maybe moreso publishing) anything. He says something damn close to, “when I think of all the people writing, I figure why bother.”
[not that I consider myself a “writer” (or an ‘anything’), and anyone that does and doesn’t get paid for it is just trying to flex some in-dire-need-of-spinach muscles.
That’s called, whattayacallit, posing. – and anyone that says they “need to write” is delusional and, again, posing.]

Shit, I’m kinda ranty today, sorry.

I used “aside” at least twice in one post, sorry.

But the Chix-as-a-boy story was nifty (and Rod, I *will* finish your email one of these days…)
j(ay)[/QUOTE]

No.

People write because they want to write. BEcause they feel like they need to.

Not everyone is such a defeatist.

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Bingo. The real sign is embracing potential failure. Real lust doesn't need any kind of serious acknowledgement. No deal, no publishing, just the need to create and recreate. Damn straight.

[/FONT]

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I think you hit that right on, and it's very well said. I think Chuck Palahniuk, though not as large mass media wise, is a lot of the Stephen King of the 80's for today's generation of writers/readers, and a lot of them get a bad wrap because the people who don't read his books, or don't want to understand his books, are the ones who are the most vocal to codemn them.

Being 26 I am older than that generation. But thank God I had a teacher in college who saw how powerful his novels were and decided to start teaching them in her Lit. classes.[/QUOTE]
You had a lit prof teaching Palahniuk? Way ahead of the curve, there. They were just starting to teach 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' when I was in high school (class of '88, so the book would have been going on 20 years old).

The analogy I make with Stephen King, Anne Rice, John Grisham, Robert Ludlum, and other genre writers I read in my teens & twenties is with Wynton Marsalis. When he hit the scene with his quintet and albums like 'Black Codes,' I was hooked. He soon proved to be an egotistical and pedantic ass who wants more to be a curator than an artist. But if I hadn't heard his shit, I wouldn't have found Art Blakey, Sonny Rollins, pre-'Bitches Brew' Miles and a hundred other artists. Wynton was my gateway drug for hard bop.

I think Palahniuk may be remembered as a writer of substance, much int he way PKD, Vonnegut and other idea-driven genre writers have been. For that matter, from those genre-fiction writers I was reading ten or fifteen years ago, I think Clive Barker will probably hold up to the test of time as a very good writer who happened to deal in gothic horror and fantasy a lot.

Of course it's impossible to predict who will really be significant long-term. I think Terry Southern is in danger of being left behind unjustly and that Salinger is remembered far out of proportion to his contribution. And for that matter, George Orwell is venerated for 'Animal Farm' and '1984' and rightly so, but 'Keep the Aspidistra Flying' is not a remarkable book. In context of 1936, it might be considered an important book, perhaps a British version of 'Clerks' or 'Office Space' set in the Great Depression. In the context of the 20th century, I think other writers explored the ideas better, and with more engaging narratives.

I'm pretty close to drawing a yellow flag for going off topic, so I'll close the rant at that...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]
...and right away I was a changed person.

Anyone else?[/QUOTE]

Many things I've read have changed me as a person. Prominent on that list would include 'A Clockwork Orange,' 'The Jungle,' Faulkner's Snopes trilogy, Steinbeck's 'In Dubious Battle,' Pynchon's 'Mason & Dixon,' Paul Johnson's 'The Birth of the Modern' and 'Modern Times,' Leon Uris' 'Trinity,' Camus' 'The Stranger,' Tom Wolfe's 'Bonfire of the Vanities,' and almost every PKD book I've read.

Recent standouts in that area would include 'Blaming the Victims,' a collection of essays edited by Hitch and Said that made me completely re-think the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the invasion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. I hold a lot of opinions I would have kicked me out of America for holding a couple of years ago, in large part because of those essays and the thought processes and related reading they provoked. Which isn't to say that I don't know that Norm Chomsky is a commie first, a PLO sympathizer second and a Jew third, but Steinbeck was pretty red himself, and in the context of California in the Depression, I'd probably be pretty pinko myself...

For that matter, back when I was 18 or 19 I was reading stuff like 'The Fountainhead' and 'Anarchy State and Utopia,' which turned me from the Marxist I was in my early and mid-teens into the anarcho-capitalist I still more or less am.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]You had a lit prof teaching Palahniuk? Way ahead of the curve, there. They were just starting to teach 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' when I was in high school (class of '88, so the book would have been going on 20 years old).
[/QUOTE]

Don't know if you've ever seen the Documentary that Dennis made or not (I haven't even seen it yet) but the teacher in there, the one who helped arranged the two conferences for which the Documentary was based on, that's my teacher. And she is ahead of the curve. Of course, Christian, the other co-arranger of the Conference, who was a honor student of hers, is the one who originally got her into Chuck's work. And she has taught it ever since.

[QUOTE=sara faye]I think the first actual book that made me want to pick up a pen is [I]The Great Gatsby [/I] by F. Scott Fitzgerald when I read it in 9th grade English. It's still one of my favorites. But the first thing (not a book) I [B]read[/B] that inspired me to write was Shakepeare's [I]Macbeth[/I].[/QUOTE]

I'll second that. Grade 11 english for me. As for the Shakespeare... Macbeth i liked but i still can't get into the language. Perhaps it's my lack of remembering the meanings of words or something. I find though I can read ANYTHING and be inspired to write so long as it's interesting, or is nice and descriptive, great narration... whatever. Read many things during school (not wanting to at first of course) finding that during i got ideas or just thought... "wow... i could narrate like that.. i could tell a story through language and conversation and stuff" I remember....... The Lottery by Shirley Jackson had me hyped up one time just because of the drastic changeover/decieving part to it. very cool. Stephen King constantly makes me want to write more about peoples undertones and subtext. I find myelf, lol if this is a little odd, talking in second person the whole day if i read his stuff. Being really descriptive and whatnot. Oh.. and I'm reading THE GREAT AND SECRET SHow right now by Clive Barker... wicked. Makes me wish i could think up such a in depth and... hrm... i guess creative thing such as that.

This is a bit odd, but the film "Magnolia" by PT Anderson is what made me want to write. To take ideas and experiences out of my head and convey them to others. To take one line of one song ("Now that I've met you - would you object to - never seeing each other again") and turn it into a story. So I set out trying to learn the art of writing for film. Only one problem ... I don't really care for writing screenplays. So, here I am. Trying to learn how to write someting half as good as Magnolia ... only, as a book, of course.

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]No.-People write because they want to write. Because they feel like they need to.-Not everyone is such a defeatist.[/QUOTE]

Some, which means not all, write (or “write”) because it’s deemed, for some reason, as hip, trendy and/or cool.
Which, to me, sounds farrrrr more (self) “defeatist” than claiming to be something one is not.

Perspective is always wise too; I cook for myself every evening, although I am not a “chef”.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]You had a lit prof teaching Palahniuk? Way ahead of the curve, there.[/quote]

Lee Grove (UMASS, Boston) was using _Fight Club_ in class 4 or 5 years ago…

[QUOTE=Chixulub]But if I hadn't heard his shit, I wouldn't have found Art Blakey, Sonny Rollins, pre-'Bitches Brew' Miles and a hundred other artists. Wynton was my gateway drug for hard bop.[/quote]

Yes, but the major-majority are verrrrry unlike you, Chix. [and pardon me as I may be a bit repetitive, but I always thought some of our private emails should have been ‘published’ in public.]
Many just stay ‘hooked’ on the ‘drug’ without ever even seeing a ‘gate’.

S. King has a book of semi-essays out, _Danse Macabre_ (or something). In this book he mentions various authors. One being Harlan Ellison, of which King compliments very, very highly (and I think has made such comment like, “*he* is a writer, I am a mere typist”), anyway. 99% of Ellison’s work is out of print.
No gate.
King also cites [I am totally forgetting his name and the title of the book – I’ll check on it at home and add it in tomorrow – Don Simpson is what comes to mind, and unfortunately the dreaded stephenking.com isn’t as comprehensive as it thinks it is -as it’s not listed] as his favourite book or major influence, or something.
He (King) even brought it back into print, publishing it himself and writing a foreword (or introduction).
The book sold like shit.
And now it’s out of print.
Where’s the gate?

And having to sift through the aforementioned site trying to find the book I was mentioning I glanced at the King FAQ.
No question of ‘who are your favourite writers or influences’.

Apparently “what is your religion?” is a more “frequently asked question” than *any* inquiry as to what else could be good to read.

And I think we see tell-tale signs of that here, it’s probably a usual crew of maybe 50 people (I’m feeling generous today) that chime in stating they are reading a variety of books. The rest of the lot very well may just think Chuck “wrote the bible” (not my line), while a small portion mayyyyy stretch so far as to read Clevenger because Chuck loved it so it’s ‘got to be good’.

While this isn’t infirm, I wouldn’t say it’s a healthy situation.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I think Palahniuk may be remembered as a writer of substance[/quote]

Here, again, I totally disagree.
I think it _could_ have gone that route had that works stayed…of substance.

I see this a bit in the same light as TC Boyle. No doubt a gifted writer with a well of great ideas. But he soooooo much wants to be a “modern day Dickens” (his wording) that he’s, to use a baseball phrase, ‘swinging for the fences’.
Needless to say simple statistics usually prove that the top home run hitters also lead the league in strikeouts.
So now TCB is back to publishing a ‘historical fiction’ novel trying to get him back in the same limelight that _The Road to Wellville_ got him (and coincidently the only Hollywoodisation title of his).

Chuck is catering to an audience, and this will be his (potential literary) downfall.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I'm pretty close to drawing a yellow flag for going off topic, so I'll close the rant at that...[/QUOTE]

Not at all. As always, your dribbling and passing ability shine sweeter than Becker’s bald dome…

Far too many sports references herein…
j(ay)

Hmm... the ones that I remember from probably 8th grade and on:
The Bell Jar
Invisible Monsters
Trainspotting
And...other....ones. Shit. I'm braindead.

[QUOTE=ahoff]This is a bit odd, but the film "Magnolia" by PT Anderson is what made me want to write. To take ideas and experiences out of my head and convey them to others. To take one line of one song ("Now that I've met you - would you object to - never seeing each other again") and turn it into a story. So I set out trying to learn the art of writing for film. Only one problem ... I don't really care for writing screenplays. So, here I am. Trying to learn how to write someting half as good as Magnolia ... only, as a book, of course.[/QUOTE]

I had that same feeling when I saw Magnolia, and PT Anderson wrote a brilliant fucking film there. (plus I think just about everyone in it had amazing performances).

As for trying to write something "half as good as Magnolia" if you break the plot line down, it isn't a very complicated one. It more or less all comes down to that one line that you mentioned, and how people life's cross all of the time, and this is what happens when people stop and take notice.

This medium has also been done over and over again in both film and book form, about chaos ensuing and everything all tying into each other at the end. It's probably just as commonly used as the Cinderlla rags to riches thing, but still, if written well, it remains fresh and new.

So I ask you, just wondering perhaps, if you could take that line from Magnolia, and apply it to your own life, and think about the people who you imagine in that pretext, and how your life would have been if you said the extra word, or didn't get up and make an ass of yourself, or whatever the case may be.

Now just think of something like that and just start writing. The only way you're going to learn how to write something as half as good as Magnolia is writing something that is as good as you can think up.

Magnolia was so good because so many of those characters had traits that we know people to have. PTA just fucked it up a bit with frogs falling from the sky. "This really is happening?" Why not?

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]Don't know if you've ever seen the Documentary that Dennis made or not (I haven't even seen it yet) but the teacher in there, the one who helped arranged the two conferences for which the Documentary was based on, that's my teacher. And she is ahead of the curve. Of course, Christian, the other co-arranger of the Conference, who was a honor student of hers, is the one who originally got her into Chuck's work. And she has taught it ever since.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I bought 'Postcards,' so I know who you're talking about. I guess most of the teachers I've had felt like anything that recent would be read by students on their own, and that a book should be vetted by time before making the syllabus.

Then again, I did take a course in my brief college career called 'The Literature of Science Fiction,' in which we watched THX-1138, Phase IV and other seminal SF movies and covered books by PKD and Bradbury, as well as Asimov, C.J. Cherryh and so on. But it was a very, very optional class and not looked at by anyone except its teacher, Larry Rochelle. But he's the author of several mystery novels, so no prejudice against genre fiction on his part.

[QUOTE=jay]
Many just stay ‘hooked’ on the ‘drug’ without ever even seeing a ‘gate’.
[/QUOTE]

True, but if they're reading Chuck they're reading something. Likewise, if they're listening to Wynton, they aren't listening to Britney Spears.

[QUOTE=jay]I think it _could_ have gone that route had that works stayed…of substance.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, we disagree. I think that if anything, 'Choke' and 'Lullaby' are better than 'Fight Club.'

'Diary' seems to be one that even Cultists don't dig, but I enjoyed it. It reminded me at times of 'The Yellow Wallpaper,' but I thought it was a good shot at a 21st Century class warfare Gothic.

[QUOTE=jay]
Chuck is catering to an audience, and this will be his (potential literary) downfall.[/QUOTE]

And as you say, perhaps our e-mails should be a public record, but I maintain that if you and I were in a bar in the West Village in 1938, we could have the same argument about Robert Steinbeck, with one of us claiming that he's a Commie and just pandering to the ignorant poor, and the other saying that he's dealing with very real issues whether socialism is the answer or not.

I'm NOT making the claim that Palahniuk is on a Steinbeck level. As I've said of Faulkner, after his first three books it could not have been said that Faulkner was a Faulkner-caliber writer. I see Palahniuk as a writer who deals in ideas, even when I disgree with the thesis ('Diary,' would be an example), and one who has a solid work ethic, trying to write a better book each time.

The reason I brough up Orwell earlier is that the portion of his work that supported him while he was alive is not hte the work he's really venerated for. Likewise, Vonnegut: 'Bagombo Snuffbox' was, to me, the weakest of his stuff, but it was the short stories that he wrote for Cosmopolitan and other magazines that started his career off on a financially secure footing. He was writing the TV that predated TV, and those great novels like 'Sirens of Titan' woulcn't be here if he hadn't pandered to that market.

The same could be said of Pynchon in the case of the shorts that were collected as 'Slow Learner.'

So I'll abstain from prognosticating on how Palahniuk will be remembered, if he is, 30 or 50 or 100 years from now. I still enjoy him and a lot of the writers I've been led to by him and his fans.

That list, thanks to you, now includes Raymond Carver, John Cheever and Joyce Carol Oates. In the case of JCO, I had tried her, found 'American Appetites' dissappointing, and on the strength of your recommendation read some of the shorts in 'Will You Always Love Me,' and listened to an audio book of 'We Were the Mulvaneys,' and enjoyed both. I shant run out of material to explore by her, she's appallingly prolific, and if I keep finding good stuff I'll keep reading her.

I guess it's lucky for me, from a Philip Roth standpoint that I didn't start with 'Operation Shylock,' which sucked ass in my never-humble opinion. By the time I found that landmine, I'd read 'American Pastoral,' 'Portnoy's Complaint,' 'The Anatomy Lesson,' 'The Ghost Writer,' 'I Married A Communist,' and 'Zucherman Unbound.' If I'd enjoyed a half dozen of JCO's books BEFORE trying 'American Appetites,' I wouldn't have written her off so quickly.

[QUOTE=jay]Some, which means not all, write (or “write”) because it’s deemed, for some reason, as hip, trendy and/or cool.
Which, to me, sounds farrrrr more (self) “defeatist” than claiming to be something one is not.

Perspective is always wise too; I cook for myself every evening, although I am not a “chef”.

[/QUOTE]

Good points I suppose. I see alot of the "emo" kid generation writign song s and poems, all fo them shite, because it is the "cool" or "trendy" thing to do and it pisses me off. They worship one anothers pseudo intellect, and cry over every woman that trespasses them. So yes, soem do write simpyl to be trendy or cool or fit in.

However your chef comment? You cook for yourself every evening? Thats just a common thing. You dont do it as a job or as a side project/hobby/real interest, as you stated. Its more like a neccissity, just like writing letters or emails or memos in the business world.
But people who write because they need to or feel the need to are in a different ball park then these people.

I dont know really, it can go both ways. You may write because you feel you need to write or enjoy writing or its compulsive, or you may do it simply to appear intellectual, draw attention to yourself, etc.

And now Im confused.

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]Good points I suppose. I see alot of the "emo" kid generation writign song s and poems, all fo them shite, because it is the "cool" or "trendy" thing to do and it pisses me off. They worship one anothers pseudo intellect, and cry over every woman that trespasses them. So yes, soem do write simpyl to be trendy or cool or fit in.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to the teenagers of the 1980s, who were free of affectation and pretensions of genius...

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]
However your chef comment? You cook for yourself every evening? Thats just a common thing. You dont do it as a job or as a side project/hobby/real interest, as you stated. Its more like a neccissity, just like writing letters or emails or memos in the business world.
But people who write because they need to or feel the need to are in a different ball park then these people.[/QUOTE]

The distinction comes from ambition and design. J(ay) cooks for himself, I'm guessing here, because it beats going hungry, it's cheaper and/or less hassle than a restaurant, the normal reasons someone fixes their own dinner. On the other hand, I've known a couple of culinary arts types who, going clear back to their teens, were cooking stuff without even much interest in eating it, always looking for an excuse to cook. Several of them went on to study it in college, and now they work in kitchens and make ice sculptures with chainsaws & chisels and all that.

Which isn't to say that everyone who would like to be a chef will be, they may not have the temperment for it or the job may hold negatives that outweigh the positives, etc. The big difference in amateur chefs and amateur writers is the much larger percentage of the public that will pay for someone else to cook them a meal. And fewer 19 year old girls are going to throw themselves at you because you're majoring in Hotel & Restaurant Management...

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]
I dont know really, it can go both ways. You may write because you feel you need to write or enjoy writing or its compulsive, or you may do it simply to appear intellectual, draw attention to yourself, etc.[/QUOTE]

Some of us (me) obviously have a compulsive streak when it comes to expressing ourselves. It doesn't have to be writing, it can be a phone call, a water-cooler conversation, a thread at the Cult, an e-mail...

Does that make me a writer in the grand literary sense? Not at all, it's just an angle of my temperment that lends itself to my literary ambitions.

-First off, the book I couldn’t recall yesterday, the book S. King published is _The Ideal, Genuine Man_ (1987) by Don Robertson-

[QUOTE=Chixulub]True, but if they're reading Chuck they're reading something. Likewise, if they're listening to Wynton, they aren't listening to Britney Spears.[/quote]

I’ve never been one to side with this kind of theory. It’s the same of saying ‘if the masses are reading S. King /Harry Potting/ John Grossham…at least they’re reading’.
I don’t see this as beneficial in any way to literacy.
If we were to say that, “at least they aren’t out raping someone.
Or breeding.”
They’d I’d give ‘em a standing ovation for their acute page-turning skills.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Yes, we disagree. I think that if anything, 'Choke' and 'Lullaby' are better than 'Fight Club.'[/quote]

I’ll agree with _Choke_.
_Lullaby_, to me, is somewhere on a scale lower than “bad”.
_Diary_ also. And “Guts”.

And this is where Chuck could be drifting off target.
Taking a dip in the genre pool is ok, but (what will be ( at least)) 3 books is dangerous ground for ‘being taken serious’, or whatever we’re kind-of speculating (future tense).

But who’s to say; I’m not much for soothsaying. If in xx years Chuck has an extensive bibliography, these past few works could just be a ‘phase’.
Dunno. (and don’t really care too much)

[QUOTE=Chixulub]we could have the same argument about Robert Steinbeck, with one of us claiming that he's a Commie and just pandering to the ignorant poor, and the other saying that he's dealing with very real issues whether socialism is the answer or not.[/quote]

Or we could just drink our beer and say, “how the hell is Robert Steinbeck”? (wink wink)

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I'm NOT making the claim that Palahniuk is on a Steinbeck level. As I've said of Faulkner, after his first three books it could not have been said that Faulkner was a Faulkner-caliber writer.[/quote]

No doubt. But generally it’s nice to see a writer improve. Not decline.
Those that fall into the, “well, his/her/they’re early stuff is good but then…” do maintain a following though.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I shant run out of material to explore by her, she's appallingly prolific, and if I keep finding good stuff I'll keep reading her.[/quote]

Yeah, Oates can pump out some great stuff.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]If I'd enjoyed a half dozen of JCO's [like you did with P. Roth] books BEFORE trying 'American Appetites,' I wouldn't have written her off so quickly.[/QUOTE]

Truly. Nearly every writer has a miss or a near-miss. It’s important to not judge a number of works based on 1 selection.
That said, some people suck consistently.

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]Good points I suppose. I see alot of the "emo" kid generation writign song s and poems, all fo them shite, because it is the "cool" or "trendy" thing to do and it pisses me off.[/quote]

This is kind of what I was getting at.
My experience of moving to Boston to attend Berklee College of Music and immediately being disgusted with the ‘poser’ vibe, meaning it’s more important to _be_ a “musician” than it is to, say, know how to read music was grease on the slide to my complete disenchantment with a career in the field.
And I witnessed this all again at Mass College of Art and English departments (obviously “artists” and “writer” we the cool things to be, respectively, there).

Oddly, I never hear surgeons or researchers, when asked why they do what they do, state, “I just neeeeeeed to cut people open/stare into a microscope all day”.
Etc.

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]However your chef comment? You cook for yourself every evening? Thats just a common thing.[/quote]

I don’t believe it’s that common, when I say cook I’m not talking about boiling water and adding ramen noodles.
But either way, one *could* just do take out.

If you don’t like that one, I might say – I occasionally go to the cinema/rent a DVD, I then may make some comments about it.
But I don’t consider myself a “movie critic”.

One of these days I’ll get the Hempel site up, I, however, will not consider myself a “web designer”.

But then again I work around 70 hours a week in the science field and manage to get my work published, but I don’t consider myself a “scientist”.

Some people just like titles…and obviously some are deemed hipper than others.

It reminds me of that scene in “Serpico” in which Frank (Al Pacino) is being introduced to all his girlfriend’s flaky friends and it’s all like, “this is Jen, she’s an actress, but she’s waiting tables. This is Don, he’s a painter, but he’s parking cars at…” etc.
Frank then says (something like – Mr Brown can clear up any misquotes here, maybe-), “all your friends are pretending to be somebody they’re not.”

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]I dont know really, it can go both ways. You may write because you feel you need to write or enjoy writing or its compulsive, or you may do it simply to appear intellectual, draw attention to yourself, etc.[/quote]

Sure. There’s a whole lot of angles to it

Now if I could only find someone like good ol’ Serpico to follow the age-old wisdom, “if you love a man’s garden, you have to love the man” I could get someone to cook for me…but as of now, I am garden-less.

j(ay)

[QUOTE=jay]...I’ve never been one to side with this kind of theory. It’s the same of saying ‘if the masses are reading S. King /Harry Potting/ John Grossham…at least they’re reading’.
I don’t see this as beneficial in any way to literacy.
If we were to say that, “at least they aren’t out raping someone.
Or breeding.”
They’d I’d give ‘em a standing ovation for their acute page-turning skills...[/QUOTE]
i understand what you're trying to say, but knowing the statistics, knowing that america is basically an illiterate society, i do subscribe to the "well, at least they're reading" school of thought. it's when oprah sticks her book club sticker on east of eden and overindulged housewives dismiss it as "boring" is when i get angry. p.s. it's hard to breed and read at the same time

[QUOTE=moe.ron]it's when oprah sticks her book club sticker on east of eden and overindulged housewives dismiss it as "boring" is when i get angry.[/quote]

heh.
I don’t know his exact reason(s), and I haven’t read him, but I respect that Franzen chose *not* to let _The Corrections_ be part of her little club.

[QUOTE=moe.ron] p.s. it's hard to breed and read at the same time ;)[/QUOTE]

Well, there we have it: the formula for the abundant over-population and abhorrent low literacy levels…and why I can’t get a date.

Too much revelation today…
j(ay)

[QUOTE=jay]...Well, there we have it: the formula for the abundant over-population and abhorrent low literacy levels…and why I can’t get a date.

Too much revelation today…
j(ay)[/QUOTE]
nonsense! smart girls love bookish boys; you're just not meeting the right people

[QUOTE=jay]

I’ve never been one to side with this kind of theory. It’s the same of saying ‘if the masses are reading S. King /Harry Potting/ John Grossham…at least they’re reading’.
I don’t see this as beneficial in any way to literacy.
If we were to say that, “at least they aren’t out raping someone.
Or breeding.”
They’d I’d give ‘em a standing ovation for their acute page-turning skills.

j(ay)[/QUOTE]

I'd have to slightly disagree with this notion too.

On one hand, I see these authors as a gateway to a lot of other authors that will keep someone reading once they've gotten their fill from said authors.

And in other ways, with there being so many other distractions (video games, chat rooms, drugs, shitty reality television), I know with having two nephews (13 and 4) I'd rather see them reading from anyone of those 3 mentioned authors than I would wasting time watching the Real World part 347.

Every book you read is a good experience, even if it's a bad one, as long as you take something away from it and not give up if you don't "like" it. The different styles you see could represent so many different things, and lead you to be one of the few during the literary criticism discussion in class who has actually read the book, instead of just scimming through the cliffnotes before class.

And, if nothing else, the new words you could learn, the description of places you'll never see in real life, it does allow your imagination to take over for a little while, before you pick up the video game paddle again and shoot some hooker standing on the corner for the 4000 of the day. (Although, I admit, I love those games too in the right time and place)

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]On one hand, I see these authors as a gateway to a lot of other authors that will keep someone reading once they've gotten their fill from said authors.[/quote]

Sure. This will happen most assuredly. And more often than not it wont happen.

Who knows, maybe some crackpot in the future will proclaim that ‘being a reader’ is a genetic trait.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]And in other ways, with there being so many other distractions (video games, chat rooms, drugs, shitty reality television)[/quote]

Sure, and in other cases you have the books being the gateway INTO those mediums.
I believe the Harry Potter games are pretty damn good game console sellers. The flicks rake in huge amounts of cash, and I’m sure in no time there will be a telly show too.
Christ, even Palahniuk has a video game now…

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]The different styles you see could represent so many different things, and lead you to be one of the few during the literary criticism discussion in class who has actually read the book, instead of just skimming through the cliffnotes before class. [/quote]

Sure, but those are the readers you’re talking about.
I think the Cliff’s Notes people will always be CN people. And we _clearly_ see this even within The Cult. Some readers who love Chuck will them gripe and groan that, say, _The Great Gatsby_ is trite.

Don’t get me too wrong, this is a widdddde topic and I am not trying to say “I’m right” or there even *is* a right…just theorizing…

j(ay)

I gotcha...

And actually, I have to say, I hate the Harry Potter books. Tried many times to see what the big deal was about and I just couldn't stay focused on them to care enough about what was going on. But, in the case with my 13 year old nephew, he loves them, and his love for them lead him to not only wanting to read more books, not really caring what they were, but his love for those books also encouraged him to want to think more seriously about his love for writing.

As for Stephen King, I've always loved some of his books, and they revamped my desire to want to read back when I started college. I'll admit, he does have some books that I hate. But still, if it wasn't for his novella, The Body, I don't think I would have developed into the type of reader I am now.

There really is no right or wrong answer to this. No two people are going to see one book the same way, and therefore everyone will take what they want away from it. Some might be inspired. Some might be disgusted. Some might run to the video games and give up on reading all together. It's sure easier that way.

I suppose it's never really about the book in question, but about the makeup of the person reading it.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I suppose it's never really about the book in question, but about the makeup of the person reading it.[/QUOTE]

Excellently put. Basically what I was trying to say…I think there has to be some desire to read already there.
Most kids, even the ones that are propelled into other reading via Harry Potter, have probably seen cartoon or movie dealing with magic or wizards and such. So it’s not the actual story that that makes them think, “wow, reading is cool”, it just happens to be the igniter for something that very well may be there.
And now that the generation(s) of S King fans have kids around reading age, it may have instilled the parents to reflect back on their reading time and share it with their kids, be it that they graduate into further reading or just remain in the shallow water of ‘waiting for the next Potter’.

For me it was watching old movies when I was a kid. I liked the late night stuff and quickly noticed that movies I liked were “written by” or “based on the book by”, say, Raymond Chandler or Tennessee Williams.
And then from there, once you have one solid writer, it’s very easily a domino-effect to find other good writers.
If one wants to.

j(ay)

[QUOTE=jay]Excellently put. Basically what I was trying to say…I think there has to be some desire to read already there.
Most kids, even the ones that are propelled into other reading via Harry Potter, have probably seen cartoon or movie dealing with magic or wizards and such. So it’s not the actual story that that makes them think, “wow, reading is cool”, it just happens to be the igniter for something that very well may be there.
And now that the generation(s) of S King fans have kids around reading age, it may have instilled the parents to reflect back on their reading time and share it with their kids, be it that they graduate into further reading or just remain in the shallow water of ‘waiting for the next Potter’.

For me it was watching old movies when I was a kid. I liked the late night stuff and quickly noticed that movies I liked were “written by” or “based on the book by”, say, Raymond Chandler or Tennessee Williams.
And then from there, once you have one solid writer, it’s very easily a domino-effect to find other good writers.
If one wants to.

j(ay)[/QUOTE]

Well put.

But you know what made me want to become more of a reader when I was a kid?

Book It!

Free personal pan pizzas from Pizza Hut. The greatest thing on earth when you're 8 and there's a Pizza Hut in your backyard.

[I]Indian in the Cupboard, Return of the Indian, James and the Giant Peach, The Witches[/I]...man I tore through those books to get some free food.

Imagine if they did that in college only this time with free beer. Everyone would be a fooking Einstein. Or at least thinking they were...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]Well put.

But you know what made me want to become more of a reader when I was a kid?

Book It!

Free personal pan pizzas from Pizza Hut. The greatest thing on earth when you're 8 and there's a Pizza Hut in your backyard.

[I]Indian in the Cupboard, Return of the Indian, James and the Giant Peach, The Witches[/I]...man I tore through those books to get some free food.

Imagine if they did that in college only this time with free beer. Everyone would be a fooking Einstein. Or at least thinking they were...[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what [I]book it [/I] was. My guess is that you got a pizza with every book you read.

i find it funny that i read those exact same books (Indian in the Cupboard, Return of the Indian, James and the Giant Peach, The Witches) as a kid in the exact same order.
I love odd little coincidences.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]I have no idea what [I]book it [/I] was. My guess is that you got a pizza with every book you read.

i find it funny that i read those exact same books (Indian in the Cupboard, Return of the Indian, James and the Giant Peach, The Witches) as a kid in the exact same order.
I love odd little coincidences.[/QUOTE]

[I]Book It[/I] was a program run by Pizza Hut (I think it actually still might be going) where every book you read, you get a gold star, and then when you get to five gold stars you bring your card in and get a free pizza.

(I was a kid and completely oblivious to the fact that a personal pan pizza costs about $2.50 where reading five books took at least a week)

But all in all, it worked out.

And that is an odd coincidence. Great books when I was a kid though. Loved them all.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt][I]

(I was a kid and completely oblivious to the fact that a personal pan pizza costs about $2.50 where reading five books took at least a week)

.[/QUOTE]
Ha ha! Yeah. I love it when your a kid and completely oblivious. I'm still completely oblivious, but when your a kid it's allowed.

[QUOTE=jay]-First off, the book I couldn’t recall yesterday, the book S. King published is _The Ideal, Genuine Man_ (1987) by Don Robertson-

I’ve never been one to side with this kind of theory. It’s the same of saying ‘if the masses are reading S. King /Harry Potting/ John Grossham…at least they’re reading’.
I don’t see this as beneficial in any way to literacy.
If we were to say that, “at least they aren’t out raping someone.
Or breeding.”
They’d I’d give ‘em a standing ovation for their acute page-turning skills.

I’ll agree with _Choke_.
_Lullaby_, to me, is somewhere on a scale lower than “bad”.
_Diary_ also. And “Guts”.

And this is where Chuck could be drifting off target.
Taking a dip in the genre pool is ok, but (what will be ( at least)) 3 books is dangerous ground for ‘being taken serious’, or whatever we’re kind-of speculating (future tense).

But who’s to say; I’m not much for soothsaying. If in xx years Chuck has an extensive bibliography, these past few works could just be a ‘phase’.
Dunno. (and don’t really care too much)

Or we could just drink our beer and say, “how the hell is Robert Steinbeck”? (wink wink)

No doubt. But generally it’s nice to see a writer improve. Not decline.
Those that fall into the, “well, his/her/they’re early stuff is good but then…” do maintain a following though.

Yeah, Oates can pump out some great stuff.

Truly. Nearly every writer has a miss or a near-miss. It’s important to not judge a number of works based on 1 selection.
That said, some people suck consistently.

This is kind of what I was getting at.
My experience of moving to Boston to attend Berklee College of Music and immediately being disgusted with the ‘poser’ vibe, meaning it’s more important to _be_ a “musician” than it is to, say, know how to read music was grease on the slide to my complete disenchantment with a career in the field.
And I witnessed this all again at Mass College of Art and English departments (obviously “artists” and “writer” we the cool things to be, respectively, there).

Oddly, I never hear surgeons or researchers, when asked why they do what they do, state, “I just neeeeeeed to cut people open/stare into a microscope all day”.
Etc.

I don’t believe it’s that common, when I say cook I’m not talking about boiling water and adding ramen noodles.
But either way, one *could* just do take out.

If you don’t like that one, I might say – I occasionally go to the cinema/rent a DVD, I then may make some comments about it.
But I don’t consider myself a “movie critic”.

One of these days I’ll get the Hempel site up, I, however, will not consider myself a “web designer”.

But then again I work around 70 hours a week in the science field and manage to get my work published, but I don’t consider myself a “scientist”.

Some people just like titles…and obviously some are deemed hipper than others.

It reminds me of that scene in “Serpico” in which Frank (Al Pacino) is being introduced to all his girlfriend’s flaky friends and it’s all like, “this is Jen, she’s an actress, but she’s waiting tables. This is Don, he’s a painter, but he’s parking cars at…” etc.
Frank then says (something like – Mr Brown can clear up any misquotes here, maybe-), “all your friends are pretending to be somebody they’re not.”

Sure. There’s a whole lot of angles to it

Now if I could only find someone like good ol’ Serpico to follow the age-old wisdom, “if you love a man’s garden, you have to love the man” I could get someone to cook for me…but as of now, I am garden-less.

j(ay)[/QUOTE]

Haha

Thanks that was a great response. Everyone does love a title, and some titles are more cuddly than others. Thanks for the explaination.

[QUOTE=jay]I’ve never been one to side with this kind of theory. It’s the same of saying ‘if the masses are reading S. King /Harry Potting/ John Grossham…at least they’re reading’.
I don’t see this as beneficial in any way to literacy.
If we were to say that, “at least they aren’t out raping someone.
Or breeding.”
They’d I’d give ‘em a standing ovation for their acute page-turning skills. [/QUOTE]

I don't see that Penny Dreadfuls and Dime Westerns hurt Thomas Hardy or Willa Cather. Widespread literacy (I mean in terms of being able to read) translates into a market for mass market, low-brow fare. Compared to some of the TV I've gotten second-hand, I'd say sticking your nose in a copy of 'The Shining' or 'A Time to Kill' is giant step forward.

[QUOTE=jay]
I’ll agree with _Choke_.
_Lullaby_, to me, is somewhere on a scale lower than “bad”.
_Diary_ also. And “Guts”.

And this is where Chuck could be drifting off target.
Taking a dip in the genre pool is ok, but (what will be ( at least)) 3 books is dangerous ground for ‘being taken serious’, or whatever we’re kind-of speculating (future tense). [/QUOTE]

I don't think genre-fiction necessarily translates as a lowered quality of literature. I'd offer as exhibits Jules Verne, Kurt Vonnegut, Ray Bradbury, Tolkein, Mary Shelley, Philip Dick, George Orwell, etc. I think an insistence on 'realism' can be as narrow-minded as an insistence on magical elements, futuristic speculations and so on.

[QUOTE=jay]
Or we could just drink our beer and say, “how the hell is Robert Steinbeck”? (wink wink)
[/QUOTE]

Or like so many other Americans at the time, 'Robert Stein-who? Sounds Jewish.'

[QUOTE=jay]
No doubt. But generally it’s nice to see a writer improve. Not decline.
Those that fall into the, “well, his/her/they’re early stuff is good but then…” do maintain a following though. [/QUOTE]

I see Stephen King as a writer who wrote some promising stuff in his early years, 'The Shining' perhaps being my favorite of his work (I haven't read anything later than Insomnia, but I'd read him through at that point). Much like Orson Welles, he peaked early and perhaps not that impressively, depending on how you esteem those peaks.

[QUOTE=jay]
Truly. Nearly every writer has a miss or a near-miss. It’s important to not judge a number of works based on 1 selection.
That said, some people suck consistently. [/QUOTE]

The surest way not to disappoint critical readers is to only write one, great book. Harper Lee, John Kennedy Toole, etc.

And of course very few artists in any medium successfully reinvent themselves over and over the way Picaso, for instance, did. For that matter, when they try to, they risk alienating any audience they've established.

[QUOTE=jay]
This is kind of what I was getting at.
My experience of moving to Boston to attend Berklee College of Music and immediately being disgusted with the ‘poser’ vibe, meaning it’s more important to _be_ a “musician” than it is to, say, know how to read music was grease on the slide to my complete disenchantment with a career in the field. [/QUOTE]

A zoo like Berklee or Eastman is going to draw the worst sort of adolescent monomaniacs and their immitators. And at 18, labels are massively significant to most. Some people outgrow that, some don't.

[QUOTE=jay]
One of these days I’ll get the Hempel site up, I, however, will not consider myself a “web designer”. [/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you have an unusually strong aversion to being categorized based on an occupation or hobby. To me, writing and denying that I'm a writer is as silly as making my own beer and claiming not to be a homebrewer. Or denying that I was a beekeeper when I kept a hive, or denying that I'm a production artist (which is what I get paid for these days, so the most obvious label to attach).

Americans probably put too much stress on the 'What do you do?' question. It's always fun to give a flippant answer such as, 'when no one is looking, I pick my nose.'

[QUOTE=jay]
Oddly, I never hear surgeons or researchers, when asked why they do what they do, state, “I just neeeeeeed to cut people open/stare into a microscope all day”.
Etc. [/QUOTE]

No, but I have heard people say they always knew they wanted to be doctors. For that matter, curiosity itself may be the compulsion that leads to the microscope. It may come down to a paycheck at some point, but there's usually something specific that draws someone to a profession as specific as that. For that matter, I've known people who went into building trades just because of an aspect of the work appealed to them, such as working outdoors and 'being' blue collar.

i pretty much had given up writing until i read lullaby

[QUOTE=Atomos]i pretty much had given up writing until i read lullaby[/QUOTE]

what was the main thing about Lullaby that made you want to pick up you pen again?

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]what was the main thing about Lullaby that made you want to pick up you pen again?[/QUOTE]
Not only did [I]Lullaby [/I] inspire Atomos to write again, Atomos inspired this thead away from the digressions of people like me. That's powerful literature...
§¦;•)>