We Are Oblivion - Book Club June '11

I wouldn't either.

He's made up his mind and anything to combat that is just going to lead to a pissing match.

Again, if he's so convinced that his way is "the right way" or a proper reflection of artistic medium, then I look forward to his novel.

Why's that? What are they all about? They don't like new people, or no one would give a shit about my two cents kind of thing? Seems to be a good conversation/debate going over there about it. Granted, it's spun into something else, art in general vs. bad art it looks like, but... I don't know it's hard to read those statements about the star ratings or whatever with this book when it's just not true what he's saying.

No, the majority of their members are cool people. I'm just thinking of this from a perspective of you being a new guy and one of the first things you do is come in there guns blazing combating Eddy's views on literature and art and whatever else. It really isn't worth your time.

Got it. Thanks -I had written my last response before seeing your first one, but yeah that makes perfect sense. And right, who has the time if he's that hard headed.

Hmmm. Eddy has a point. I can appreciate where he's coming from. And, that's just what he's like. I guess, from an outsider's point of view, not knowing Eddy and what he's like, it would seem pretty foul. Other than the fact that he didn't read the whole book, his review was quite good, in terms of a critical response to a text--you can't fault him on that. One has to remember that we're all just giving our subjective opinions. Because one person is extremely opposing, doesn't mean they're wrong or a prick or whatever--it just means they saw a different thing that you or I did. The thing about Eddy, too, is that he's confident in his opinions on art and literature and he's quite eloquent in the way he expresses said opinions. Often times that can come off as pig-headish or arrogant, but, really, he's just being honest and critical and backing his shit up with examples. He, at least, justifies what he's saying. Again, you can't really fault him on that.

Too, for the record, I've read two--almost three--of Eddy's novels and they've all been pretty outstanding. Intriguing and innovative, but rich with character. He's a damn fine writer. I'm sure we'll all get to read his work bound in a lovely cover someday. In the meantime, if you're really interested in reading his work, he has had a wide-range of short stories published all over the place.

I hear you, Doc. That's cool -I can respect passion and I don't take issue with his own personal opinions of the book so much as what he's saying about readers who are giving the book 5 stars. I'm one of them -and my reasons are far from disingenious and have nothing to do with what he's suggesting. "Lying about talent" is what he said, and I guess I don't get that.

Nothing wrong with a review being harsh - not at all, but it seemed like maybe the guy was being a little nasty too and there isn't need for that.

I kind of get where he was coming from, the prose style is simple and no frills but for me it really came over as a stong point rather than the put-off he took it to be. I found it really refreshing to read, after all prose style can totally influence how a character is received by a reader.

Mansfield would have sounded like a dick if he had narrated too formally. He'd have come across as being fake.

I don't think he means the prose should be more purple. I think he's just saying that, at times (and, to be fair, I had the same opinion of the first couple of chapters), the prose is clumsy and too telling, rather than showing, and leaving something in the reader's hands. Now, this style is justified later in the text, but that's a risk because a lot of people will read those openings few and maybe put it down.

The dialogue that Eddy highlighted was very expository, and, yes, one way to reveal information to the reader--probably the better way--is through dialogue, but, maybe, particularly in this example, it comes on a little strong, a little too obviously. But, one could almost argue that if, in fact, Fancy is just a projection then she is just another layer of Mansfield's subconscious, so, really, he is just answering the questions himself through someone else. You know that feeling? When you're asking yourself question you already know the answer to, but, maybe, you just haven't got the guts to own up to it.

Anyway, that's likely just looking way too much into and pulling meaning from the meaningless.

It's not really the review that bugs me as much as his rant on The Velvet. Don't get me wrong, the review bugs me. Seriously, I rarely see such well thought out, calculated and detailed reviews--and I certainly don't see them for the first six chapters of someone's work. It really did come off as a disgruntled hatchet job. Maybe when Eddy finally cranks one out we can read the first six chapters of his and type up our respective 1,000-word rant.

The Velvet rant is less subtle--more to the tone of "this book was shit and you're an idiot and/or a cheat if you gave it a good review."

So basically: if you liked the book, you're a moron. No one is allowed to like this book because Eddy says so. It discredits art and should be "fought vehemently."

The review is one thing, but to be lambasted for liking a book that he doesn't--and to take it one step further, to be accused of some kind of foul play for giving the guy a good review is kind of horseshit. Like I said, I'm cool with him not liking it, but for him to dig on others because they do is kinda fucked up.

Great. We'll see about that when he publishes.

I can tell you already what problem he's going to run into, and you've already set this up actually. As you said, yes, he is extremely opinionated, and as others have said, a bit cocky. You can tell by the way he argues things regarding Michael's book...a sort of "can't be wrong" attitude. The issue is that when you carry yourself like that, you're setting an impossibly high bar for yourself. If his work isn't up to snuff, he's gonna hear about it and no one is going to hold back.

Trashing other peoples' work is a nasty habit to get into, and that goes doubly so if you yourself are trying to get into print.

If he's so goddamn good, then he needs to prove it. He talks a lot of shit for a guy with no book.

A book isn't everything, Brandon. There's a lot of amazing fiction happening out there that's not constrained by a book cover. Your attitude here, the way you're reacting to ONE bad criticism, is just as appalling, really. Just as cocky. Like, you're somehow superior because you have a book published. It seems you're just being juvenile now.

The Velvet rant is in a forum. Not on Amazon or Goodreads. It's in a 'What Are You Reading?' Thread. And, I don't think he was trashing it so much as he was using his disdain for the book as a vehicle to enforce his opinions on art, to a small, close-knit group of people that all know him and what he's like. But, yeah, he'd probably say the same thing in here if he was still around.

Look, I'm not defending the way he went about it. It wasn't very tactful, no. But, that said, I cant absolutely see where he's coming from. Not every book is for everyone. You can't take it to heart if someone has a wildly different opinion on something--even if it has to do with your label mate/website buddy/partner. And, pulling the "well, if he's so good, why doesn't he have a book and me and Michael do" card is just gross. You realise that you're coming off just as tacky when you say stuff like that, right?

Can we just talk about the end of the book some more and not get too off-topic in the discussion thread bashing the bashers?

No, actually, I'm pretty sure you're defending the wrong guy.

See, here's the thing Matt: when you bash someone's work (on a forum, no less) and then go on and on about your opinions regarding art and literature and such, this is indicative that you know what you're talking about and are some kind of authority on the subject. The problem is that, no, Eddy is not an authority on the subject, and for a guy who says "art should be this way" and "literature should be like this" he's doing very little on his end to SHOW us how it's supposed to be done. Y'know..."lead by example" and that whole thing. And I absolutely love how this entire debacle was started by a review of not even the whole book, but the first six chapters.

As I said earlier, it's incredibly easy to talk shit. If he wants to talk shit, then that's fine I guess, but he should also be able to back it up.

Don't try to turn this into a shortcoming on my end. That's bullshit.

EDIT: And Matt, I'm honestly a little shocked that you'd ask to run this particular month for book club because you're such a fan of Sonbert, and now we're having THIS conversation. I mean, really, dude. You have to see how this is a little fucked up.

I'm not going to go on with this any further. You win, Brandon. No surprise there.

Let's just get back to the discussion, please.

Do you have anything you'd like to add to the discussion of the book, Brandon? You have been close to this book, reading multiple drafts, seeing it evolve. Any insight into some of the interpretations of the text? Do you have your own view of what's going on with Mansfield?

Yes, I am a big fan of Michael's work. But, I'm being open-minded here and seeing it from both sides. Like I've said a million times now, I'm not defending Eddy, nor am I railing against him (other than the fact that I firmly believe he shouldn't have posted a review when he hadn't read the full text, which was wrong of him).

I just think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't think we should resort to childish back-and-forths over someone not agreeing that this is quite a good book. Yes, he went about it the wrong way. But, he also had some very insightful things to say about art in his post and the posts that followed, which, keep in mind, had nothing to do with Michael's book. The conversation quickly evolved into something else entirely.

I don't know, man. I don't like where this went at all. I'd prefer to just get back to talking about WAO.

Why don’t y’all just say fuck it and shake on it. You’re both nothing but cool to me when we interact, so this is kind of hard to see. On one hand, yeah I should stay out of it. On the other hand, it’s an open book club forum and I just don’t want to see a permanent rift between y’all two –which there’s no reason for because a little venting or going at it between friends here and there is healthy –just so long as y’all shake on it.

Don’t know either of you personally, but you get a feel for people and neither of you come across as an asshole or a bad guy or whatever.

I will respond to his point of art and literature and the way it should be in that, if you read this book in its entirety, it should be quite obvious that Sonbert isn't going for any sort of traditional prose. I've had the advantage of talking to the guy at-length, so his intentions as an author are more obvious to me than they are for others. Sonbert isn't trying to make art. He's forging an experience.

That's kind of what pissed me off about what was said: the thing that he apparently failed at doing is the thing he wasn't even trying to do.

The prose and narrative read raw, and they read that way as a reflection of Mansfield. I wouldn't think that'd be hard to understand, but I guess it is for some people. Maybe it's not their cup of tea, but you don't pick up a Sonbert novel to drink 180 pages of sugarless Lipton--you do it because it's going to be something you've never had before.

"All of these five star reviews"

I have the only review on amazon. He quoted me and called me a moron because I loved the book.

Matt - you know me. Come on. How can you stick up for what he's saying at all?

He's basically saying that anybody that doesn't share his opinion doesn't know what they're talking about.

Also, if you're going to quote a review I've done (which I don't really care if you liked my review or not) at least give me credit. It was done under my real name. He knows who I am.

This has turned into yet another unnecessary shitstorm, but something that shouldn't surprise me, really, this is The Cult, after all.

Yes, Pete, I know you. I can stick up for what he's saying because despite going about it the wrong way on Goodreads, he actually brings up some good criticism of, not the book, because that wouldn't be fair seeing as he didn't read the whole text, the portion of text he read. He backs up his criticism in an intelligent and eloquent way. In fact, it probably the best criticism we've seen in this whole book club so far--someone taking the words seriously, taking them to heart.

There's a bigger conversation to be had here. Eddy is part of the same circles as all of us--Cult, Velvet, Write Club, Thunderdome--and he was addressing a larger issue: friends patting each other on the back and giving dishonest 5-star reviews just because they're your mate, rather than being honest with yourself and your friend. Yep, you're being honest, Pete--you loved it. I know that because when I was questioning the text and criticising it, you stood firm in the fact that you loved it. The prose thing came up to, if you recall: I spoke about how I thought it was clumsy and whatever; you spoke about how you thought it had a quiet poetry to it. So, I can see where he's coming from and why he felt he wanted to speak up, but, AGAIN, yeah, he went about it the wrong way.

But I don't think we should be discouraging honest and individual opinions on any art. There's way too much of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours--funny thing about my back, is that it's located on my cock" attitude amongst peers in the literary communities. And, if you stop getting mad about how arrogant he comes off and how out of line he was originally, you'll see that he really has some interesting things to bring up and I, for one, am glad thy someone takes it so much to heart, that someone has thought about art on such a level.

I don't see the point of bashing Eddy here over comments that, unless you were looking for them, would be buried in the forum, away from prying eyes, in a month's time. Especially not when it led to such an invigorating discussion.

Sigh. I don't know what else to say, guys. I think I've been really clear about why I'm not all huffing and puffing, but you keep questioning how I can "defend" him. I'm NOT defending anyone. I'm merely stating how I feel about the whole debacle.

But, I will say, I'm sick of shit like this and it's the reason, at least in part, as to why I haven't been around here much lately and will likely continue to be pretty absent. Someone attacked a body of work and you guys, namely Brandon, attacked a person. There's a big difference. But it's typical of The Cult. No one seems to take anything seriously. For perfect example, Brandon wasn't adding anything to the discussion of this book until the drama started and he swarmed and took the high road and made him self look like a hero. Prior to that he really didn't add anything of substance to the discussion of a book he seems to be very willing to defend. And, not just Brandon, but we have book club but no one gives a fuck, no one wants to discuss the text to great detail--granted, this month has been pretty good, seeing quite a few different interpretations surfacing, which should be credited, Like I've said early, a handful of times, to Michael's ability to write, what I, personally, have found to be a multi-layered book that is worth thinking about and talking about long after you turn the last page. The difference: I think it's okay if someone disagrees with that.

I don't know, you lot. I'm not sure what else to say, and I'm sure this will put me in more Cultish trouble and I'll be banished to the corner or some shit for not agreeing.

Don't be absent, man. Come on -the book club's just getting good. The selection for July has a lot of discussion going on, plus the next few months have the authors participating also, and I don't know. You shouldn't disappear. I've tried to contribute as much as I can to the book club these last couple of months -granted I'm still trying to move shit between Florida and Massachusetts and busier lately, but I take it seriously and it’s evident that so do you –so these discussions of ours only improve if you stick around and contribute the way you have been.

No one looks like a hero here, and no one looks like they should get banished to a corner. Agree to disagree at this point, or maybe we should get Rico Slade in here to settle this?

I think we should, without a doubt, agree to disagree at this stage. But, I think that a lively discussion, two different points of view battling it out, is more of what we need. People need to lose some inhibitions, believe in their opinions, theories, interpretations, and not be afraid to voice them. There's s little too much passivity, which, I think, is at least partly what Eddy was touching on. The ambivalence of it all. I just hate to see someone getting written off for being honest and laying out their opinions and arguments in such an intelligent, cohesive way, you know?

I'll still be around, of course. I'm not leaving. I love The Cult. I love a great deal of people here dearly. But, truth is, between running DN, my own writing, working two jobs, and keeping up-to-date with my writing groups's forums, I'm stretched pretty thin and I don't have as much time as I used to for trivialities, as fun as they are.

I'm likely just being a prick, too. I've had a fair bit of shit going on lately. Found myself in the bottom of a hole that felt too deep to climb out of. I don't know. Life's weird.

I would, however, like to continue talking about the book and leave all this otter crap behind. And, thanks, Nath, you really have been a major part of why book club is finally starting to work. I reckon you're a pretty top bloke.

Life is weird, definitely. Yeah you've got a full plate all right -hang in there as far as the shit going on and keep climbing. One thing that impresses me most about The Cult is how Helpful everyone is, so don't feel you're alone. We're all connected through writing. We know each other that way.

I appreciate your words too, by the way. And I guess to continue talking about the book, if anyone has any thoughts -but in the end when he starts putting the pieces together and recognizing the other passengers as his victims from their journey, his mind must've looked to each passenger in the beginning, one by one, asking Fancy's original question about killing someone. But what's interesting is that you then have "Save Me Superman" or people recognizing him as Superman in contrast -the idea of saving them all against killing them.

I didn't even think of that. He does sort of take on a 180 there at the end. He dies because he's saving people.

The reason I never came in and discussed it is because I already discussed it with Michael. As I've said elsewhere, I read an early draft because he came to me wanting an honest opinion on what was and wasn't working, and the subsequent emails and phonecalls regarding it were quite lengthy. So I've most definitely discussed it, and to a minor degree, had a hand in what it is now. I've never been closer to a project that wasn't my own.

The book is at the point where the general reader should have their say--not one of the author's labelmates.

I've done live readings with the guy, hung out with the guy, and he's stayed in my home and met my friends. We run a website together. Obviously, whatever I say is going to be biased and doesn't bode well for a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm going to rush to his defense with every bad review or when someone remarks on his work unfavorably, because I haven't done that. Try and crucify the guy as "bad art" and make an example out him--and yes, I probably will step up and say something.

Shut up, everyone! Christ on a pony, who gives a shit what anyone thinks about anyone else who likes this book (or any book). I LOVED the Sweet Valley High books when I was younger, but y'all don't think any less of me, right? RIGHT? Right. And if you do, fuck you, I don't care, I'm still going to read or not read whatever I want and like or not like whatever I want. Reading is an experience, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes just meh. If you let someone else influence the very personal, individual experience that reading is, then you don't read for the right reasons.

Anyway, I finished We Are Oblivion last night and I thoroughly enjoyed it (the whole story, not just the ending). Had it a different ending, I would've thought it was just another psuedo torture porn attempt at being a shock piece. I totally agree with Tuffy's An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge reference, too.

So I sit down to eat some breakfast and begin some editing and I find an additional 40 or so posts from yesterday. Wow. I figure I’ll throw my two cents in as well.

First point – Matt, Mansfield winding up in a mental hospital was never an option. In fact, the ending as it is now, came about very late in the game. He was always going to die and he was always going to wind up in the water.

Now to the negative review/Velvet post –
I have no problem with the guy hating what he read and then posting on it. I wouldn’t do that based on only six chapters (that’s about 30 pages in this book). I’d just put the book down. But he did so it is what it is. But where he’s entirely off base is the implication that the praise for the book is from friends and sycophants who are afraid to tell me that the book is crap. There’s no gray area here. He’s simply misinformed. Tietz and I will always praise each other as we’re actually business partners. But we made the choice to work together based on what the other guy does so I imagine, I’m always going to dig what he comes up with and vice-versa. The only other person on here that I’ve even met in person is Gordon - for about an hour a few months ago. And Gordon has hardly been effusive in his praise. He’s been, as far as I can see, honest. Pete gave the book five stars but in the review, he actually writes about how he couldn’t get into my first book. Hardly a kiss-ass. And Doc, who’s running this whole thing, has been, arguably, the book’s biggest critic. He’s pointed out tons of flaws and such as he sees them (which is totally cool). Beyond these four guys, I’ve had no contact with anyone else here. Everything that’s been said has been each person’s honest opinion (as far as I know). Because, why wouldn’t it be? I’m not on here enough or influential enough for anyone to gain anything by blowing smoke up my ass.

However, the reviewer couldn’t possibly know this and almost certainly saw this as another case of friends supporting friends, to a fault. I agree with the reviewer that this is rampant. It’s probably the thing I dislike the most about these writerly communities.

If he would have stopped there, I’d still have no issue with it. I’d chalk it up to, this guy hates the book and thinks it got false praise and he’s sick of this and wanted to rant about how bad the book is and how unhelpful it is to praise work that’s unworthy. Fine.

But he goes further and accuses the people who like this book of being either liars or tasteless. This is where he loses credibility with me. For anyone to think that they know what other people should like and appreciate more than that person is obnoxious. I met a lot of people like this in grad school. They took courses examining 18th century British Lit and after that, thought everything else was crap. Pop music – crap. Mainstream film – crap. All TV – crap (not suggesting this is the case with the reviewer as I don’t know him).

Deeming oneself arbiter of what is and isn’t art is absurd. I imagine the reviewer must know this. I imagine he must know that at some point someone may come along and piss on that which he cherishes. Someone more talented or educated or worldy. And what then? Would he abandon that which he holds dear? I hope not. Gordon asked what would happen if he was deemed the bad artist. To which he replied, “Then most certainly I should be stopped.” Really? By whom? How? Should his friends have an intervention? Even if it’s only his first or second book? Would he be willing to give up on something he seems so passionate about simply because one of his efforts fell short according to a small group of people? Jesus, I hope not. I hope he’s more committed to his writing than that.

A final bit of clarification – The reviewer referred to Moby Dick as the best American book of that century. I’m not surprised that he doesn’t like my work. I’ve said for years that my books will never be discussed on college campuses. They’ll be discussed in bars. You won’t write your thesis about one of my books but you may get one of the lines tattooed on your body (this has happened a number of times with the phrase “Love Life” from TNE). This is something I strive for. As exciting as well-read, knowledgeable readers discussing my work is (you guys), I often get the biggest thrill from hearing people say things like, “Man, I never read. I’ve read like three books in my whole life. And I read WAO in four hours.”

If Melville’s Moby Dick is Mozart, then WAO is a bunch of kids in a packed garage, playing their guitars as loud as they can. They’re out of tune and they miss a bunch of notes and their talent will never overwhelm you but it’s fun and powerful and everyone is drunk and sweating and when you leave, you’re not blown away by the art or the technique, but hopefully, by the experience. Clearly our reviewer detests this. Which is, of course, his right.

Thanks for all the kick-ass discussion on the book guys. Very cool stuff.

And as I'm posting this, I think Alecia (above), may have said it best.

I really enjoyed your post, Matt. There probably is too much praising each other, not between Brandon and Michael for reasons as they both stated, they both wrote books I've enjoyed.

I think it's also worth discussing what makes a book worth 5 stars? I imagine it would vary depending on each person. I read for fun and to learn the craft. I gave OOT, WAO 5 stars. I tend to rate on how much I enjoyed the book. I gave a few of The Harry Potter books 5 stars because they were fun to read and I enjoyed them. The Twilight series is not very well written at all, but I still read them addictively over a few days, and rated highly on the enjoyment factor. Obviously WAO is much better written than Twilight (Feel free to blurb that )

The only reasons I often consider reviews bad reviews if that they are on "bad views". I loved the book Red Dragon and I saw people gave it 1 star because they thought it was about dragons, and it wasn't, they rated the book badly because they picked up the wrong book - and that's not fair.

Overall I loved WAO, I even interviewed Michael for it. Definitely one of the best books I've read this year so far. Unique, for sure. I still don't get the ending but that's my fault, or my view seems to be different to everyone else. In fact, even if an author could tell you your interpretation was wrong, as long as you could back it up with evidence its fine, hence poetry interpretations.

Now that you've given your two-cents, maybe we can end the argument.

I'm glad that you don't seem too upset by the whole thing. Brandon and I have discussed it with his books. He knows he's not writing Moby Dick. He knows his place (as you seem to) and that's where it seems you guys want to be. And that's what's important. And obviously you don't have to create art for people to buy the book. Look how many people praise your books. And Stephen King wouldn't be the best selling author he is today if people were only looking for Moby Dick.

Also I've been meaning to ask - Is there an electronic version of The Never Enders besides the Kindle one? Like I said in my review, I want to give it another shot since I like We Are Oblivion so much. I have a Nook.

If I thought a book was exceptional, better than most books I will ever read - it gets 5 stars.

Those are the two criteria (it doesn't have to meet both) for me to give a book 5 stars.

If I really liked a book, but I move on to the next one and probably won't pick the book up after finishing it - it gets 4 stars.

If I thought the book was good, well written, but maybe just ok - it gets 3 stars.

If I didn't care for the book - it gets 2 stars.

If I thought the book was terrible - it gets 1 star.

Well said Pete. I agree, argument over.

I can't find a NOOK version. I'll look into further.

However, for those of you who asked about the availability of The Never Enders, it's now available again (no idea why it wasn't for a few weeks).

http://www.amazon.com/Never-Enders-Michael-Sonbert/dp/1596873655/ref=sr_...

...so the whole time travel thing--I really didn't think that it added to the story. I liked the interaction with Mcveigh and the grassy knoll was funny but I didn't get Katrina. I get the whole disjointed dream quality used for foreshadowing and I really like the allusion to other famous murderers but Katrina was an event. Again, it works in the fact that dreams are disjointed but I wasn't sure if it was needed (for some reason, while I was reading, the time travel powder really stuck out).

That's exactly the way I took it (hence the Frasier episode). I took the "Save Me Superman" as being from Fancy. I took it to show that there was some reality--being a boxer, gold digging wife, son he doesn't see, being proud of who he was before he took dives, etc.--mixed in the dream.