July '04: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius - Dave Eggers

[QUOTE=H.D.Thoreau][url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375725784/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-8228880-2466369#reader-link][img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0375725784.01._PE20_PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Dave Eggers[/url]

Come one, come all, the floor is now open. If you feel that you must talk about the book as a whole you are welcome too, BUT I would like to suggest we take our time and save the OVERALL discussion for Sunday July 18, to give those people who have only finished the first 109 pages time to finish reading the book as a whole.[/QUOTE]Just bought this but as i aint read it can't talk about it but will in the near future.

Well...

I think that the entire concept behind mocking the acknowledgements section pretty much sums up the character of the first half of the book. The style of the book is nothing like I've ever seen. It's just so unique, and so different. I couldn't help but be amazed that it was actually an auto-biography. Most biographies are dry, and boring, but Eggers took the simple story of a few years of his life and made it so drawing and encompasing that you get completely lost in his world, in his life.

Who else caught the funny additions he made on the copyright page at the beginning of the book?

I really dig the tone he opens the book on with the copyright page. There is an announcement that screams 'who gives a shit about bitching about corporate america, on a personal level what does it matter.' Of course thats just my paraphrasing, but the point being it begins with something more close to home than ideas or theorys.

And I would rate myself probably a two and a half, Eggers being gayer than me.

I'm probably a 3 or a 3.1... I'm pretty sure there is a quiz you can take online. I'll try and find it on google.

He doesn't really go back to political theory until the second half of the book, and like he says on the "Rules" page, the second half of the book is very disjointed, while the first is very structured. I saw that as a metaphor for his life. The first half was the typical childhood, white picket fence scenario. Then, as he grew older, his life just fell to pieces. Yet, he seems to truly live as he shatters.

This might come as a minor Spoiler for some. Read on at your own risk 'cause I gots to gets it out while it's fresh imma mind.

One of the big-picture aspects that sticks with me is the overall structure of the narrative. It's sort of, anti-Hemmingway?

This is just my gut reaction to the book as a whole, but it stands out for me in that a lot of writers would chose to end the book with the parts about the deaths because that was so crushing and final.

I probably agree that the book is better for not starting in childhood and ending with the deaths. But had Eggers built the timeline in reverse like Happy Baby (for which he later was editor), he would still have had the tones of redemption and defiance up front with the California chapters.

Any thoughts on this?

interesting take, inkwell. i like that you called it "anti-Hemingway". but don't you think the point of the book is self-realization, which never really comes in a linear fashion?

[QUOTE=moe.ron] but don't you think the point of the book is self-realization, which never really comes in a linear fashion?[/QUOTE]
I don't undertand what you mean by self realization never really comes linear. Explain what you mean?

well, my great moments of personal zen have always come during retrospection, meaning, you have to look back to see where you've moved forward. it's not always a+b = c...sometimes factor "a" might be a result of "d-f".

so for eggers, all the stuff he realizes about himself now, (for example, his familial unit which j rock has already mentioned) is not necessarily a direct result of his parents' death. for that reason, the book doesn't follow a linear path.

[QUOTE=moe.ron]well, my great moments of personal zen have always come during retrospection, meaning, you have to look back to see where you've moved forward. it's not always a+b = c...sometimes factor "a" might be a result of "d-f".

so for eggers, all the stuff he realizes about himself now, (for example, his familial unit which j rock has already mentioned) is not necessarily a direct result of his parents' death. for that reason, the book doesn't follow a linear path.[/QUOTE]
6 to 1, half a dozen to the other, but i gotcha.

That's some really deep insight. I never quite thought of it like that...

[QUOTE=moe.ron]interesting take, inkwell. i like that you called it "anti-Hemingway". but don't you think the point of the book is self-realization, which never really comes in a linear fashion?[/QUOTE]

What I think is that good writers, and Eggers is clearly above that cut, good writers are able to shape a plot to tell the story in any structure or metaphor they choose. Backwards, forwards, linear, circular, or inside-out.

I haven't had and don't have any opinions on whether the plot should be linear. Many many good writers tell a story from Point A to Point B, with a whole fictive world and lifetimes of arcing storylines without a straight line among them.

By anti-Hemingway, I mean nothing about the quality. This is only in reference to the big-picture structure of the book. Specific to Hemmingway, I was thinking of A Farewell to Arms in making the comparison. It's a juxtaposition of doomed characters spiraling downward toward death and loss vs. spirit-crushing loss spurring characters to new life, new perspective, and a sort of redemption that's satisfying enough for me. Satisfying enough, but I still wonder about the structure and its other possibilities. It's not so much criticism of Eggers or the book as it is a compliment in the form of thinking about the machinery of the story on a level past a cud-chewing reflection of whether I "liked" it.

For the record, I enjoyed AHWOSG and own a copy. Again, my previous post speaks nothing to the question of linear or not.

Actually, I read in some interview online somewhere, that Eggers felt compelled to explain himself in the preface section due to his journalistic background and respect/regard for being as truthful as he could. . .

I think it also served as a warm-up for readers, that this was [I]not[/I] going to be an ordinary ride and to buckle up, roll down the windows, cuz its gonna be an interesting ride. . .

[QUOTE=Lisa]Actually, I read in some interview online somewhere, that Eggers felt compelled to explain himself in the preface section due to his journalistic background and respect/regard for being as truthful as he could. . .

I think it also served as a warm-up for readers, that this was [I]not[/I] going to be an ordinary ride and to buckle up, roll down the windows, cuz its gonna be an interesting ride. . .[/QUOTE]I hate authors that talk about themselves just write don't talk.

[QUOTE=morey]I hate authors that talk about themselves just write don't talk.[/QUOTE]
It's optional, as he states. I actually went back and read the preface in more depth, as I found myself halfway through the book, out of curiosity. I found it as interesting as the story itself. (Man, you're harsh for not even having read the book yet. Give it a chance, crack it open! )

I've really enjoyed the opening to the book. It's just enough of a difference in authoring to make it not seem so much like your run of the mill biography. I can see why eggers would feel obligated to give a bit of a disclaimer and warm-up, biographies are not easy reads. The other thing that really warmed me up to the book is it's not just another writing-my-life-out-before-i-pass-on type of biography, which seems to be the necessary thing to do these days. Eggers isn't just trying to epitomize himself through his writing, and you can really get a sense of that reading the book. You get the feeling that eggers really is just trying to write down his story, for personal reasons or because he thinks it is a good story, it doesn't matter so much.

One other thing caught my attention when I was reading the first section. Eggers has a bit of a talent for employing literary tools to give importance to (or detract importance from) the other characters (mainly his family). Most visibly you can notice this with the singular paragraphs on his father's death, how they're placed among larger portions of of his mother's story. You can also get the feel of it in how he talks (or doesn't talk) about his brothers and sister.

Lastly, I really get the feeling, for me at least, that this is going to be one of those books I'll read once, enjoy, and never come back to again. If you were to ask me why, I'd probably have to fumble through some sort of response, but really, I just don't know, it just has that feeling that I don't think I'd care to bother with re-reading. Almost like I'm reading one of my guilty pleasures - microbiology - interesting enough to me, just not as entertaining as a story might be.

I no longer have the book in my possession, can someone sum up what happens at the end of the first 100 pages, so I don't spoil any further discussion? Also, are we just supposed to be giving our general impressions/thoughts/opinions here?

In response to trypd., okay you break my heart comparing Egger's story to microbiology.

I don't re-watch or re-read hardly anything, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy something. I'm not a literary expert though, I'm just a cheap reader who wants to be entertained. I don't care how an author goes about the task. I enjoyed all the ups, downs, all-arounds, the non-traditional and varied structures, the infallible humor and intelligence, that I found myself easily forgiving of any bumps along the way. (More on that later, I guess.)

no no no, you don't get it, i LOVE microbiology. i just can't force myself to read the same book on microbiology twice. love the information, love the way it's presented, written, i just don't care to re-read them. the only books i own are ones i'd willingly re-read, from douglas adams to hemingway to neil gaiman. but yea, i'm pretty much a literary slut too, i'll read just about anything, and i'll end up enjoying it. it's rare when i come across something i don't like, which surprised me about my reaction to jt leroy's "sarah". i just couldn't stand that book, i had too many problems with the book, (none of them were based on the sexual content).

When I began reading I didnt start with the intro/prelude whatever its called. But when I was done I became intrigued and went back to it. The thing i was most impressed with was the tempo of his style and the control he used over it. The tempo went with each scene very well, death scenes or rememberance scenes were slow and paced while the others where he would talk to himself about what if situations/panics were quick and ripe with paranoia. I am looking forward to reading his other work if I could find it.

[QUOTE=morey]Just bought this but as i aint read it can't talk about it but will in the near future.[/QUOTE]I'll never read this, I musta been drunk when i bought it.