ps bolano

also I have been thinking that the difference between scholarly attention to a text and artistic attention to a text is that for an artist the memory of the experience of the thing outweighs the thing in all the other ways it might be important.  I was telling someone that the thing I loved in the first book of 2666 was the way all the scholars obsessively studied the same writer but all the action/story was about their stupid melodramatic love triangles and the writer and the text that they supposedly all cared so much about was absent from the action and then there’s this one moment of horrendous violence that is totally buried in a paragraph or something and then zoom back to the melodrama (reminds me of in Cheever– the plane crash in “The Country Husband”–) making the absence of attention to the writer/books connect to the absence of attention to the act of violence and that’s what I love about the book which I’ve heard described as formed by a sort of gravity emanating from a giant hole in the middle.  Or else I made that up– I forget– which is what I’m getting at here– ie I think the writer and the books they study may indeed be in the story, just not in my memory of it, and it’s my memory of it that is useful to me as a writer.  I am interested in the stupid triangle and the holes.  This idea horrifies me a little as a teacher, but whatever, I’m on fellowship.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *