Good point. I've heard that Wallace's bloated style was a form of "maximalism" which was a response to the minimalism of Lish and his students. I feel like DFW and Chuck's work may have a similar moral center but are very different otherwise (Chuck has said he writes for people who've just about given up on reading, and I think DFW wrote for people who enjoy trucking around brick-sized books--totally different audiences).
The doyen of Italian letters, Fernanda Pivano said, "The future of American literature is David Foster Wallace and Chuck Palahniuk." The day he died I was only a couple miles away. In the newspaper that morning I discovered we'd been born on the same day, Feb. 21, 1962. All of this leaves me shaken a little.
People forget how fast David rose, and how just as quickly the system trashed him. That said, I'll steer clear of the topic. It's too sad. I often "joke" that people expected too much profundity from David, and if he'd been asked to write fourteen issues of Spiderman he'd still be here. That's not really a joke.
My brain matter is changing, rerouting, and revisiting. Serving coffee and selling jams today at the Farmer’s Market is going to take a new life through words again— I feel like a journalist all over— damn, I miss writing for a newspaper. Those council meetings I attended… good reporting, right there.
Fascinating that minimalism is anything but minimal. It's sparse on the exposition, yes, but packed with sensation and experience. I've heard so much about Tom. I was shocked that he is so soft-spoken and humble. Not what I expected. Thank you for sharing that video. It hit home the concepts of on-the-body and unpacking.
My white trash roots are showing. When no one is around to ridicule me I make two fried-egg sandwiches. Either with mayonnaise or butter, but always using soft white bread. This was a childhood dinner when we had very little money. The softness, fat and salt has a mouth-feel like heaven.
Oh my goodness, I haven't seen one of those since I was a child. I was an extremely picky eater as a child so I never ate one, but as I read those lines I could vividly visualize so many people in my family eating these. And the soft white bread was Wonder bread that we would later use the empty bags to line our boots and play in the snow. Another symbol of my white trash roots.
"Andrea took me aside and suggested I not come back the next week. Certain other writers no longer felt safe around me." And this was thirty-plus years ago, pre-wokeness, snowflakes, etc. Imagine trying to workshop something like that today.
Also, on the topic of Dangerous Writing, I've been thinking about this w/r/t my own writing lately, and was wondering how to define DW in the current cultural moment (I asked this earlier, sorry to repeat myself but I don't think I got a response).
Easy. In Dangerous Writing the idea was to explore an aspect of self that was unresolved and daunting. You explore and exaggerate it -- through a metaphor -- and eventually burn out your emotional reactiveness. Once you're no longer used by that issue, the issue disappears. To Tom the benefit is that you get a reward on the front end. The issue brings you back to working on the story. And even if you never sell it or get recognition from the larger world you've still resolved that unresolvable personal fear or pain or upset.
No worries at all, thank you kindly for the response. That's an incredibly helpful definition, I'm definitely going to add this to my desktop wallpaper. And I can't help but wonder if this worked for someone like Kafka, who did more or less exactly as you suggest. I wonder where he was at when he died (young and largely without recognition).
I would still like to see the production company explain its progress. People often ask me, but I've no idea. The funds were raised in 2016, and I supported their effort, but since then the development has been a mystery to me.
Chuck, would it be correct to assume that one of the first successful steps in achieving good writing would be to successfully blur the vicarious lines between character and writer without any fear of comparison? To achieve a realistic/authentic voice that includes dialogue, actions and mannerisms that are all befitting of a well fledged out fictional creation, does a writer have to - in some capacity - give them self over to their fictional character, creating a kind of symbiotic relationship in which the creation becomes a kind of ‘spawn’ of what ever it may be that a writer is trying to achieve with them, or I am extrapolating wildly out of left field here? The first time a tried my hand at writing something serious (by this I guess I mean to completion) I felt that I was able to somewhat successfully create separately distinct voices in two separate stories. The content matter in both stories could be seen as taboo and both feature actions which are candid/private. I sometimes get a little concerned about people thinking that these fictional narratives are anecdotal or feature unpleasant things which I condone. But then I remember that while you did some public readings of “Guts”, a few people would believe that the story was anecdotal to your life. I think I recall you saying that it might be a little embarrassing at first, but that it then soon becomes liberating, in a sense. If you’ll excuse the half-baked and ineloquent way in which I’ve tried to ask the question, Is there validity to what I’ve said?
I will punt to tomorrow's posting. It uses an anecdote that explains my concept better than I can here. In general, the goal is to trick yourself into revealing -- through a mask/metaphor -- parts of yourself you'd never reveal. Even parts of yourself your conscious mind is unaware of.
Henry James said, "The novelist sells for two dollars to strangers the secrets he'd never tell his closest friend." The goal is to reveal secrets even you keep secret from yourself.
I've never been to a writer's workshop, or even really talked about writing in public. It feels too exposed. This forum is probably the closest thing to one I've come across.
Tom's video actually made me cry. Not like, full-on bawl, but made me well up with a feeling that I guess is closest to... vindication? Like everything he was saying was exactly how I feel about not just writing, but creation.
Just want to add (and sorry if you were saving this, Mr. P) that there is a shorter second part to the video interview. I quite enjoyed it, have questions about how accurate Spanbauer’s recollections are, but will save them for a time when it’s not off-topic for the subject of dangerous writing. Highly recommend it, since everyone gathered had one thing in common and the second part is all about that commonality. :)
"The way we destroy a sentence shows character". I like this from the youtube video very much. I am struggling with giving a distinct voice for a female character. I attend a writing workshop and the leader said he could not distinguish my main male and female characters. Maybe they spend too much time in their own heads istead of talking to others. Have to reconider...
Good point. I've heard that Wallace's bloated style was a form of "maximalism" which was a response to the minimalism of Lish and his students. I feel like DFW and Chuck's work may have a similar moral center but are very different otherwise (Chuck has said he writes for people who've just about given up on reading, and I think DFW wrote for people who enjoy trucking around brick-sized books--totally different audiences).
The doyen of Italian letters, Fernanda Pivano said, "The future of American literature is David Foster Wallace and Chuck Palahniuk." The day he died I was only a couple miles away. In the newspaper that morning I discovered we'd been born on the same day, Feb. 21, 1962. All of this leaves me shaken a little.
People forget how fast David rose, and how just as quickly the system trashed him. That said, I'll steer clear of the topic. It's too sad. I often "joke" that people expected too much profundity from David, and if he'd been asked to write fourteen issues of Spiderman he'd still be here. That's not really a joke.
My brain matter is changing, rerouting, and revisiting. Serving coffee and selling jams today at the Farmer’s Market is going to take a new life through words again— I feel like a journalist all over— damn, I miss writing for a newspaper. Those council meetings I attended… good reporting, right there.
Thank you, Chuck.
Fascinating that minimalism is anything but minimal. It's sparse on the exposition, yes, but packed with sensation and experience. I've heard so much about Tom. I was shocked that he is so soft-spoken and humble. Not what I expected. Thank you for sharing that video. It hit home the concepts of on-the-body and unpacking.
Let's thank Colton, one of my students. He found the video and brought it to me. Thanks, Colton!
Nice job, Colton!
Off topic but I keep wondering: if there was a Chuck Palahniuk sandwich, what would be on it?
irreverence and compassion
My white trash roots are showing. When no one is around to ridicule me I make two fried-egg sandwiches. Either with mayonnaise or butter, but always using soft white bread. This was a childhood dinner when we had very little money. The softness, fat and salt has a mouth-feel like heaven.
My dad eats like that all the time even though he's has enough money not to for at least the past 25 years.
"The softness, fat and salt has a mouth-feel like heaven."
My first girlfriend was like that.
Fiber is over rated.
Oh my goodness, I haven't seen one of those since I was a child. I was an extremely picky eater as a child so I never ate one, but as I read those lines I could vividly visualize so many people in my family eating these. And the soft white bread was Wonder bread that we would later use the empty bags to line our boots and play in the snow. Another symbol of my white trash roots.
"Andrea took me aside and suggested I not come back the next week. Certain other writers no longer felt safe around me." And this was thirty-plus years ago, pre-wokeness, snowflakes, etc. Imagine trying to workshop something like that today.
Also, on the topic of Dangerous Writing, I've been thinking about this w/r/t my own writing lately, and was wondering how to define DW in the current cultural moment (I asked this earlier, sorry to repeat myself but I don't think I got a response).
Easy. In Dangerous Writing the idea was to explore an aspect of self that was unresolved and daunting. You explore and exaggerate it -- through a metaphor -- and eventually burn out your emotional reactiveness. Once you're no longer used by that issue, the issue disappears. To Tom the benefit is that you get a reward on the front end. The issue brings you back to working on the story. And even if you never sell it or get recognition from the larger world you've still resolved that unresolvable personal fear or pain or upset.
And I'm forced to skim a bit when surfing the comments. Sorry.
No worries at all, thank you kindly for the response. That's an incredibly helpful definition, I'm definitely going to add this to my desktop wallpaper. And I can't help but wonder if this worked for someone like Kafka, who did more or less exactly as you suggest. I wonder where he was at when he died (young and largely without recognition).
What's the status of the Lullaby movie?
I would still like to see the production company explain its progress. People often ask me, but I've no idea. The funds were raised in 2016, and I supported their effort, but since then the development has been a mystery to me.
Chuck, would it be correct to assume that one of the first successful steps in achieving good writing would be to successfully blur the vicarious lines between character and writer without any fear of comparison? To achieve a realistic/authentic voice that includes dialogue, actions and mannerisms that are all befitting of a well fledged out fictional creation, does a writer have to - in some capacity - give them self over to their fictional character, creating a kind of symbiotic relationship in which the creation becomes a kind of ‘spawn’ of what ever it may be that a writer is trying to achieve with them, or I am extrapolating wildly out of left field here? The first time a tried my hand at writing something serious (by this I guess I mean to completion) I felt that I was able to somewhat successfully create separately distinct voices in two separate stories. The content matter in both stories could be seen as taboo and both feature actions which are candid/private. I sometimes get a little concerned about people thinking that these fictional narratives are anecdotal or feature unpleasant things which I condone. But then I remember that while you did some public readings of “Guts”, a few people would believe that the story was anecdotal to your life. I think I recall you saying that it might be a little embarrassing at first, but that it then soon becomes liberating, in a sense. If you’ll excuse the half-baked and ineloquent way in which I’ve tried to ask the question, Is there validity to what I’ve said?
I will punt to tomorrow's posting. It uses an anecdote that explains my concept better than I can here. In general, the goal is to trick yourself into revealing -- through a mask/metaphor -- parts of yourself you'd never reveal. Even parts of yourself your conscious mind is unaware of.
Henry James said, "The novelist sells for two dollars to strangers the secrets he'd never tell his closest friend." The goal is to reveal secrets even you keep secret from yourself.
I've never been to a writer's workshop, or even really talked about writing in public. It feels too exposed. This forum is probably the closest thing to one I've come across.
Tom's video actually made me cry. Not like, full-on bawl, but made me well up with a feeling that I guess is closest to... vindication? Like everything he was saying was exactly how I feel about not just writing, but creation.
I'm going to have to seek out some more I think.
Thanks for sharing.
Didn't expect that to be what he meant by Dangerous Writing. Truly appreciate his words. Thank you Tom! Thank you Chuck!
I wish we could read this
Just want to add (and sorry if you were saving this, Mr. P) that there is a shorter second part to the video interview. I quite enjoyed it, have questions about how accurate Spanbauer’s recollections are, but will save them for a time when it’s not off-topic for the subject of dangerous writing. Highly recommend it, since everyone gathered had one thing in common and the second part is all about that commonality. :)
Very grateful for this interview. I've never seen him speak. Such a kind and sweet man.
I read Spanbauer's 'In the City of Shy Hunters' last year and it was so damn good and one of the best NYC novels I've ever read!
Super post thank you !
Did that scene sneak its way into Snuff? It feels very familiar but it has been a bajillion years since I read it.
"The way we destroy a sentence shows character". I like this from the youtube video very much. I am struggling with giving a distinct voice for a female character. I attend a writing workshop and the leader said he could not distinguish my main male and female characters. Maybe they spend too much time in their own heads istead of talking to others. Have to reconider...