Comments on: Apocalyptic Lifeblood http://www.edrants.com/apocalyptic-lifeblood/ a cultural website in ever-shifting standing Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:01:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Orlando http://www.edrants.com/apocalyptic-lifeblood/comment-page-1/#comment-234635 Orlando Wed, 18 Apr 2007 04:48:15 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=5879#comment-234635 "Sustain"? “Sustain”?

]]> By: Richard http://www.edrants.com/apocalyptic-lifeblood/comment-page-1/#comment-234522 Richard Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:58:29 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=5879#comment-234522 Steve's first paragraph said pretty much what I was going to say, except I would add that it makes no sense to say that they "used genre"--what would that even mean? Unlike Steve, I do think Roth, especially, is worth reading, but the allegedly genre aspects of Plot Against America, for example, were not of much interest... Steve’s first paragraph said pretty much what I was going to say, except I would add that it makes no sense to say that they “used genre”–what would that even mean?

Unlike Steve, I do think Roth, especially, is worth reading, but the allegedly genre aspects of Plot Against America, for example, were not of much interest…

]]> By: steve mitchelmore http://www.edrants.com/apocalyptic-lifeblood/comment-page-1/#comment-234346 steve mitchelmore Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:36:27 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=5879#comment-234346 Are you sure Roth and McCarthy wrote these books to “sustain their literary worth“? Maybe they just wrote them. I haven't read either book, and from what I've read of Roth and McCarthy before, I'm not convinced either merit my further attention. You don't say which critics and enthusiasts are declaring genre lesser or worthless, yet you imply they are also celebrating Roth and McCarthy. I'm happy to be called a critic who declares genre lesser (though I wouldn't say it was worthless) only I wouldn't celebrate these two writers. And I'll tell you what: you can include both with Heinlein, Wells and Vonnegut! How's that? The genre aspects of both authors' work also seems to have enabled their mainstream prominence, whereby those in the review-publicity industry, for whom high sales and popular attention is (inexplicably) important, are allowed some of the big-money sunlight from Oprah over there and Richard & Judy over here. Ignore it all, I say, including national book awards. The real thing is elsewhere. Are you sure Roth and McCarthy wrote these books to “sustain their literary worth“? Maybe they just wrote them.

I haven’t read either book, and from what I’ve read of Roth and McCarthy before, I’m not convinced either merit my further attention.

You don’t say which critics and enthusiasts are declaring genre lesser or worthless, yet you imply they are also celebrating Roth and McCarthy. I’m happy to be called a critic who declares genre lesser (though I wouldn’t say it was worthless) only I wouldn’t celebrate these two writers. And I’ll tell you what: you can include both with Heinlein, Wells and Vonnegut! How’s that?

The genre aspects of both authors’ work also seems to have enabled their mainstream prominence, whereby those in the review-publicity industry, for whom high sales and popular attention is (inexplicably) important, are allowed some of the big-money sunlight from Oprah over there and Richard & Judy over here. Ignore it all, I say, including national book awards. The real thing is elsewhere.

]]>