n+1 Revealed
Written byPosted on March 14, 2007
Filed Under Uncategorized
Mark Sarvas provides the first of a much needed glimpse inside the inner trappings of n+1. I’m as shocked as anyone to learn that there was a time in which the people at n+1 were friendly with litbloggers. But, like all enfants terrible, something caused these manboys to lapse into unintentional self-parody and attack the people who, oddly enough, are probably in the best position to sing their praises. Since Keith Gessen and Marco Roth, as far as I know, lack the introspective know-how and perspicacity to pursue therapy, I certainly hope that Mark’s generosity, in which he will reveal the shifting character of these two men, will assist all parties.
Comments
11 Responses to “n+1 Revealed”
Leave a Reply
Beyond Heaving Bosoms by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan. The famed writers behind
Alice Fantastic by Maggie Estep. This wild and highly enjoyable narrative involves two sisters (presumably, the third one was still being rented out by Chekhov), a hippie ex-junkie mother who lives with seventeen dogs, a murder, gambling, and libidinous Hollywood actresses who live in Woodstock. But this is the wonderful Maggie Estep we're talking here. And what seems at first like a quirky yarn becomes something unexpectedly moving about connectivity. What I love about Estep's work is the way that she'll juxtapose an extremely astute observation (now that you mention it, why do cab drivers always have somebody to talk with on the phone past midnight?) with an often outrageous story development.
Generosity by Richard Powers. It doesn't come out until September 29th, but Richard Powers's latest will have anyone committed to books reconsidering their literary fervor. I foresee some animosity from the vanilla critics hostile to idea-driven novels, but book bloggers, YouTube chroniclers, and MFAs would do well to plunge into this chance-taking narrative, which introduces vital questions about what the reader's relationship is with media, scientific dissection, and "creative nonfiction." Are we rats fleeing to happy cities? Or can we find the humanism within the purported plague?
Pieces for the Left Hand by J. Robert Lennon. Lennon is one of the most underrated fiction writers working today. Much as On the Night Plain proved that Lennon had a lot more in the toolbox than heartfelt (and often very funny) suburban satire, this slim but fascinating volume juxtaposes 100 small-town anecdotes -- arranged by category -- in a manner that reads, at times, like Nicholson Baker's passions for minutiae and, at other times, Stewart O'Nan's concern for psychological detail. The result is fiction that makes us wonder about whether one person's subjective view of particulars can entirely be trusted. This book never found a publisher in 2005. But thankfully, Graywolf has released it in the United States, along with Lennon's latest novel, The Castle.
Wonderful World by Javier Calvo. This wonderfully raucous volume has been completely ignored by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. But it's probably one of the most delightful reading experiences I've had this year. Calvo cavalierly mashes up multiple genres and manages to mix up familial subtext with larger-than-life, almost cartoonish characters. (Indeed, one might argue that one mobster's penis is a character of its own in this sprawling novel.). This is not an easy thing to pull off, but Calvo makes it work. And it's helped immeasurably by Mara Faye Lethem's idiom-specific translation. (
The Means of Reproduction, Michelle Goldberg This thoughtful book tackles the complicated (and little discussed) subject of reproductive rights from numerous angles, which includes a number of unpleasant but necessary ones. The upshot is that there isn't a quick fix solution for declining birth rates and fundamentalist abuses. Just about every political faction has contributed to the friction. But you'll want to read this book anyway to refamiliarize yourself with the topic, but also to understand just what's occurred during the past several decades to get us where we are today. (
If y’all didn’t seem so genuinely aggrieved about this and if it were more interesting, I’d think it was a put on to generate publicity, but no, I guess it’s all “sincere.” At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, it’s also totally retarded.
Ed, you know I love you, but isn’t your excitement over Mark’s sharing of emails a bit hypocritical when one considers the stance you took when Tao Lin did the same thing during your Oscar blogging?
I do realize that Keith Gessen has basically given Mark permission to post these emails over at The Millions blog, but had not done so at the time of your post here.
Ed? Hypocritical? Never!
Consider the source. This is a guy whose idea of “injustice” is someone talking in a movie theater. Only slightly self-centered. But I do think he’s stumbled upon a major story here.
(The giveaway about Ed “Rants” is when he said he would no longer give any attention to n+1. Wow! They must be shaking about that one. This is a guy who WISHES he had real power so he could start excluding lit groups, kicking teenagers out of movie theaters, et.al. Anyone who disturbs his precious bourgeois ego. He truly imagines this blog as the center of the universe. Well, we all have that fault, a little, about our projects, but seldom to such an arrogant extent.)
Christ, you folks have no sense of humor.
Let me know when you want to exchange links, Mr. Open Minded.
Mr. Wickett, that’s bullshit logic. Was I the one who posted the email? In what way am I responsible for Mark’s actions? And in what way am I completely condoning his actions here? Or is your perspective on this point so narrow that you cannot fathom a person finding entertainment in an action that he would not commit himself? Gray areas, sir. The world is full of them. I’d expect such a position from a Bush supporter who believes in the “you are with us or against us” hard line, not a thoughtful guy like you. Of course, we probably disagree on this point and that’s fine.
Of course, if I had turned around and posted a private email on these pages, after I had explicitly removed one on the Oscar blog, THEN you could call me a hypocrite. And I’d happily march my ass to whatever kangaroo court you wish to establish, pleading guilty.
WTF? Did we suddenly roll back the clock to 1997 and slither back into the primordial USENET ether? I’m totally having deja vu flashbacks now…
Sarah, this can’t be USENET because nobody called anyone a Nazi yet. I repeat, yet.
King Wenclas is a Nazi!
I do love the smell of Sturgeon’s Law…