I have no doubt the dude likes his share of attention and approval. That whole first memoir thing is a story about someone who is dying to be recognized (either for his suffering or his achievements). At least he’s channeling that into something that seems to me objectively good.

I also don’t know about this “us” v. “them” dichotomy. In any situation like this, it always seems like it’s the “them” (those who feel like they’re on the outside) who exclaim the existence of the “us” the insiders, but upon examination, it seems to be mostly projection from the “them” side.

Have you read What is the What? I have to say, I’m intrigued by all the positive reviews, though I wish they talked more about the book and less about the cause. But it’s impossible to get a copy.

still, the more a charitable organization promotes itself the more ‘good’ it can do, because the more ‘money’ it will have; perhaps eggers’ is thinking that

Jeff: Thanks for clarifying your position. The heading of your list read “Inability to construct a solid paragraph,” which led me to believe that the complaints you lodged represented paragraphs that were less than solid. And in terms of “advancing the story,” I’m referring to this sentence in your post:

“Instead of recognizing that sentences and paragraphs can do triple or quadruple duty, the writers are using them merely to advance the story.”

So after reading this (and the other parameters you set), I inferred this to mean that paragraphs functioning as unequivocal textual units, solely to advance a story forward, represented an “inability to construct a solid paragraph.” Thus, the dichotomy that formed in my mind.

If you want to get into short stories, James Thurber’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” employs banal sentences like “He looked at his wife, in the seat beside him, with shocked astonishment.” to convey the dull mood that Mitty resides in when not immersed within his imagination. There is only one way that this sentence can be read: a declaration of Mitty’s doldrums. Perhaps you can make the case for “intellectual life” with the unnecessary “shocked” before “astonishment” — a deliberate oxymoron. But otherwise this is pure emotion which generates mood. And it works just fine on ONE level.

I suspect we probably agree more than we disagree, but perhaps you might want to articulate what you mean by “intellectual life.”

As for Mr. Segundo, he’ll take up your request if he can, although he will likely be plastered to the floor of his Motel 6 room!

“I should note that I disagree with Jeff VanderMeer when he suggests that paragraphs used ‘merely to advance the story’ are poorly constructed. Sometimes, a paragraph must bristle with nothing but emotional life.”

Not to seem cantankerous toward the well-respected BS, but “merely to advance the story” is not synonymous with bristling “with nothing but emotional life.”

My point was simply that in many *short stories* that are not attempting to be breathless noir or whatever, the writers are being careless or sloppy or not taking advantage of opportunities.

Nor is there *any* reason why you cannot have “emotional life” and some sort of intellectual resonance in the same story, nay in the same paragraph. Nor am I suggesting airless, skeletal intellectual rigor at the expense of emotion. Nothing in my post suggests that.

In short, I think you’ve skimmed my post, not read it, and I demand satisfaction, sir.

Swords or muskets at dawn, your choice, Noble BS.

Cheers,

JeffV

probably that kind of thinking, ‘mother’s sleeve,’ has origins in your own head, since the most obvious and concurrent with, and most relevant (if you want to help people, if that’s your meaning in life), even, explanation to why eggers’ stresses the charity is that it will sell more books and create more awareness of charity, that someone powerful is involved in charity, both of which are things that will help people more

i’m really tired of literary bloggers who just attack everything meanheartedly, even if it is george bush; it’s really tiring and unhelpful and vacuous, like watching TV, the goal seems to be to attack ‘what is bad’ instead of looking at facts or ‘trying to befriend what is bad’

i don’t know