Hi everyone,
By now we should be finished with part I of 2666. To start this thread off, let's start somewhere easy, just to get ideas going.
What do you think of the style thus far? Does it remind you of anything? What does it make you feel?
What do you think about the characters? Who do you love? Who do you hate? Why?
What do you think of Archimboldi?
I apologize for the lateness, I'm traveling at the moment. If someone could throw the shoutout list up, that would be a big help!
@StJohn@, @DiamondLou86@, @AnSionnachRua@, @_refugee_@, @minimum_wage@, @flagamuffin@, @fuffle@, @b_b@, @hugitout@, @JakobVirgil@, @zebra2@, @AdSeriatim@, @mk@, @thenewgreen@, @SufficientGrace@, @ecib@, @kleinbl00@, @cliffelam@, @hootsbox@, @lil@, @rezzeJ@, @cgod@, @blackbootz@, @onehunna@, @AshShields@, @BLOB_CASTLE@, @insomniasexx@, @kuli@, @cowboyhaze@, @seatraveler@, @Floatbox@, @maynard@, @hiss@, @GodOfAtheism@, @NikolaiFyodorov@, @Meriadoc@, @wasoxygen@
Hey guys, it looks like we're all done discussing part 1. Part 2 is a bit shorter and in the interest of time, I'd like to discuss part 2 along with part 3. If there are any objections, let me know.
Also, it seems like two weeks was more than enough time, at least for the people that commented in this thread. I'd like to get feedback from you on the pace, so please let me know how you feel about it.
Let's say that the discussion of parts 2 and 3 will begin on Sunday, September 14.
I feel bad about bitching out, but I've got a long reading list and if I can't get into something in 160 pages (in this case), then it's time to move on. I don't like not giving books the benefit of the doubt — any book could get better or change suddenly later down the line, but I'm far more likely to get bogged down and wind up not reading anything at all.
Et tu Brute?
Can't say I blame you, though I hear the next chapter comes equipped with giant flying hornets :)
Cool. I might not make it though because I'm heading over to Italy on the 7th and... I don't know how much reading I'll get done.
I'm in again. I want to say right up front that I will not be participating in any other book-clubs with books of this length unless they are a proven classic. i.e. War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Moby Dick or something like that. I realize that this is sort of a lame thing to say, but we could be on to the next book by now, you know?
That hurts man. I'm enjoying this shit and everyone should try new things! I also question your application of the words 'proven classic'.
That said humanodon, I'm not sure about accelerating the pace. I think that'll siphon our already decreasing number of participants. Either way I guess, give me a deadline and I'll get there.
I hear you, but it's a whole lot of book to cover and it's already been a month since we started. I mean, at this rate, I'm going to have to return the book before we even touch part 5, which I think would be half way through October if we have a discussion every two weeks. I would strongly suggest that for the book club, we try to pick books that will:
1) spark good discussion of the book
2) spark good discussion of ideas and subjects that the book deals with
3) are manageable within reasonable time frames.
I think that 1 and 2 are fairly well satisfied, but man oh man, this is taking a while to get through, no? Plus, there are clearly a lot of people starting classes right now and "huge novel" might not be the most appealing way to spend their free time . . .
Anyway, two huge books in a row is probably about as much as our book club can handle, but as I'm out of the rotation after this book, I'll leave it up to the next person to decide.
Aw, come on! That's not what I meant by it! I'm just saying that with a book this length, suddenly it becomes a Commitment. I mean, three months man, that's the time frame we're dealing with. That's a quarter of a year.
I honestly think that more people would participate if it was a book club, not a massive book club. I'm not saying that I think people would participate more if we were to choose lighter fare either; a whole lot of those books suggested were heavy, dense kinds of books because . . . I guess those are the kind of people interested in participating. The thing is we need to keep the pace up so that people stay involved. Too long in between and people forget.
I read your post on the other stuff you're supposed to be reading and it seems like you've got a heavy load. One of my worst semesters in school was when I decided to take a literary foundations course (classics) and a Brit. Lit course. One book a week for each class. If I had the opportunity to do things over, I would definitely not do that again.
I would love to be able to take courses like that, but most of my reading is on top of class because my college doesn't handle double majors very well. No room for interesting courses.
I've been reading part two this afternoon and unfortunately it's much, much weirder than part one. Fuck.
- That hurts man. I'm enjoying this shit and everyone should try new things!
That said, I'm in for part 2 and hope to start digging it more.
Took a bit of sounds_sound's philosophy of always saying, "yes." We have a lot of work to do around the house this weekend, but some friends asked us to go to a new restaurant today that we've not been to. I said, "yes" even though I really didn't want to. We had a blast.
Now I'm going to go a neighborhood pool with my daughter that we've never been to. Both are new things. I'm not a big "pool" guy, but I know she'll love it.
We were asked to go to the NC Zoo with some friends tomorrow and our first inclination was to say, "no" because it's supposed to be a hot day and again, we have a lot of work to get done, but what the hell?... we said "yes". Just like sounds_sound.
edit: I also plan on cooking tomorrow night. Per this suggestion of doing "something new," I will attempt a new dish. Not sure what yet, but it'll be new to me.
Sounds great! It looks to me like you're not only overcoming the natural tendency to take the easiest road but also doing more activities for others. I, for instance, helped a good friend move to a new apartment. Even though it was four stories up and had no elevator, we got all his heavy wooden furniture up there with good teamwork. And I'd do it again in a heartbeat, because I know it means something to him to have people who can help him out, even with something superficial as moving furniture.
"Still Life With Woodpecker" -That was a fantastic read.
That was a big book for me when I was much younger. Not sure it was as good in my 40's. Hard to go back to those kind of books. Why I've resisted re-readying much Any Rand.
Ian Banks sci-fi books seem to have held up for me, though his horrible political viewpoints have really colored (coloured) them for re-reading.
-XC
Haven't read any Ian Banks. Just read my first Rand and it was pretty bad, but I could see how it would be good at 12 years old. -not trying to be funny, I really could.
Still Life was an awesome read when I was 18, as were all of Tom Robbin's books. I don't dare read any now for fear that the magic will no longer hold sway....
or anyone that wants someone to tell them their basest impulses are moral.
When did we get to a moral state?
I guess it boils down to whether not homo sapiens in his wild state is a villain.
Are we acculturated to be good or evil.
is morality adherence to cultural norm or something else.
Oh I hope not. (philosophy is horrible stuff.) obviously humans are social animals so even our wild man has to live in a social context.
Can cultures be seen as objectively good or bad?
Nazis compared to say Puerto Ricans?
is the moral man the one that does what his culture expects of him?
I like logic PHL on the other hand lacks rigor in the selection of its axioms.
This was a very unsympathetic novel. It's a good one, but one where the main characters are totally unlikeable. Pelletier and Espinoza are two snobs whose intimidating education is no use to them. It can't help them resolve their love triangle with Norton, it doesn't give them an outlet for their emotional turmoil, it can't prevent them giving in to their animal instincts, and it doesn't give them any civilized way of dealing with the one person who dares to call them out as the terrible people they are — the Pakistani taxi driver who they kick nearly to death in an orgiastic frenzy.
So we're left with these two twats who feel like they're entitled to more than they actually deserve and utterly disdain anyone who's impudent enough not to know German or who disagrees with them about their favorite writer. The author seems to be making an attack on academia. Education is petty, worthless and not at all the elevating influence it's supposed to be. Even Archimboldi, the core of Pelletier and Espinoza's scholarship, is this labyrinthine figure surrounded by disturbing dreams and an undercurrent of violence.
The strength of the writing carries this character study of two people whose learning is no defence against their savagery. I found it hard to get invested in these unlikeable characters because their lives were essentially uninteresting. I don't care about the particulars of these people's poxy love triangle, but the novel was written in a very fluid, compelling prose so it was easy to keep reading. I can enjoy unsympathetic novels, but I feel like they need something more than just strength of language to keep the thing afloat. A plot could have helped here, or even just something — anything — in this novel that we might have cared about as much as the characters do.
- A plot could have helped here, or even just something — anything — in this novel that we might have cared about as much as the characters do.
I'm in for round two, that's the best compliment I can give thus far. -Harsh, I know.
I don't really understand why they're friends. Sure, they feed off of each other in their publishing cycles and they're all about this Archimboldi, but I don't get why they call each other and are friends. They don't really seem to know each other very well.
Sometimes the novel moves as if to show the reader things about the main characters in ways that will not reveal those things to the other characters. Some parts feel almost dream-like in the way that the images pile on top of each other and then jump to another place. I'm having trouble remembering the details, but I wonder if that's intentional; a mysterious author writes a story about a mysterious author. Perhaps these are not characters at all, but merely facets of various human qualities?
I think it's intentional. Reading this book and trying to remember the details is a huge mistake, and you won't finish. I think it's as plain and simple as that.
Witness the moment late in the first part where Amalfitano is explaining something and he goes into bizarre detail about a dream and a stage and life and finally after three pages one of the critics says, "I didn't understand a word you said," and Amalfitano says, "I know, I was just talking nonsense," and then they all move to a different topic without comment.
Remember that passage when you're reading parts 2-5, hubski.
- I don't really understand why they're friends.
Back in the day, I did a lot of coke. And I had a few really really really good friends. We had nothing in common, except that we loved long nights and blow. We would talk, walk, laugh, cry, reveal deepest secrets, spend hours and hours and hours talking. These are still some of my close friends today.
Do we have anything in common? Nope. Did we hang out much? Nope. But when we did it was always a great time, and even nights where it was just beer, or just weed, or completely sober, it was great. That happy, carefree, sharing time with someone who has seen you at your worst and knows your secrets so you aren't hesitant or self-conscious. It was a good time. Sometime's all it takes is a single common interest and reason to spend hours and days and nights together that makes a friendship superior.
I think that's how I look at their friendship. Normally they wouldn't be friends, but they enjoy each others company and have a good time and talk and talk and talk with ease.
I think if we're honest, we all have some friends we enjoy the company of, though we have little in common.
My issue is, as StJohn said, that the characters are unsympathetic. For me, it's because they lack depth; the way that love is treated is curious. Pelletier and Espinoza both love Norton. Why? Because she's around and she likes that one thing that they both like and it's easy to talk to her? Then Norton moves on, she and Morini are now in love. Why? They both like Archimboldi and Edwin Johns?
This lack of depth makes me wonder again, whether or not that these are truly supposed to be "characters" that is, for all intents and purposes except for biological realization, living, thinking people with flaws. Yes, we certainly see their flaws and some of their thoughts, but not much by way of their feelings or how they experience things-- everything is seen at a distance. In fact, to me they seem two-dimensional in a way that makes me wonder if the author is actually telling the story through archetypes of academics, or of human beings in general.
Also, there is no real conflict in the story. "Norton loves x, oh no! Let's read or fuck." And they simply travel and wonder about Archimboldi. In a way, it's a bit like Scooby-Doo. I like it, but it does make me wonder if the many reviews about it being an endurance test are right.
The critics are definitely supposed to be abstract. Their only distinguishing characteristic is their relationship to Archimboldi, and as readers we know even less about Archimboldi than they do. Archimboldi is vague enough to the reader you could project practically any imagined author into him. And so the critics are just as easily malleable.
And fwiw the Morini transition seemed really obvious to me. Norton had always been emotionally closer to him than the others and his repeated explicit exclusion seemed like some heavyhanded foreshadowing.
Right, which makes me wonder, "Why go there? It's the obvious move." The academic with the least physical presence and the one with the least emotional presence get together . . . it's too on the nose. I can't figure out if I'm missing something or not.
I have to say I disagree about Norton's lack of emotional presence. I guess they are all pretty lacking but I never felt like Norton was particularly less developed than the two male critics. I'm wondering if your perception is not so actual and more due to the fact that the majority of our POV time is spent among the two male critics, and Norton is emotionally distant from them.
That's a possibility . . . I don't know, it strikes me as odd that Norton simply . . . goes along with sex. I'm not saying that casual sex = no emotions, but I find the way that she's written as implicit of that. Of course, I'm bringing my own experiences to the reading, but the only sense of emotion from her that I found to be an insight into the character was the anecdote about Jimmy, just before she tells the other two about Morini.
Maybe it's just that I relate to Espinoza and Pelletier better, but either way, in my experience, a person who takes two close friends as lovers in the same time period are generally people I admit, I am more willing to characterize as emotionally distant.
But again, as abstractions, what can really be said about the emotional validity of any of them . . .
Yeah, it's hard to say without seeing more of him. At the moment he's just this black hole for wankers who'll agonize over riddles and decrypt clues about his work. He inspires bad dreams. And is it just me, or is it implied at the end of Part 1 that he might be a serial killer?
- And is it just me, or is it implied at the end of Part 1 that he might be a serial killer?
Indeed, else why all that certainty that he's in the town, and that it doesn't matter if they find him, the important thing is he's here in this environment and culture -- which is an idea I can sympathize with abstractly, but.... I wasn't at all sure of the significance of the killings of women and so on, and how/whether that was linked to Norton's departure. I noticed the next part continues with Amalfitano, so presumably we'll learn more to that end.
Thoroughly confusing but I think I enjoyed it more than most of you all, though certainly not until the home stretch. My thoughts are scattered throughout this thread.
Greetings Hubski from Istanbul! I can't help using up some pricey data to enjoy everyone's comments on the book. Sounds like we were all ready by the end of Part I to move on to some different characters. Sorry, humanodon, for posting my comments so early; I will try to stick to the schedule from now on.
Selamlar!
Right, so, just finished it three minutes ago. Hmm.
--
At about page ~200? (400 on my pdf), I wasn't particularly enjoying myself and the book, while not a chore, was something that I thought I'd seen before, I treated it fatalistically, my eyes began to blur and so on. The Gravity's Rainbow effect. But the sequence after Norton left Mexico for London was spellbinding to me. I read it in 20 minutes and could've kept going for an hour. I feel like at that point (or earlier) you begin to suspect where she's going with her relationship (and even you begin to hope, maybe), and the climax was well-written. The way Espinoza and Pelletier deal with her letter (I can't help but think of this book in 19th century terms, no matter how hard I try) is typical and a bit vulgar and I finally began to get a handle on the characters at that point.
This was a good, good feeling because up to then I'd been trying to figure out what sort of book I was reading, and to have a sudden epiphany was unexpected and elucidating and made the process altogether smoother.
--
And yet I'm still not sure about the bigger picture. I don't know a damn thing about Bolano, so I don't know which culture if any he is misrepresenting or exaggerating. He lived in Chile, Mexico and Spain. Is there anything of him in any of the characters? Espinoza? If not, where did he get the inspiration for them, and how did he settle on the exact manner in which they act? As others have pointed out, there's precious little plot, which I was expecting, but as there's precious little characterization as well, we're left with ... normally we might be left with introspection, a magnified self-imagining like The Old Man and the Sea or A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. But I don't know if we got that here.
Also Bolano died before polishing this novel, I think. I read that he wanted it released serialized in order to maximize the profit it would make and provide for his family. That practical sentiment is jarring and seems to fit right in with the events of 2666. What does that say about him/it?
--
I'm done for now. I need to digest this, but it's certainly got me thinking, which I didn't think possible at the halfway point.
I love your description of the Gravity's Rainbow effect. It's all too common, even though I actually really like Thomas Pynchon. Are we really going to stick with this novel for all ten million parts? I was willing to brave Part 1, but I don't know if I have the intestinal fortitude to keep going.
I'm going to try ... I've got a lot of other things to read for "real" commitments at the moment, so unfortunately 2666 will be the first to go if I have to ditch something. That said, I read very quickly and it's a point of pride with me that I don't leave books unfinished. So I'll be around. Hopefully.
(The Wikipedia page mentions that Archimboldi was partially based on Pynchon? Not sure if that's speculation or fact.)
I just did a reread of A Song of Ice and Fire so I'm used to dreams having more overt significance...
So, I'm not finished. I'm reading via pdf so I can't tell how close to finished I am. Middling. But I'm simultaneously reading for various commitments Catch-22, a 1400-page omnibus of Orwell's essays and correspondence, three books on modernization in Africa and one on the history of Ancient China, a Vonnegut novel and an excellent book on Lincoln.
Also a Dresden Files novel, because I opened the wrong pdf earlier and it seemed interesting.
So. It's killing me. But I am gonna finish this goddamn book. I like it in the same way that I like all purposefully post modern literature; I accept the 3-page long sentences with good grace, I nod knowingly at the threeway dream sequences and I treat it like an oral tradition where one single section matters much less than the parts of the whole. Worked so far. I'll go back to reading now.
EDIT: aha!
I am going to revisit this when I don't have a couple different things I really need to do first ( wink hubski newsletter goes out tomorrow morning wink) but here's a couple things:
Super long sentences. Sometimes pages long. It kind of reminds me of that one author...Hemingway? I don't know. I read Hemingway in high school and I think they talked a lot about his long, rambling but flowing sentences. Alas, I was too cool to pay much attention so I might be totally off.
I'm not sure how much of this is a conscious style. That one sentence that was like 3 pages was for sure, but in general some sentences just seem like it may be the translation. Spanish in general is a much more flowly and longwinded way of speaking.
I'm alright the characters. They are the focus of part 1, for sure, since not much really happens. They mostly just are there, and thinking, and occasionally fucking, and at conferences. They don't do much, or at least during reading it it doesn't seem like they do much. Looking back, they have done a good number of things but as you read it it doesn't seem like it. I partially attribute it to the long, winding sentences.
I wish Liz Norton had more to her. She seems like a cunt to fuck at times. She allows the other characters to be more fully developed, especially in terms of sexual desires and relationships and friendships. But I wish girls weren't always just cunts to fuck.
I particularly loved this passage:
I also think this is a really horribly fantastic insult and wish I could use it somehow:
I also noted the dreams that they all had throughout. I want to read them all together and see if I can derive anything meaningful for them. The dreams were all really intense and stood out to me.
StJohn, DiamondLou86, AnSionnachRua, _refugee_, minimum_wage, flagamuffin, fuffle, b_b, hugitout, JakobVirgil, zebra2, AdSeriatim, mk, thenewgreen, SufficientGrace, ecib, kleinbl00, cliffelam, hootsbox, lil, rezzeJ, cgod, blackbootz, onehunna, AshShields, BLOB_CASTLE, insomniasexx, kuli, cowboyhaze, seatraveler, Floatbox, maynard, hiss, GodOfAtheism, NikolaiFyodorov, Meriadoc
Sorry to the above if this is an old list and you do want to be tagged.
- I particularly loved this passage:
- and the earth and the grass seemed to talk, no, not talk, argue, their incomprehensible words like crystalized spiderwebs or the briefest crystalized vomitings, a barely audible rustling, as if instead of drinking tea that afternoon, Norton had drunk a steaming cup of peyote.
Thankfully, I trudged on because the characters did begin to flesh themselves out and although the writing was a bit heavy handed, I became engrossed.
-More to come.
Maybe I should read more or pay attention to what I'm reading more. Besides graphic novels and the first half of a couple sales/marketing/advertising books, I probably haven't read a good book since high school.
I focus on the plot and characters far more than the writing.
Movies, that is another story. insomsbf made me watch a stupid movie called *Extract* Not even Jason Bateman could save it. Piss poor plot, piss poor editing, bad bad bad sound mixing, and Mila Kunis was a manipulative sexy lady who scared me. What I'm trying to say is, the same way I have a hard time watching a bad movie, or even a good movie with technical flaws, is probably how more proficient readers find this book. Since I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm happy. :P
The reason I liked that paragraph was because it nicely described the confusion when you're really really really high. You have this inability to take everything in, while simultaneously taking in the tiniest details. I saw her sudden obsession and fascination and intrigue to be an intense drug. This, along with the other details about Archimboldi and given the other characters' obsessions, worked in reenforcing this strange writer that has a profound effect on our characters.
- Maybe I should read more or pay attention to what I'm reading more.
I'm guessing I misread that piece.
No she wasn't actually getting high, I don't think. I think the author/book is her drug! I mean obviously there has to be something mind-blowing about the author in order to have 4 people utterly obsessed with this guy, right?
Yeah, that's what my take was too. Thanks, now I'm certain this section was over written :)
Yeah, rain seems to be one of several motifs wending their way through the first part. I read that Bolaño began as a poet and turned to writing novels as a way to make better money, which is common enough. I wonder though, if this use of symbols springs from that background and was not fully realized, incorporated and finished, due to his death.
Hemingway wasn't known for such long sentences, but his utter eschewing of commas sometimes made it seem that way. He was often more staccato.
I agree with you about Norton, but the same criticisms can be made about Morini, and really about the two main characters as well. I'm not sure what I feel about that.
I'm detecting a certain amount of reservation for 2666 based on readers' dislike for Espinoza and Pelletier. No doubt I'm more sympathetic to these two than most (probably I resemble them too much), but how many of you really think affection for a character is requisite to appreciate their story? I recall Confederacy of Dunces once being touted by several hubskiers as their favourite novel; for all Espinoza and Pelletier's flaws, they're considerably more self-aware and exhibit far less bastardry than Ignatius J. Reilly. I guess this demonstrates the different expectations we have of heroes in comic novels than we do in novels like 2666.
That aside, and what surprises me most about this thread up to now, is that nobody's mentioned how hilarious this book is. Really, some of the university conference debates, and the early conversations between Pelletier and Espinoza to maintain their friendship while they are both sleeping with Norton, were comic gold. The scene with Espinoza trawling television channels for confirmation that Pelletier has been killed in a plane crash (and Norton greeting Pelletier with this news when he walks through the door) was brilliant. And how about Espinoza's take on Ring?
tl;dr: I fucking loved the first part. Can't wait to get started on the second.
There are most definitely funny moments, but for me, one key difference between A Confederacy of Dunces is the element of surprise. I'm in this constant state of mild surprise while reading and I think that keeps the humor from landing a solid hit with me. I enjoy this book in a way that I used to enjoy talking to a homeless guy named Bear who would eat ice-cream when it was snowing, so he wouldn't feel cold. I suppose that might be true, but it might not be. I don't know what to "believe" with this book, so I don't know how to suspend my disbelief, which is something the book touches on.
¦First you can't believe it and then you think it's incredible.¦
I don't know how to read this book yet and I think that's a desired effect, but of course I have to cycle through the ways I might usually find meaning.
Really well put on both points. Pelletier and Espinoza are Rosencranz and Guildenstern. They're also, as others have pointed out, mere archetypes. Their "character" as such doesn't matter. I'm a little sore that was so sorely missed, but I have the benefit of hindsight working in my favor as I've read the book once before, closer to its initial publication. Just know that P+E as depictions of specific, individual character-people don't matter as much as P+E as depictions of how, more generally, people are and/or can be. That's why it's so damn funny.
I've been away from the reading and the thread but I encourage people to stick with it while simultaneously knowing it's going to be a bummer. If we have enough in favor of speeding up the reading let's try and do that. We'll either all burn out or we won't, but we likely will.