george saunders

I wanted to tidy that quote up; jed had let a capital I slip and it bugged me when I read it through;

he is very funny, agreed; and I agree with nabisco that he not just making fun of the kind of everyday communication strung along in threaded jargon; speech as non-composed, imposed catchphrase commonplaces which have can have jolting effects:

I agree with cutty, too; and said so - without actually agreeing with cutty - the other day in conversation with jed: and it's a thing I most like about his writing: the stories appear whole and resolute, like the world itself, his worlds themselves, not piecemeal and built but entire;worlds with their own ins and throughs, outs and unders; full and so disorienting at first, as if you've found yourself on the wrong level of the office you work in and suddenly the fixtures are all wrong but the layout's somehow similar; but still they hang, suspended in the nets of their own logic, and eventually, as you come to their ends, you get understanding, whether it be through completion, correspondence, chronology, whatever - whether simple reading - eventual understanding achieved; and it can have the force and feel of a small miracle, like when how you look at somene or some phrase they have and it turns unfamiliar and queer to you then back through the angles into familiarity again and you shudder, kno'?

anyway, so he's funny, and has an ear for the way things shouldn't sound or be said, as much as people have noted he has an ear for what is said:

#1
He says: now get off your indefensible high horse and give me Sam's home phone.

So I get off my indefensible high horse and give him Sam's home phone.

#2
He's shouting for forgiveness. He's shouting that he's just a man. He's shouting that hatred and war made him nuts. I start running down the hill agreeing with him.

great posts nabisco, above, incidentally, to rain praise on you even tho you don't really need it, bub

I also think nabisco's is a valiant attempt to show "hysterical realism" as perhaps not altogether something new and not the lit. in majority - feels instinctually a touch disingenuous, if well-meaning, however, though I'm not, if I ever was!, currently up on the coin that this stuff gets in lit.america - did it ever have the pull and prominence in britain? jerry to fill in details? I can't rememeber

this is a particularly saundersian line itself from nabisco: he brings one old lady back from the dead and it's all "yeah, hysterics." : )

I agree with stevie jerard and read a lot of barthelme (the subvert technical manuals charge), beckett (fatalism fight meaning) and a whole bunch other stuff it's too late to try trace from the fanned saunders book on ma lap

anyway it's late and I'm still trying to stay away from places on the www that are bad for me : )

i never heard of him till today, i just bought civilwarland in bad decline though

who loves goerge?

new collection of non-fiction essays out today

http://www.amazon.com/Braindead-Megaphone-George-Saunders/dp/159448256X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5875193-3965550?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188933122&sr=8-1

He's doing a reading at the Park Slope B&N on Thursday. Too bad everything I've heard about his non-fiction is keeping me far away from this collection.

also at the chelsea barnes & noble (6th @ 22nd) 7pm thursday

my sister read a galley and loved it

yah theres not any listing for the park slope store on the wesite

for a george saunders reading there on thursday that is

I'm an idiot; the map link from Flavorpill gave me the Park Slope one.

anyway i think i might go

Too bad everything I've heard about his non-fiction is keeping me far away from this collection.

i will gladly purchase this collection no matter what

I bought a signed copy of the new collection yesterday - if I'd known George was in town, I would have gone to his reading but I didn't find out until after the fact. Hearing him read part of "Jon" at Bumbershoot last year was the highlight of the weekend for me.

i stopped by the reading but it was so fucking over full - then i left

the new collection is suprisingly awesome!

(surprising because i love his fiction, but i've found a lot of his non-fiction that i've read to be boring. anyway, i dig the new book.)

I read the first page of "Braindead Megaphone" (? - whichever the first piece is) while standing on the street and now am saving the rest of the book like the last candy from Easter.

My Gal
by George Saunders September 22, 2008

Explaining how she felt when John McCain offered her the Vice-Presidential spot, my Vice-Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, said something very profound: “I answered him ‘Yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”

Isn’t that so true? I know that many times, in my life, while living it, someone would come up and, because of I had good readiness, in terms of how I was wired, when they asked that—whatever they asked—I would just not blink, because, knowing that, if I did blink, or even wink, that is weakness, therefore you can’t, you just don’t. You could, but no—you aren’t.

That is just how I am.

Do you know the difference between me and a Hockey Mom who has forgot her lipstick?

A dog collar.

Do you know the difference between me and a dog collar smeared with lipstick?

Not a damn thing.

We are essentially wired identical.

So, when Barack Obama says he will put some lipstick on my pig, I am, like, Are you calling me a pig? If so, thanks! Pigs are the most non-Élite of all barnyard animals. And also, if you put lipstick on my pig, do you know what the difference will be between that pig and a pit bull? I’ll tell you: a pit bull can easily kill a pig. And, as the pig dies, guess what the Hockey Mom is doing? Going to her car, putting on more lipstick, so that, upon returning, finding that pig dead, she once again looks identical to that pit bull, which, staying on mission, the two of them step over the dead pig, looking exactly like twins, except the pit bull is scratching his lower ass with one frantic leg, whereas the Hockey Mom is carrying an extra hockey stick in case Todd breaks his again. But both are going, like, Ha ha, where’s that dumb pig now? Dead, that’s who, and also: not a smidge of lipstick.

A lose-lose for the pig.

There’s a lesson in that, I think.

Who does that pig represent, and that collar, and that Hockey Mom, and that pit bull?

You figure it out. Then give me a call.

Seriously, give me a call.

Now, let us discuss the Élites. There are two kinds of folks: Élites and Regulars. Why people love Sarah Palin is, she is a Regular. That is also why they love me. She did not go to some Élite Ivy League college, which I also did not. Her and me, actually, did not go to the very same Ivy League school. Although she is younger than me, so therefore she didn’t go there slightly earlier than I didn’t go there. But, had I been younger, we possibly could have not graduated in the exact same class. That would have been fun. Sarah Palin is hot. Hot for a politician. Or someone you just see in a store. But, happily, I did not go to college at all, having not finished high school, due to I killed a man. But had I gone to college, trust me, it would not have been some Ivy League Élite-breeding factory but, rather, a community college in danger of losing its accreditation, built right on a fault zone, riddled with asbestos, and also, the crack-addicted professors are all dyslexic.

Sarah Palin was also the mayor of a very small town. To tell the truth, this is where my qualifications begin to outstrip even hers. I have never been the mayor of anything. I can’t even spell right. I had help with the above, but now— Murray, note to Murray: do not correct what follows. Lets shoe the people how I rilly spel Mooray and punshuate so thay can c how reglar I am, and ther 4 fit to leed the nashun, do to: not sum mistir fansy pans.

OK Mooray. Get corecting agin!

Thanks, Murray, you’re fabulous. Very good at what you do. Actually, Murray, come to think of it, you are so good, I suspect you are some kind of Élite. You are fired, Murray, as soon as this article is done. I’m going to hire someone Regular, who is not so excellent, and lives off the salt of the land and the fat of his brow and the sweat of his earth. Although I hope he’s not a screw-up.

I’m finding it hard to concentrate, as my eyes are killing me, due to I have not blinked since I started writing this. And, me being Regular, it takes a long time for me to write something this long.

Where was I? Ah, yes: I hate Élites. Which is why, whenever I am having brain surgery, or eye surgery, which is sometimes necessary due to all my non-blinking, I always hire some random Regular guy, with shaking hands if possible, who is also a drunk, scared of the sight of blood, and harbors a secret dislike for me.

Now, let’s talk about slogans. Ours is: Country First. Think about it. When you think of what should come first, what does? Us ourselves? No. That would be selfish. Our personal families? Selfish. God? God is good, I love Him, but, as our slogan suggests, no, sorry, God, You are not First. No, you don’t, Lord! How about: the common good of all mankind! Is that First? Don’t make me laugh with your weak blinking! No! Mercy is not First and wisdom is not First and love is super but way near the back, and ditto with patience and discernment and compassion and all that happy crap, they are all back behind Country, in the back of my S.U.V., which— Here is an example! Say I am about to run over a nun or orphan, or an orphan who grew up to become a nun—which I admire that, that is cool, good bootstrapping there, Sister—but then God or whomever goes, “It is My will that you hit that orphaned nun, do not ask Me why, don’t you dare, and I say unto thee, if you do not hit that nun, via a skillful swerve, your Country is going to suffer, and don’t ask Me how, specifically, as I have not decided that yet!” Well, I am going to do my best to get that nun in one felt swope, because, at the Convention, at which my Vice-Presidential candidate kicked mucho butt, what did the signs there say? Did they say “Orphaned Nuns First” and then there is a picture of a sad little nun with a hobo pack?

Not in my purview.

Sarah Palin knows a little something about God’s will, knowing God quite well, from their work together on that natural-gas pipeline, and what God wills is: Country First. And not just any country! There was a slight error on our signage. Other countries, such as that one they have in France, reading our slogan, if they can even read real words, might be all, like, “Hey, bonjour, they are saying we can put our country, France, first!” Non, non, non, France! What we are saying is, you’d better put our country first, you merde-heads, or soon there will be so much lipstick on your pit bulls it will make your berets spin!

In summary: Because my candidate, unlike your winking/blinking Vice-Presidential candidate, who, though, yes, he did run as the running mate when the one asking him to run did ask him to run, which that I admire, one thing he did not do, with his bare hands or otherwise, is, did he ever kill a moose? No, but ours did. And I would. Please bring a moose to me, over by me, and down that moose will go, and, if I had a kid, I would take a picture of me showing my kid that dead moose, going, like, Uh, sweetie, no, he is not resting, he is dead, due to I shot him, and now I am going to eat him, and so are you, oh yes you are, which is responsible, as God put this moose here for us to shoot and eat and take a photo of, although I did not, at that time, know why God did, but in years to come, God’s will was revealed, which is: Hey, that is a cool photo for hunters about to vote to see, plus what an honor for that moose, to be on the Internet.

How does the moose feel about it? Who knows? Probably not great. But do you know what the difference is between a dead moose with lipstick on and a dead moose without lipstick?

Lipstick.

Think about it.

Moose are, truth be told, Élites. They are big and fast and sort of rule the forest. Sarah took that one down a notch. Who’s Élite now, Bullwinkle?

Not Sarah.

She’s just Regular as heck. ♦

Brilliance!

what an honor for that moose, to be on the Internet

he writes like you, scott.

hahaha, i was actually writing something and i stopped to read the saunders thing and my first reaction - after i stopped laughing - was: jesus, maybe i should stick to reading.

The theater company I belong to in Chicago is doing a stage adaptation of "Jon" in October, and he'll be here at least for the opening.

re-reading civilwarland (and will probably follow with a re-reading of everything else)

love this man deeply

cannot believe there have been no film adaptations of his work yet

Most of his the good stuff happens in the narration, or inside people's heads, for the most part: hard to translate to the screen.

wasnt there going to be an adaptation of civilwarland? or did i make that up

with ben stiller? i think?

or possibly i mean affleck. someone with the forename benjamin.

ben gurion

Sounds like a disaster in the making.

FILM:

Currently in development is a screenplay for CivilWarLand in Bad Decline, optioned by Ben Stiller who has commissioned Mr. Saunders to write the screenplay.

Mr. Saunders has already completed the screenplay for Joysticks which is based on the story "Sea Oak," to be directed by Keir McFarlane.

"Sea Oak" is probably my favorite story of his, but it's hard to imagine it working as a movie. Maybe animated it would.

the stiller thing has been talked about for years. probably would never happen but i could see him being cast as the vietnam war veteran--but that would be weird following tropic thunder.

I'd like to see it.

I just reread Gappers and Phil and In Persuasion Nation and I don't know how I feel about this guy anymore -- the first time i read the latter I thought it was amaaaaazing and now I'm finding his various tics like show up? a little more? -- not his dialogue, actually, but eh I don't know.

Like, the last story, forgotten the title. The one about the guy who works on some kind of Air Force base coming up with press releases downplaying snafus, and who goes around trying to deal with his annoying boss and Christian coworker with self-help slogans, and not doing very well with it; except this guy also lives with the ghosts of his parents, and that bit takes over at the end. And I started feeling it was basically kind of arbitrary? where that aspect took over? And not just at that point in that story, but almost in the collection as a whole? -- like it's organized into these subunits and everything is sort of almost linked, and it started to seem to me like the whole thing was trying to carry too much weight on too glib a structure.

But: I also kind of think I might find more to enjoy in his earlier collections, now, if I went back; that maybe the stuff that's bothering me now is more of a thing in that last collection, maybe even why I enjoyed it more than the first two in the first place.

Also now I think maybe was there a long argument earlier on in this thread about basically the issue I'm having but in relation to where the fantastic stuff took over in a different story? I haven't reread the thread yet. Might do that, now.

see, everything you mention about the last story, Comm Comm, the connectivity and stuff, is everything i love about it

i suspect my issue with that one might be different to my issue with the others. i think maybe the only reason i'm having a problem is that the sections, the way they're prefaced by the extracts from the made-up book, how there's a section of 'realist' ones and a section with the more gonzo ones, put the stories into a position where they look like they ought to have a cohesive argument - which they don't - and that also makes it seem like all the departures from realism working in the same way - which they really don't

i suspect he didn't place them in the order that he did to make a cohesive argument, though, but instead, grouped like minded stories together so they could play off one another. it is my guess that saunders doesn't want to make an argument or a point with his fiction, other than to create the stories themselves.

and by point i mean, well of course each individual story has a point and a theme, but i think you're looking for an argument in these stories that just isn't there for me at all.

no i don't think there is, either - i think the arrangement is intended to do what you're saying, but i feel like it ends up giving a contrary impression. is the thing.

i guess i am still wondering what this contrary impression is. so you think putting the like minded stories together makes them seem flimsier?

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/01/25/100125sh_shouts_saunders

dope interview - http://www.moreview.org/content/dynamic/view_text.php?text_id=819

(just realised it's old, new to me tho)

thx

Love his response here:

Interviewer: So much of your fiction is charged with social import. Given our recent political upheavals, have you ever thought of writing overt political satire?

Saunders: I'm not very interested in that kind of satire because it works on the assumption that They Are Assholes. Fiction works on the assumption that They Are Us, on a Different Day.

..which relates back to his notion of compassion/satire not being mutually exclusive earlier in the interview.