a tragic honesty
out of the two or three biographies i've read i've never read one where the tone is one of wry, ironic detachment
in this biography of richard yates the tone is one of wry, ironic detachment
there is a deliberateness on the part of blake bailey, the author of this biography, to make things funny, to follow long, excruciating passages of richard yates having seizures or whatever with short, deadpan, ironic sentences that consistently made me laugh
i had always sort of avoided Richard Yates because people described Revolutionary Road as heartbreaking and sad and sentimental and i didn't really want to read those things
no one said funny or wry, so i thought that it would be unreadable, because people always say that whatever book is funny and wry
finally i read it
Revolutionary Road is funny and wry
it is satirical, has a forcedly unsentimental, almost doomed, tone, and a voice that is sarcastic and detached and amused and critical and resigned and deadpan
richard yates is not the dull, safe, suburban, unfunny, unintelligent, uncontroversial writer that i had somehow assumed him to be based on his association with realism and 'clear' prose, and based on what i've read about him and his books, mostly on the internet
i shouldn't assume
richard yates is clinically insane, drunk, against just about everything, loud, shy, hilarious, playful, a shit-talker, kind, sympathetic, destitute, intelligent to the point of thinking that other supposed normal intelligent people are idiots, miserable, lonely, confused, depressed, controversial, six foot three
and the tone of the biography is also all that
and if you read this book, you will treat the following people better, maybe
[about a bad review he got by anatole broyard]
in this biography of richard yates the tone is one of wry, ironic detachment
there is a deliberateness on the part of blake bailey, the author of this biography, to make things funny, to follow long, excruciating passages of richard yates having seizures or whatever with short, deadpan, ironic sentences that consistently made me laugh
i had always sort of avoided Richard Yates because people described Revolutionary Road as heartbreaking and sad and sentimental and i didn't really want to read those things
no one said funny or wry, so i thought that it would be unreadable, because people always say that whatever book is funny and wry
finally i read it
Revolutionary Road is funny and wry
it is satirical, has a forcedly unsentimental, almost doomed, tone, and a voice that is sarcastic and detached and amused and critical and resigned and deadpan
richard yates is not the dull, safe, suburban, unfunny, unintelligent, uncontroversial writer that i had somehow assumed him to be based on his association with realism and 'clear' prose, and based on what i've read about him and his books, mostly on the internet
i shouldn't assume
richard yates is clinically insane, drunk, against just about everything, loud, shy, hilarious, playful, a shit-talker, kind, sympathetic, destitute, intelligent to the point of thinking that other supposed normal intelligent people are idiots, miserable, lonely, confused, depressed, controversial, six foot three
and the tone of the biography is also all that
and if you read this book, you will treat the following people better, maybe
old people, 'insane' people, people who go around mumbling things like they're insane, people who appear disheveled and dirty, people who are alone all the time and appear 'insane' or 'inhuman'i'll quote some passages now
[about a bad review he got by anatole broyard]
Yates quipped that Broyard's reviewer bio [...] should read, Anatole Broyard wanted to fuck Richard Yates's girlfriend in the early Sixties.[about his novel The Easter Parade]
When a friend tried to compliment him on the novel's "consistent symbolism" [...] Yates was almost aggresively dismissive--as he put it, the book was "autobiography" rather than "allegory": "Emily Fucking Grimes is me," he laughed.[about richard yate's apartment]
"It was so bare and awful," said Peggy Rambach [...] "Dick was the least bourgeois person I ever met," said Mark Costello [...] As for that particular apartment, Costello summed it up as "fucking grim." [...] Robin Metz remembers staring at the circle of crushed cockroaches around Yate's swivel desk chair..."[about his "skid-row figure" appearance (because of his constant drinking of alcohol, smoking of cigarettes)]
...he was morbidly conscious of the way people stared at him on a daily basis, as if he were a curious and disturbing spectacle. "How do I look," he asked [...] after his ejection from the Parker House. "Is something wrong with me?"[about a girl he sort of saw sometimes, the publicist for The Easter Parade.]
"What the hell did you get me up to Boston for, you bitch?" Yates would turn on her. "You're just a groupie!"[about a reading he was invited to where no one showed up]
He sat in the silent lecture hall while his two sponsors gazed at their watches... Yates suggested they adjourn to a bar.[about a letter of apology Yates wrote to his psychiatrist of many years (Yates had called him stupid and screamed at him)]
"Take care of those two beautiful girls," [Yates] closed, referring to a portrait in Burr's office of his young son and daughter.[self explanatory]
"All I want is a story in the goddamned New Yorker!" [Yates'd] rage when discussing the ups and downs of his career; also he'd started referring to staple writers for the magazine with an almost reflexive opprobrium--particularly "John fucking Cheever" and "John fucking Updike."[about being rejected by Esquire]
Yates responded to this latest rejection by calling [Gordon Lish, Esquire editor] on the phone and abusively accusing him of favoring only "name" writers; finally he threatened to "get on a plane and shoot [Lish]"[some more quotes]
Other than Milch, Yates's only companion during these months was a three-hundred-pound recovering heroin addict named Larry, who was dying of AIDS.
Sheer desperation was the only thing that kept Yates going. He was tired, anxious, and broke, in no condition either to teach or write at anything like his old level, yet the only alternative was death. His students' work was mostly bad, and Yates couldn't think of anything to say about it; he began to take double doses of tranquilizers [...]
Around this time Yates had a seizure in the foyer of the Crossroads.
For an ashtray he used a large salad bowl [...]
When not in the hospital or seated at his desk, Yates spent his days in an alcoholic fog.
"It's okay, we just had a little seizure here," a medic said as they loaded Yates onto the gurney.[a month before he died]
...he called Bob Lacy and asked the man if he'd like to know what he, Yates, had done the night before; Lacy said he would. "Get this," Yates wheezed. "I got smashed last night, and then you know what I did? I sat here on this couch in my lousy apartment reading the first chapter of Revolutionary Road out loud to myself and crying like a baby...Tears running down my cheeks. Can you believe that?"




15 Comments:
"For an ashtray he used a large salad bowl [...]"
That is fantastic.
Seemed like a man without hope. But he must have had some. Somewhere. Otherwise, why threaten Gordon Lish.
Lish brings up an interesting issue. He loved those "at the sentence level" sorts of writers. Hempel. Carver. James Salter, in a recent interview, said not to get too enamored of any sentence, lest it outshine a paragraph in which it sits. Or a story in which it sits. All that sits in a story should be there because it is in service to the story, not something that you "sit back and admire."
And your opinion, oh dear Reader of Depressing Books?
well, you can 'sit back and admire' a sentence and you can also 'sit back and admire' a paragraph or story
and i'm not sure what the difference is
a sentence is shorter, so it's easier to 'sit back and admire'
and having good sentences is always 'in service to the story'
in that it makes the story more entertaining and interesting
so, yeah, a sentence is always in service to the story, even if it's a one-liner
and if a sentence is too good so that it 'outshines' the paragraph it's 'sitting' in, then that means that the other sentences in that paragraph aren't 'shining' hard enough
i've never been impressed by hempel or carver's sentences
they're less concerned with language than sound, i guess
or clarity, for carver
there is something bret-easton-ellis / chuck-palahniuk-y about amy hempel
someone back me up on what i just typed
"You've sped ahead of me, Reader.
There's quite a bit that is Palahniuk-y about Hempel. They are both students of the same school of writing: the minimalist school. Palahniuk was taught in the West by Tom Spanbauer. Hempel was taught in the East by Gordon Lish.
But I think there are storytellers, and there are sentence crafters. Put it in a ven diagram, though. John Irving does not necessarily write beautiful or compelling sentences—admirable sentences. He tells stories. He propels plots.
Gary Lutz sits down and writes a sentence. And rewrites. And rewrites. He worries over it word by word. He writes slowly.
Gary and John may be extreme ends of a spectrum. Or, you may hate both. It's process I'm thinking about, though. Not taste.
I guess I was just interested in the differences between Yates and Lish. That the two couldn't really see eye to eye, but Yates submitted to Lish anyway. "
this is a good discussion, and i'm glad it's happening
what i mean about hempel being palahniuk-y is not in style, but their sort of world view
they are both very willing to let something that, immediately upon reading it, feels profound (and will continue to feel profound, until you think about it seriously and in a different frame-of-mind than that profound frame-of-mind that immediately after reading) stay there, in the final draft
i am so bad at explaining things
yes, though, there are sentence people and story people
but i think, a more accurate view of things is that there are 'plot/story people' and 'don't care about plot/story people'
what i mean is that, to me, gary lutz's sentences are no more interesting/original/excruciatingly written than lorrie moore's sentences
there is something palahniuk-y about gary lutz, i feel, in terms of feeling and tone and depth
but about process
yes, i agree with what you said
sentence people have shorter books and less books
about yates submitting to lish
lish actually wanted to print the story, but the staff didn't like it, and yates was desperate at the time to get something published, and the story wasn't that good; he just sent it out out of desperation; it wasn't ever published, that story
yates is actually pretty minimalist, i think, at least in The Easter Parade
i don't like that term, 'minimalist,' though
someone called lydia davis 'minimalist,' but then people agree that carver is 'minimalist,' and those two are completely different
please continue this discussion
i wish more people would discuss too
"Lish brings up an interesting issue. He loved those 'at the sentence level' sorts of writers. ...Carver"
since Lish was the one who edited Carver's stories...
Sarah, why did you delete the Easter Parade? Coco
Hey, I like your blog so I linked to you...
"since Lish was the one who edited Carver's stories..."
Well, yes. He loved what Carver did under his tutelage. As he loves what Hempel has done. And Lutz.
I sometimes get in trouble when I start talking about minimalist (or, as Hempel prefers, miniaturist) writers, because I usually am refering to the Lish disciples and fellow travellers. Susan Minot is another one lumped into that group. But certainly Lydia Davis practices a kind of minimalism. As did Beckett.
There's a review of Richard Yates short stories on Salon that uses the term "minimalist", but only to assure readers that he's not. "These stringent, ruthlessly straightforward (yet never, thank God, "minimalist") stories..." it says.
Which, I suppose, makes one wonder what the heck minimalist writing is. You look at an Agnes Martin, and you get an idea what minimalist painting is. Or minimalist music seems simple to recognize. But writing? Is it simply brevity? directness? A lack of extraneous detail.
Well, yeah. Probably. Maybe.
And another thing: Hempel and Glass both prefer not to be called minimalist. They think of it as a derogatory term. Harlan Ellison hates being called science fiction.
"Sara"...hmph.
there is something palahniuk-y about all the lish disciples i've read, except for carver
sam lipsyte, lutz, hempel
did anyone like HOMELAND?
there was something...McDonald's-y about HOMELAND, to me
the language wasn't cliche because it was a kind of mutation of cliche, an intensified sort of cliche
about 'minimalism'
people grouped ann beattie, bobbie ann mason, frederick barthelme and whoever with carver as minimalist, but all those writers are different
and then lydia davis is completely different than any of those
it's just too vague to use the term 'minimalist'
it's the same as saying 'chinese' or whatever
that reviewer on salon...
probably just said that the stories weren't 'minimalist' because they were long
and because she doesn't like 'minimalism' ("thank God...")
i read somewhere else someone talking about 'liars in love,' a story by richard yates being carver-esque
it's just pointless, inaccurate, vague, offensive, etc. (nothing good) to label a writer anything other than him/herself
henry baum: good
I wonder know if the term Palahniuk-y is, when you use it, a deragatory term. I think he has had his moments. He's a surprisingly generous person, though, when you meet him, and that may color my opinions about him. But I think there is something to be said for his first two novels. And Choke.
I'm also fond of the way he gets tough guys who never read to read deeply homoerotic books, and then thank him for it.
And I did enjoy Home Land. Another Lish student. Not sure if I understand your objection, but would certainly like to hear more about it.
Here's another link.
Let me spend some time thinking about labeling.
i tried reading that harper's article before but it was too dense
also, the first sentence, "Good fiction is never..." immediately makes me not want to read the thing
the idea of fiction being 'good' or 'bad' is just stupid
you can like something or not like it, but at least be conscious that if you like something, it doesn't make it good
this is the third sentence:
"Because our motives are often hidden from us, because the canvas of even our own experience can be too much for our eye to take in, we look to writers to help make comprehensible the reasons why people act the way they act, why they transgress, why they fail to transgress."
because we don't know exactly why we do things, we read to find out why other people do things
(is what that sentence says)
doesn't make sense
i think he must've first wrote
'because we don't know exactly why we do things, we read to find out why we do things'
then saw how uninsightful that was
and so changed the second half to
'...we read to find out why people do things'
which has nothing to do with the first half, 'because we don't know why we do things...'
no, actually it does make sense, but only if you take 'people' to not mean 'other people,' but 'we'
still, why the metaphor of the canvas and the motives 'hiding,' as if they are alive...
after reading the first paragraph of that article, i just don't trust this person
about HOME LAND, i will see if i still have my copy, then quote things to show what i mean
but i think i might've sold it to the store
ideally, i don't use palahniuk-y as a derogatory term, but just descriptive, like saying that the number one is close to the number two, or something
i'm at work right now and bored, so i guess i'll read that harper's article after all, right now
Above is the first time I think I've ever been impersonated. I'll take it as flattery. But for the record, Impersonator, I never refer to myself by my last name. Only other people do that, and I don't love it because it makes me feel like we're all on one big football team.
Anyway, I read "Homeland" and kind of liked it. Someone sent me that book and said it reminded them of my writing. This made it impossible for me to like it entirely because I was trying to figure out the whole time what it was that made her say that. Anyway, my problem with that book was that even though there was some emotional substance there, it existed in the shadow of joke after joke after joke, and thus felt less genuine even if, on its merits, it was pretty good stuff.
I'm glad you decided to give Yates another chance. I'm glad to see that, in addition to being kind of annoying and kind of funny, you are also capable of admitting you were kind of wrong. I actually think you are usually wrong, but in a way that entertains me more than frustrates or alienates me. So I check in once in awhile. I hope you're well.
Post a Comment
<< Home