I Interviewed Brian Evenson

Here’s an excerpt of my interview with Brian Evenson at Rain Taxi:

JM: What are some aspects of artistic creation that you have found “infinitely frustrating”? What are some ways that you circumvent its imprecision?

BE: Well, the thing that’s most frustrating is when I feel like I have all the components for a good story and the story itself just isn’t coming together. Or, even worse, it’s come together but it just isn’t as good as it could be and I can’t figure out why. So much of good fiction is intuition, so much builds up almost imperceptibly through very simple gestures of language and rhythm and repetition and arrangement and velocity, that a really excellent story manages to accomplish something without you knowing what it’s doing to you as it does it. There are a lot of writers who can do that at one iteration, that create that effect the first time you read them but not upon later readings. But there are only a few writers who manage to maintain that effect through multiple readings, who have stories or novels that remain numinous and subtle and resonant no matter how many times you read them. W.G. Sebald is like that for me, as are Nabokov and Dinesen and Beckett at their best. Stendhal is wonderful that way—the complexity of his style and the interaction of that style with his ideas is astounding. Bolaño is remarkable in being someone who holds up with multiple readings but writes in a remarkably unadorned style: that’s incredibly difficult, as you can see with someone like Raymond Carver. You can read most Carver stories once and then you see the mechanisms in them, the way they work as they’re developing. He’s a good writer, but except for a few stories he’s not a writer that stands up well to rereading.

All of that is to say, I guess, that what’s infinitely frustrating about writing is that you so rarely achieve so fully what you want to achieve, and when you do you don’t do so in a way that you can duplicate. I want to write stories that get inside readers’ heads and continue to work on them after the story is over, and I want them to be the kind of stories that, if you reread them, will get into your head and go to work again, maybe in a different way. But there’s always going to be a modicum of failure in every effort. You just have to accept that as part of the process and struggle against it— either that or learn to be satisfied with something you shouldn’t be satisfied with.

 

My Review of Interfictions 2: An Anthology of Interstitial Writing

Check out my review of Interfictions 2: An Anthology of Interstitial Writing. Here’s the first paragraph:

Interstitial fiction is imaginative writing that slips through the cracks between literary genres. It’s an umbrella term under which numerous stylistic approaches like new weird, slipstream, fantastica, liminal fantasy, transrealism, and many more may fall. Though these terms lack precision, they do bear some resemblance to more established genres, using familiar science fiction tropes like spaceships and aliens, time travel and alternate histories; fantasy tropes like ghosts, fairies, as well as mystery and romance conventions. Interstitial fiction is distinguished by how it blurs the boundaries between genres and, if ever placed in one of these slots, rests uncomfortably. It blends the realistic and the fantastic in such a way that everything is defamiliarized, or where everything is (borrowing a term coined by Russian Formalist Viktor Shklovsky) “enstranged.” Paradoxically, it is its “in-betweeness” that defines it.

My Review of Robert Lopez’s Kamby Bolongo Mean River

Check out my review of Robert Lopez‘s Kamby Bolongo Mean River. Here’s an excerpt:

The absence of commas, colons, semicolons—actually all punctuation save the period, hyphen, and apostrophe—in Lopez’s novel makes for an oddball kind of rhythm where thoughts collide and then are abruptly stopped only to start again, like turning on a faucet and then quickly shutting off the valve, only to let it spurt out again. Ordinarily, Lopez’s constraints would result in suffocating prose, but instead, this dispensing of most punctuation, this stripping away of any inflection and any remotely flowery description, results in sentences that precisely limn the narrator’s consciousness, a narrator who would, given a chance, “rewrite the dictionary” because “[t]here are a lot of words in there [he doesn’t] like the definitions for.”

My Review of John Dermot Woods’s The Complete Collection of people, places, & things 

An excerpt from my review:

Woods’s puzzling stories bear some resemblance to the fabulist works of Augosto Monterroso and Eduardo Galleano, and kin to the fictions of Italo Calvino and Ben Marcus (albeit without Marcus’s energetic syntactical constructs). Can Xue’s elliptical narratives fit in here somewhere, too. But the book’s details, rendered in a deceptively simple but beguiling prose, makes for a bizarro world of its own. These are beautifully crafted stories, brimming with incisive wit, with an underlying philosophy underscoring the thrills and dangers of obsessions and compulsions, and the inevitable short shelf-life of any person, place, or thing, but also the revivifying power of collecting, as peculiar as it is profound. Also Woods’s drawings, brusque crosshatched renderings of each character, add another dimension to the book: each title page looks like a playing card with the passages following them feeling like the writing found on the playing card’s verso. The illustrations dovetail well with the idea that this book is another man’s collected works.

Check out the whole review here.