Thursday May 3rd: Copyright page, Rules and suggestions for reading, Preface, ackno..
 

Sorry, I was typing out something very long and my computer froze.

Basically I want to just start discussion, so I'll begin with this.

How are we to tell when he is being serious or when he is just joking around? Does it matter that we know? I think so because at one part he is speaking about dialogue and he mentions that what is "most surreal...is most true to life". Seemily that also speaks to his writing.

Also, if you didn't read the copyrights and the authors bio, I would highly suggest that. He seems to be setting up a few motifs/themes that he brings up in the text.

Finally, did you read the omissions? If so, did you go and put them in the context they were taken from? I didn't, but I will after I read all of it. My favorite was the one about the Amazon taken from pg 217. Great stuff.

Discuss away!

find out what to have read for saturday

[Edited by Alyoshka on 05-02-01 at 10:31 PM]

So many different ways to read this book. I decided to use "seamless branching" technology -wink- . I circled the page numbers in the book that have deletions and I'll read them when I come to them. I'll read the notes for each part after finishing that part.

I began with the copyright stuff and was loving it. So funny and original. Then I continued on... and on... and on... eventually, I found myself not laughing so much anymore.

It was getting old to me. But I will admit - I cracked up at the "drawing of a stapler." :lol:

After reading these parts I was thinking that Eggers' editors must have been pulling their hair out - unless this was all known up front. At first I felt like the omissions came from a slightly jilted POV. Like, he was bugged they asked for them to be removed and so he was getting back at the editors. But then I started realizing (I think) that these were all more of his "humor." I will say, this is a unique book so far.

The editors knew what they were in for considering his two magazines, <i>McSweeneys</i> and <i>Might</i>. I did read the intro and thought it was funny, but like a lot of the book, a little too self involved. Eggers likes to see himself write, that is for sure.

I believe most people here are reading the paperback edition of the book, so I will provide you with two things that you are missing from the hardcover edition. Inscribed/indented into the cover itself are these two short phrases: 'Mercy is not a cure.' 'Quiet has its own set of problems.' The book also originally included the greatest 'blurb' of all time. This blurb was by Rick Moody, and said, 'This book doesn't need a blurb.' I can't believe that didn't get carried over to the paperback version.

I have to tell you
 

I really am not liking this book at all. I'm about 200 pages into it, and just don't like the guy. Period. Because I don't like or care much about him, I'm just having a hard time with his stories. Not to say I don't feel anything about his plights in life, but it just didn't make a good impression on me.

I stopped reading on Sunday, and really have been having a hard time picking it up again. (I've been busy, which is why I read so much over the weekend.) That being said, I was mildly amused by the preface and acknowledgements, but even some of that was annoying(like one second we're partying, and the next he's speaking like he wants people to think he has a phd in english. Ugh.) Anyway, this will be my only post about not liking the book. I'll continue to contribute to discussions, and try to keep my bias at bay.

robyn

There is nothing wrong with not liking the book RDY. I say, don't hide your feelings about it. This is my second time reading it and I got annoyed with Dave at times as well. But he is a good writer and I don't think he needs an English PHD to prove it.

I I'm not saying he has/doesn't have one, I'm saying that he lapses in and out of a, for lack of a better word, tone, where one second he's your best bud, and then the next, he's the guy who uses all these big words to impress you.

I just don't like his style. Says nothing about his writing, only that it doesn't appeal to me.


The fact that he wrote the book impresses me, though.

robyn

I agree. I found myself forcing through the pages before chapter one. I had a flashback of 9th or 10th grade English when we had to read The Great Gatsby and how I had to plow through chapters never quite enjoying it.

Some of the stuff was funny (i.e. the stapler), but it definitely dragged on a bit.

-Steve

Didn't the stapler drawing blare out to people "I'm a fan of Kurt Vonnegut"? I thought it was a definate nod towards something that Vonnegut would do in the book, Breakfast of Champions.

Unfortunately, the reference was lost on me(I don't read much Vonnegut). I saw the picture of the stapler, and thought more along the lines of the Chef aid episode of south park where johnny cochoran in the middle of nowhere told the jury to look at the monkey. A random act designed to confuse.

I guess I'll have to read some Vonnegut.

robyn

Well, so far the self-referencial tone is reminding me of Milan Kundera. Eggers even references Kundera in the preface. Will the book stand on its own or will it be a Kundera wanna-be? Only the next 500 pages will tell...

It's interesting, I never thought of this until you mentioned it. Good point.

Add this to the KV thing mentioned above and do we have an author here who is simply another "Hey, that was good writing, I'll copy that!" kind of guy?

We'll see.

Glad I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

I've started part 1, and it is definitely a shift in mood.

J

Sorry I'm Late
 

I picked up the book yesterday, and just finished reading everything before part 1. Like some of the others here, I was none too impressed. It seemed like he used quite a few words to not really say too much. Reading some of the too long sentences, I felt like I was unable to catch my breath. Was he trying to be unique just for the sake of being unique? I also feel like maybe I am missing something obvious.

All that being said, I did find some humor in it, and am ready to move on to Part 1.

Just my 2 cents.

-Andy