For reasons that are probably obvious to you, I was very taken with Labatut's first book - the idea that it was possible to skirt the boundary between fiction and non-fiction without defaulting to the conventions of historic fiction. It seemed like a new kind of writing - very little set 'in scene,' minimal dialogue, …
For reasons that are probably obvious to you, I was very taken with Labatut's first book - the idea that it was possible to skirt the boundary between fiction and non-fiction without defaulting to the conventions of historic fiction. It seemed like a new kind of writing - very little set 'in scene,' minimal dialogue, yet there was an intensity to the language that pulled you in, not to mention the improbable happenings (many of which were factual). But I've also come to think that Labatut is sui generis - for another writer to try and mine this vein would be pointless - he owns the territory. And, as you point out, it's a hard act even for the author himself to follow. I've been putting off reading The Maniac so as not to break the spell for a while longer.
Yes, it's a really cool book - and I think everybody was really amazed that it was possible.
There is this paradox about doing very original things in writing - that somebody finds some new idea, that seems to create whole new approaches in art, and then it's like nobody can imitate them. It seems like David Foster Wallace owns the footnote. Nicholson Baker owns extremely detailed analysis of daily life, and maybe Labatut owns the non-fiction novel. I'd prefer to believe that that's not the case - that literary 'discoveries' belong to everybody!
Sam, thanks for this
For reasons that are probably obvious to you, I was very taken with Labatut's first book - the idea that it was possible to skirt the boundary between fiction and non-fiction without defaulting to the conventions of historic fiction. It seemed like a new kind of writing - very little set 'in scene,' minimal dialogue, yet there was an intensity to the language that pulled you in, not to mention the improbable happenings (many of which were factual). But I've also come to think that Labatut is sui generis - for another writer to try and mine this vein would be pointless - he owns the territory. And, as you point out, it's a hard act even for the author himself to follow. I've been putting off reading The Maniac so as not to break the spell for a while longer.
Thank you Stan!
Yes, it's a really cool book - and I think everybody was really amazed that it was possible.
There is this paradox about doing very original things in writing - that somebody finds some new idea, that seems to create whole new approaches in art, and then it's like nobody can imitate them. It seems like David Foster Wallace owns the footnote. Nicholson Baker owns extremely detailed analysis of daily life, and maybe Labatut owns the non-fiction novel. I'd prefer to believe that that's not the case - that literary 'discoveries' belong to everybody!
Absolutely - I would never want to foreclose the possibility of someone starting from Lababut and taking it someplace new. Its all a conversation.
And what is it about Chile? There's Bolaño of course, and I think I mentioned a new favorite of mine, Alejandro Zambra...