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, great reviews. I haven't read either of these. Very interested to take a look at The Big Fail. I think this period of time and how the world reacted to it is either going to be shoved into a closest, never again to see the light of day or closely examined by historians for a long time. I hope it is the later and I hope we learn something from it because there was a whole lot that we didn't get right.
Having never read anything by Labatut I would likely start with the other book of his you mentioned and see how it goes. Thanks again for the great write-ups.
Thank you Matthew. Yeah, I think the Big Fail is a big deal. It is very important to get something like this into the public record even if one can argue about the conclusions. The first round of books I saw on the pandemic - by Michael Lewis, Lawerence Wright, etc - seemed to basically be hagiographies on the government's response. This is much more taking the perspective that there was a systemic collapse here - and that the free speech issue is towards the heart of it. - Sam
Can’t wait to tear into Labatut. Shields works on “realism” is so weird. That is not to say I don’t enjoy reading it. It just feels to me like the old naturalist anti-realist rhetoric...”make it alive” “fill it with life-ness.” What do you mean, Mr. Shields? “If you have to ask, you are dead.”
In terms of Houellebecq, it's hard to say if he really believes in our replacement by a superior series of beings. But he does explore the concept more in The Possibility of an Island, an underrated novel in my view. In any case, I don't think he saw that future as an ideal one to resolve the basic "problem" of humanity.
As for the novel, I very much agree with the the fact that a lot of fiction nowadays is literature for its own sake. I guess one can call it a series of fabrications, though given that Houellebecq wrote about clones in a fantastical but completely believable manner I think it would be a mistake to interpret Houellebecq's commentary as calling for a return to realism. I view the problem as less about the form, however, and more about the author. A bunch of creative writing automatons who don't live the lives writers did in the past - often they are taught in academia to be anti-writer's mythos, and then they wonder why no one calls them the next Hemingway after living their life behind a suit and tie or beneath yet another fedora. In our quest to industrialize the entirety of human life, we have attempted to do the same with literature. And just as factories churned out cheaper and undistinct commodities, so too does the industrialization of literature do the same with its authors. If somehow a return of great authors could be managed - or just happens - through a literary deindustrialization, I think problems of this sort would be resolved in their hands by the things they write. Ideally, of course, postmodernism has to end. But according to the academics American literature is in a post-postmodern stage. So we'll see. Labatut, in any case, looks like a thought-provoking writer. I'll add him to my list.
Yes, the thing about Houellebecq is that he's so interested in making mischief that you never really know what he actually believes. I really liked Possibility of an Island as well. I think it makes a very nice pair with Atomized - this agreement that the sexual revolution was the last spasm of homo sapiens as a biological species and that the future has to do with mitosis, cellular reproduction, etc, with, basically, the scientific taming of the sex drive.
I don't take this very seriously as sociological analysis - I don't think Houellebecq is actually advocating for it - but in the way of great fiction it may be prophetic about where the society is headed.
Concerning the COVID response, I think it turned out to be an impossible task. I think we lost more lives than necessary, but there was no appetitive to go any further than we did. China did their authoritarian thing but still fucked it up with their lack of vaccinations before their sudden reopening. And iirc, Sweden actually did worse numbers than their neighbors. Fauci might not be a hero but he’s not a villain.
Michael Olsterholm’s podcast is most likely the best source of news on the matter. He takes the virus seriously but also the pragmatics seriously as well. And most importantly he is willing to say “I don’t know.”
Thanks Justus! I don't know Michael Olsterholm. I'll check that out. Nocera/McLean's critique of Fauci is basically the unwillingness to say 'I don't know' - that there were key moments in the pandemic when he chose to project authority and consistency at the expense of being transparent with the public.
Oh yeah, I agree that was bad. Humans are great at smelling bullshit but I find that most folks are understanding if you say "I don't know, but based on my expertise here is the best guess". Unfortunately, the attention economy rots the minds of its stars.
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...
Sam, great reviews. I haven't read either of these. Very interested to take a look at The Big Fail. I think this period of time and how the world reacted to it is either going to be shoved into a closest, never again to see the light of day or closely examined by historians for a long time. I hope it is the later and I hope we learn something from it because there was a whole lot that we didn't get right.
Having never read anything by Labatut I would likely start with the other book of his you mentioned and see how it goes. Thanks again for the great write-ups.
Thank you Matthew. Yeah, I think the Big Fail is a big deal. It is very important to get something like this into the public record even if one can argue about the conclusions. The first round of books I saw on the pandemic - by Michael Lewis, Lawerence Wright, etc - seemed to basically be hagiographies on the government's response. This is much more taking the perspective that there was a systemic collapse here - and that the free speech issue is towards the heart of it. - Sam
Can’t wait to tear into Labatut. Shields works on “realism” is so weird. That is not to say I don’t enjoy reading it. It just feels to me like the old naturalist anti-realist rhetoric...”make it alive” “fill it with life-ness.” What do you mean, Mr. Shields? “If you have to ask, you are dead.”
Thanks Nick! I need to read more of Shields' stuff after Reality Hunger. He seems like an interesting writer but got kind of shelved after that book.
Great reviews!
In terms of Houellebecq, it's hard to say if he really believes in our replacement by a superior series of beings. But he does explore the concept more in The Possibility of an Island, an underrated novel in my view. In any case, I don't think he saw that future as an ideal one to resolve the basic "problem" of humanity.
As for the novel, I very much agree with the the fact that a lot of fiction nowadays is literature for its own sake. I guess one can call it a series of fabrications, though given that Houellebecq wrote about clones in a fantastical but completely believable manner I think it would be a mistake to interpret Houellebecq's commentary as calling for a return to realism. I view the problem as less about the form, however, and more about the author. A bunch of creative writing automatons who don't live the lives writers did in the past - often they are taught in academia to be anti-writer's mythos, and then they wonder why no one calls them the next Hemingway after living their life behind a suit and tie or beneath yet another fedora. In our quest to industrialize the entirety of human life, we have attempted to do the same with literature. And just as factories churned out cheaper and undistinct commodities, so too does the industrialization of literature do the same with its authors. If somehow a return of great authors could be managed - or just happens - through a literary deindustrialization, I think problems of this sort would be resolved in their hands by the things they write. Ideally, of course, postmodernism has to end. But according to the academics American literature is in a post-postmodern stage. So we'll see. Labatut, in any case, looks like a thought-provoking writer. I'll add him to my list.
Yes, the thing about Houellebecq is that he's so interested in making mischief that you never really know what he actually believes. I really liked Possibility of an Island as well. I think it makes a very nice pair with Atomized - this agreement that the sexual revolution was the last spasm of homo sapiens as a biological species and that the future has to do with mitosis, cellular reproduction, etc, with, basically, the scientific taming of the sex drive.
I don't take this very seriously as sociological analysis - I don't think Houellebecq is actually advocating for it - but in the way of great fiction it may be prophetic about where the society is headed.
Concerning the COVID response, I think it turned out to be an impossible task. I think we lost more lives than necessary, but there was no appetitive to go any further than we did. China did their authoritarian thing but still fucked it up with their lack of vaccinations before their sudden reopening. And iirc, Sweden actually did worse numbers than their neighbors. Fauci might not be a hero but he’s not a villain.
Michael Olsterholm’s podcast is most likely the best source of news on the matter. He takes the virus seriously but also the pragmatics seriously as well. And most importantly he is willing to say “I don’t know.”
Thanks Justus! I don't know Michael Olsterholm. I'll check that out. Nocera/McLean's critique of Fauci is basically the unwillingness to say 'I don't know' - that there were key moments in the pandemic when he chose to project authority and consistency at the expense of being transparent with the public.
Oh yeah, I agree that was bad. Humans are great at smelling bullshit but I find that most folks are understanding if you say "I don't know, but based on my expertise here is the best guess". Unfortunately, the attention economy rots the minds of its stars.
Reading When We Cease to Underestimate now... the barrage of facts... the emphasis on witness... reminds me of Carol Shields’ The Stone Diaries.