Monday, November 2, 2009

My Next Novel


Inspired by reading the New York Times Book Review yesterday, I've decided that my next novel is going to be about a vampire child growing up in war-torn Iraq.  (Seriously, does every book have to have a vampire in it? What's the cultural obsession, I wonder?) Hey, to change the subject, did anyone read George Saunder's latest story in the New Yorker?  It kind of blew my mind.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

That George Saunders story is amazing and even more amazing was hearing him read it aloud - a real honor. He's just brilliant and seems like a really nice guy too.

Anonymous said...

vampires, fairies (with that weird, I am spelling it right kind of a spelling) and paranormal romance.

WTF is wrong with everyone??????

I mean really, are we all four years old?

(vuuuv) fangs said...

what's the other spelling, ferry? oh, and vampyre. i hate that one.

Anonymous said...

the other spelling is faerie.
are we all four years old
No, we are all teenage goth girls.
I am so sick of vampire books, please take a different spin on them. For example: Vampires mate with Medusa, or something.

Anonymous said...

faery / faerie

*shudder*

Chazz said...

Love the blog but, frankly, I found Saunders' story unreadable. But it's in the New Yorker, so it must be good. I can't figure out why since it gave me a headache in a short time trying to figure out what the heck he was on about.

So I'm a Philistine. No wonder my fiction is largely unpublished. It's me. It's my fault. I just don't get it. Sorry.

Writer, Rejected said...

Oh, there are plenty of things that people love that i don't get or that I hate. It's all so subjective, as the rejecting agents/editors always say. Sad but true. No need to apologize. Saunders is way, way, way out there. I liked that the story felt like something new. He always stretches the limits. BTW, I mostly don't like the fiction in the New Yorker. This was an exception.

Anonymous said...

Loved the Saunders story!!! It was outrageously wonderful. Glad you mentioned it, W, R.

Anonymous said...

For me, the Saunders story sucked until the end, and then on the last page I realized how good it was. I was about to quit on page one, but I went with the flow of it, having faith that I would be rewarded. I think it's much better on a second reading. So does that make me like 50% Philistine or something?

I think the other spelling is "phairree."

Anonymous said...

i couldn't get past page 3. But I felt there was a whole fine line between genius and crazy thing going on, but also that my possibly being infected with h1n1 might hinder a true appreciation at this moment. So I'm glad to hear anon 1:59 say that there was a bang for the buck at the end.

Chazz said...

Ah. Thanks for that. I was feeling like uncultured swine. So the next question is, if it hadn't been George Saunders, or if it hadn't been in the New Yorker, would you have given it to the end to charm you? Were it not the esteemed author, would this story have been sent back with a form rejection faster than...um...faster than form rejections are usually sent out? Gimme a break. I'm still recovering from cultured Swine (Flu).

I poking at the industry's bias toward the known. Critics say the lovely Margaret Atwood writes magical realism, for instance, but when you write it, it's merely sci-fi...rejected sci-fi.

Oryx and Crake rocked while Year of the Flood clanked and I could detect where she got tired toward the end when she left three clunky adverbs in within the space of a few paragraphs. The discussion here in the past has been about lit journals publishing their MFA friends. Is it all about the name? Does anybody in the New Yorker come out of nowhere (ie the slush)? I don't think so, but I'm asking with my naive and honest to gosh face.