tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post5469811679687616526..comments2024-03-21T07:37:30.475-04:00Comments on Light reading: Jews with swordsJenny Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02295436498255927522noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post-9687736484504883252007-10-31T02:49:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:49:00.000-04:00To be honest, I have yet to read anything by Chabo...To be honest, I have yet to read <I>anything</I> by Chabon that I find quite as brilliant as everyone says, and the passage you've quoted illustrates exactly the sort of thing I distrust in his writing: facile flash (though admittedly not easy to write). But I can see his appeal, since overheated quirkiness seems to have become the default for many readers lately.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post-27684634628544100632007-10-30T21:03:00.000-04:002007-10-30T21:03:00.000-04:00OK, I'm thinking about this some more, and now I'm...OK, I'm thinking about this some more, and now I'm thinking that the passage you cite, much as I love it, is kind of horrendously condescending, in a nasty McSweeneyish kind of way--as opposed to the funny McSweeneyish kind of way, though then again, I think the difference between nasty and funny McSweeneyish may have to do with where you stand vis-a-vis the commentary, and he's dissing a corner of fiction I'm fairly partial to, when it's done well, though badly done, I'll agree that it's horrendous and useless, and perhaps more useless than bad genre fiction, due to its pretensions, but what's so great about the lost writings of some rebbe, or rather, why is that necessarily better?Beccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002802440403969922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post-43677097226754368612007-10-30T20:59:00.000-04:002007-10-30T20:59:00.000-04:00See, now, I love his writing too, especially this ...See, now, I love his writing too, especially this kind of incidental stuff (lots of weird meditations on his website--at least there were when I looked at it a few years ago), but when that book was serialized in the NY Times this year, I found it unbearable. Then again, it may be in--what's the part of the interlocking sets that don't interlock? there must be a name for it. Anyway, in the interlocking set of you and me (is interlocking even what I mean?), it may very well be in the you section that is not the you-and-me section. In fact, I'm quite sure it will be.Beccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002802440403969922noreply@blogger.com