Comments on: Story time

Story time

dersins — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:44:13 -0800

You should read these three stories by Amy Hempel. (Oh, and maybe listen to her read, here.) While you're at it, read some of these idiosyncratic but beautifully-written stories by grammarian Gary Lutz.

By: dersins

dersins — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:32:10 -0800

(Don't hold it against Hempel that no-talent hack Chuck Palahniuk likes her so much...)

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:02:19 -0800

Don't you think derisively hating on Hempel's famous fans is a little crass? I'm likelier to hold your recommendation against her than his, if your implication is that literarily consorting with the likes of Palahniuk diminishes the valid appreciation of Hempel.

By: dersins

dersins — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:04:41 -0800

My implication about Hempel was the opposite of that. My statement about Palahniuk, however, stands.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:22:02 -0800

I didn't say you implied anything about Hempel. Rather, readers. To restate, recommending one author I like by trashing another I like isn't exactly selling me on your judgment. It wouldn't hurt your post & comment to seriously discuss the authors and their differences, instead of just crying Rah Rah Hempel/Boo Hiss Palahniuk, if you can.

By: dersins

dersins — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:38:06 -0800

I posted some links to some stories, along with some links providing context. Read them or don't read them; like them or don't like them. I don't know why you seem to believe you need me to tell you why Hempel and Lutz are better and more interesting prose stylists than Palahniuk.

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:43:04 -0800

The Lutz stories are pretty decent; he has a knack for description. The Hempel, on the other hand...soulless, forgettable chicklit. Ugh.

By: Terminal Verbosity

Terminal Verbosity — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:50:35 -0800

I read the Hempel's story under your "these" link. Interesting use of the unreliable narrator, but the opening is so cumbersome (even if intentionally so) that I almost didn't go on. Without her byline, would most slush pile attendees persevere?

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:56:14 -0800

She writes like a Pratt creative writing major for whom writing is only a hobby. A tedious, mushy blend of "cleverness" and melodrama.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:01:38 -0800

I just think dissing an author in order to promote one is crass. I wanted to say so. Put your italics away.

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:06:23 -0800

Come on. Who cares? Palanhuik isn't the kind of fragile, sensitive young scribbler whose career--and worse, self-esteem--would be endangered by drive-by mockery.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:09:53 -0800

Agreed. That wasn't my point though, I had our membership, not Palahniuk himself in mind. But I don't need to keep carping about a transgression against my sensibilities of propriety any more. kthxbye

By: rusty

rusty — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:13:42 -0800

soulless, forgettable chicklit That perfectly sums up what I disliked about Hempel but couldn't quite figure out how to express when I gave up on The Collected Stories halfway through. Soulless is exactly it. I just didn't care at all what happened in any of the stories.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:46:05 -0800

Let's not talk about Amy Hempel. Let's talk about Gary Lutz, probably the most underappreciated living American writer. His first collection Stories in the Worst Way changed my life in a number of ways, all of them for the better. I had a short correspondence with him in late 2001 and he is one of the nicest, most thoughtful people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. I owe him a lot.

By: dersins

dersins — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:21:34 -0800

Gary Lutz, probably the most underappreciated living American writer. I completely agree. He's amazing. I just got his new chapbook at Powell's, and it's almost as good as Stories in the Worst Way, which, as you know, is saying something.

By: Powerful Religious Baby

Powerful Religious Baby — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:25:01 -0800

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:45:07 -0800

Chicklit? Really? What qualifies these stories to be called chicklit, other than the fact that they're written by a woman? The charge of soullessness is more understandable; she does cultivate a flatness of affect that could be interpreted as such. But chicklit--I can think of few female authors less vulnerable to that characterization than Amy Hempel. The reason I consider it chicklit is that it displays a very superficial and claustrophobic family-romance kind of sentimentality, which I always associate with young female writers, having heard lots of them produce the same repetitive work over and over. Not intending to be misogynistic--Lord knows male writers are often guilty of worse sins. And the reason I think it's soulless is not the flatness of affect, which can be incredibly, gut-wrenchingly soulful when done right (Beckett's Molloy). It's that there doesn't seem to be a place in Amy Hempel's heart from which these stories come. It seems like she sits down, shrugs her shoulders, and tosses off another meaningless, emotionally uninvested piece of work. And that turns me off like plastic flowers. But on Lutz, I agree with the above. I love the fact that his writing is very much physical and sensual and yet somehow disembodied; you can tell, too, that he spends care on the crafting of his words and phrases--something I can't fail to appreciate.

By: rusty

rusty — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:45:21 -0800

I retract my agreement with "chicklit." PRB's right about that.

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:57:26 -0800

But hey, de gustibus and all that.

By: Powerful Religious Baby

Powerful Religious Baby — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:06:38 -0800

It's that there doesn't seem to be a place in Amy Hempel's heart from which these stories come. Well, they don't come from her heart. They come from her mind. Also, I don't quite see how her writing can be "emotionally uninvested" at the same time as it "displays a very superficial and claustrophobic family-romance kind of sentimentality." It's possible, of course, for those two properties to coexist in a writer's work, but I'm not particularly persuaded in this case.