Ben Marcus

of the new breed of experimentalists, i think marcus is one of the best (though i am not the most well-read). many other writers who are considered to be 'experimental' are nothing of the sort - JSF and eggers have gimmicks and tricks, but i don't think they're extending literature beyond anything that people were doing in the 60's. the mcsweeneys lot seems to be descended more from barthelme, and marcus stands apart from it.

i think you're OTM by talking about "reappropriating meaning" - it's the use of language to invent fictional worlds that are so complete that the language takes on new forms, and it makes "sense" after awhile. i was pretty blown away by "notable american women" - it makes me really curious to see what he will produce next.

okay i have been trying to get the columbia website to answer yr question but given up.

Just finished Notable American Women, which I think is actually better, a touch more sinister perhaps, and the narrative aspect really works, but I recommend reading Wire & String first, as an introduction to the language of the world.

It seems that he is still at Columbia - if you take the 'labours' link from his website then it takes you to theirs.

In any case I certainly wouldn't count on getting to work closely with him for any extended period of time; during his leaves of absence over the past couple years it's come down to students fighting over his workshop space. Besides, you don't want to go to Columbia anyway. They're ramping tuition up toward $40k and hardly fund anyone in the slightest; even if you really luck out on that front, it's still not likely to be worth going there.

He seems terribly minor to me because his lyricism feels slight. I feel like you could program a machine to translate into Ben Marcusese. Obviously, I'm not saying this because official diction is the source of Marcus's appropriations, but because his appropriations are too easy.

I'm sure Ben Marcus would be in favor of a "Ben Marcus translation machine" hopefully one constructed of balloons, chalk and chicken bone. A compass to order the syllables. Imo the slightness of his lyricism if i am understanding what you mean by that, is an integral part of what makes it effective, by describing the most surreal objects and concepts in an extremely deadpan tone and slight amount of detail our imaginations are allowed to enjoy filling in the blanks.

Really loved The Flame Alphabet. Anyone else read it?

there was some talk about it on the rolling reading threads. i did not like it at all. other people did not dislike it as much as i did.

need to know Stevie T's view on this writer

i thought he was the nuts, & researching him & his thing lead me to read backwards through samuel beckett, david ohle, stanley crawford & donald barthelme, and i didn't think he was so great after that. i also heard him say "i would compare my work to kafka" which made me want to cut my legs off & sew em back on back to front. but "the flame alphabet" bolted all of that creepy rug-pulling jungian quay-bros symbolist apparatus on to a james patterson storyline and thence he stuck a cloth in my mouth, was my father, and blew my freakin house down.
"the moors" read bizarrely like a will self short, rather than his usual. quite agreeable.

i didn't read 'the moors' yet, i should