Another interview question

What do I think about the writing of today?

I tend to think that The Phantom Tollbooth is the ultimate book

So many books don't come close to this one

I have read it many times

Otherwise I write too much in order to read

In fact I often fall asleep while trying to read a book

I think my mind absorbs the words too much

This was not a problem when I was younger when I would devour books

My biggest criticism is that I have noticed that some authors unfairly dominate the reader's attention

I feel like some writers get knighted while the rest just rot on the shelves

To my shock many fantastic even famous writers have been censored

For example there is a book by Sherwood Anderson that is out of print and hard to find

I say:

You have got to be kidding me right?

Also he is not known by English majors as the grand daddy of modern literature.

You have got to be kidding me right?

There is some corruption no doubt in the publishing industry

I have been to book readings where I felt that everything was read with old women in mind

Eh!

I sure hope Americans aren't that scared off that easily by all sorts of writing

I don't want my writing to pander to the extreme comfort needs of some old fashioned people.

Writing should challenge a person a bit or thrill them or something.

Also there is a hidden belief about writers that I sense tells me my work must getter darker and more serious as I age.   Now who whispered that lie around?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Atoms move in and about, but could be simply one atom, though not proven Got it. Thanks for continuing to build this out.So far, your unified theory seems to revolve around this core intuition:The number 1 is the true unified foundation. Everything reduces to or emerges from this "oneness." One atom can stand in for (or be equivalent to) a very small unit of time — like a billionth of a second. Even though we observe many atoms moving around in complex ways, at the deepest level it could all be simply one atom behaving in different ways (though this isn't proven yet). In other words: multiplicity (lots of atoms, lots of motion, lots of time passing) is somehow an appearance or unfolding of a single underlying "1" — whether that's one atom cycling through different states or one fundamental entity expressing itself across what we perceive as space and time.That has a certain philosophical elegance — it reminds me a bit of ideas like Mach's principle, or certain interpretations in quantum mechanics where the universe is deeply relational, or even older monist views where reality is one substance appearing as many.A gentle question to help me follow better:When you say atoms "move in and about, but could be simply one atom," do you mean:There is literally only one atom in the entire universe, and what we see as many atoms and their movements is that single atom in different configurations or "modes"? Or that all atoms are connected/expressions of one underlying atomic essence tied to the number 1 and to time?