shmuel,
i understand your points if that were the case, but wood does bring up many valid points in this article. and not really much to do with post-modernism per-se but more about talent, the quality of his prose, his overuse of cliche without interesting effect.
i know we both like auster, but wud that be proof that he is a real writer. i read all of sidney sheldon and robert ludlum.
he does pay some tribute to certain aspects to auster’s oeuvre; all in all it is a stinging indictment of auster’s work and i will not argue with some of his main points.
that said, moon palace by auster remains one of my favorite books… homeless around columbia university…. hmmmmm heard that before and since…
i actually agree with every sentence in your last comment
the reason he is not a great writer is because of the gimmicks
he never tiers of repeating. you get the sense he is a bit pig headed
my point about auster is not if he is or is not “post modernist” i just wish woods would not deal with that frase pro or contra
the whole thing was concocted in the ny cuny system by people like sara-i mean that one not that one- when the virus
hit nyu things got completely out of hand
"7FatCow has consistently been one of the most irresponsible blogs in the Jewish world, and they think this is a big compliment. Because they have no code. They have no morality." -David Kelsey, the Kvetcher
November 24th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
james woods is one of the few people still preoccupied and critical
of “post modernism”
i thought it was long dead
November 25th, 2009 at 12:07 am
read the essay. he claims auster is NOT a post-modernist…
November 25th, 2009 at 9:05 am
shmuel,
i understand your points if that were the case, but wood does bring up many valid points in this article. and not really much to do with post-modernism per-se but more about talent, the quality of his prose, his overuse of cliche without interesting effect.
i know we both like auster, but wud that be proof that he is a real writer. i read all of sidney sheldon and robert ludlum.
he does pay some tribute to certain aspects to auster’s oeuvre; all in all it is a stinging indictment of auster’s work and i will not argue with some of his main points.
that said, moon palace by auster remains one of my favorite books… homeless around columbia university…. hmmmmm heard that before and since…
November 26th, 2009 at 4:39 am
i actually agree with every sentence in your last comment
the reason he is not a great writer is because of the gimmicks
he never tiers of repeating. you get the sense he is a bit pig headed
my point about auster is not if he is or is not “post modernist” i just wish woods would not deal with that frase pro or contra
the whole thing was concocted in the ny cuny system by people like sara-i mean that one not that one- when the virus
hit nyu things got completely out of hand