If you guys like bookworm and have never read any mcelroy bu

>>8757982
Is he redpilled?

>>8757997
Thats an understatement.

>>8757982
This is really great, thanks a lot.

that was a waste of time. when a writer compares his work to jackson pollock, you know he's a worthless hack. not going to bother with his crap.

>>8758335
Some would say that it's useful to have read some of an author's work before judging it from an interview

Anyone else here read Women and Me? besides being the occasional meme, the book is criminally underdisccused for incredible it really is

>>8758892
I will assume you read it. So how does the comparison to Jackson Pollock stand?

>>8758990
It's a difficult one but I'll buy it. There's this thing McElroy does where he'll sort of spiral out of ideas, reexplaining central points and their significance while also giving plot details at the same time. You'll revisit the same characters or mythologies over and over as they get more and more layers until it's not so much that they have an implied or intrinsic symbolism or subtext so much as they've been so richly layered that the mythos itself becomes embedded in the text; and any action or plot seems so much more fleeting or superficial in relation to the ambient "space" his prose takes up. I don't know if I'd be one to agree with the Pollock comparison but I think I get the reasoning behind it. Despite everything, any sentence of W&M reads like literal schizophrenia. I'm realizing now that as I try to explain the argument to the side that I'm not on, I'm going to end up agreeing with the comparison in the end. McElroy writes with a sort of 'collapse' or 'convergence' thrown in. The book has these sections called "breathers," where essentially everything that has happened and all events and their causes are projected into the same time and place. The sentences become insane, with metaphors stretched and interrupted with dialogue only to have the dialogue itself interrupted and revisited some hundred pages later. I don't care if at some level if all of this is in fact meticulously planned and consequential-- it feels random and more than a little chaotic. It's a crazy fucking book, and McElroy expects more than the most out of you; I've never read a more demanding and unforgiving piece of text.

>>8758998
I've read excerpts of his prose and I understand what you mean about the text collapsing on itself. I think calling it schizophrenic denigrates its quality, because everything he writes makes sense theoretically- it's just highly disorganized and scrambled.

>>8759131
It's a little more than just being unorganized for the aestheticism of seeming random or jumbled though. McElroy really does reach levels of psychosis, especially in those hundred page stretches of him contradicting himself, calling into question metaphors he just used only to invoke voices and dialogues that we didn't even realize we're happening. He's constantly contradictory and he maintains this vivid sense of 'prethought'--the tangents and images that get tied up before anything like narrative comes around to neatly package them. It gets a certain innocence to it, which is where some of its appeal comes from; McElroy and you both end up grappling with the language as well as the mechanistic shortcomings of it.

>>8759148
It's a stream of consciousness of not a mind but a multiplicity of minds interacting directly or indirectly within a network of relations.

I've heard his writing described as 4th dimensional and that really got me interested in it. However I feel that it would just go over my head. Is women and men much more difficult than Ulysses?

>>8759671
Kek, please tell me you did that on purpose

>>8759926
More difficult just through sheer volume and ruthlessness. Don't worry about any pseudoscience "4th dimensional" bullshit either. The major science the book pulls from are economics and weather