William Gibson on Dhalgren: >I have never understood it.

>>9459123
Dhalgren is terrible. One step above genre-tier, with terrible flowery prose and weak and unoriginal ideas. People have been drawn in way too much to the idea of the "wacky maximalist postmodern novel" these days. Just because a book is long and relatively difficult does not mean that it is good.

thanks for the rec op
will read

>>9459141
>People have been drawn in way too much to the idea of the "wacky maximalist postmodern novel" these days. Just because a book is long and relatively difficult does not mean that it is good.

This

Figures, niggers cant write. Everyone knows that. Im glad I have this cite to curb my reading choices.

>By contrast, fellow writers such as Philip K. Dick and Harlan Ellison hated the novel. When the book appeared, Ellison in the L. A. Times (Sunday, February 23, 1975, p. 64) wrote: "I must be honest. I gave up after 361 pages. I could not permit myself to be gulled or bored any further." In an interview 27 years later, he said: "When Dhalgren came out, I thought it was awful, still do ... I ... threw it against a wall." Dick called Dhalgren "a terrible book" that "should have been marketed as trash. ... I just started reading it and said this is the worst trash I've ever read. And I threw it away."

Who is in the right?

>>9459141
Very substantial and non-meme criticisms for sure. You have definitely read the book and are not just spewing shit for the sake of it

>>9459123
Gibson greatly overstates the complexity of Dhalgren but it's still worth reading if you're into sci-fi

>>9459985
Ellison literally hates everything. YouTube his series of TV spots, "Harlan Ellison's Watching"

>>9459985
Was Dick triggered by the homosex?

>>9459123
once i did acid

>>9459123
>>I have never understood it. I have sometimes felt that I partially understood it, or that I was nearing the verge of understanding it...

What happens when a scifi pleb attempts to read something vaguely literary.

>>9461973
Dude, he wrote the Foreword to it.

>>9460664
He likes Norman Spinrad

>>9461987
And he exaggerated the difficulty of the book because it went beyond the usual scifi conventions and style.

>>9460664
I love his channel. Its great watching a man fueled almost entirely by anger