literary pet peeve
i’ve spent most of the day lost in the magical world of Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer. I’m digging the book, but having a hard time getting over my grudge against Foer. i’m more than a little pissed off that he has injected himself into the novel. he’s a main character and i hate when author’s do that.
i don’t like the line between ficition and non-fiction blurred in such ways. robert lasner did the same thing with for fuck’s sake.
why do authors do that? can’t they just make up a name? i’m not sure what the motive is and it drives me batty. i know authors hate when they are asked if their stories are based on real life, something that happened to them. but when people like foer and lasner make themselves a character in a work of fiction what are people supposed to think?
why blur that line?
Tags: Books, Jonathan Safran Foer, Robert Lasner
Posted on Sun, 29 December 2002 at 8:05 pm
Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feed.
don’t go see “adaptation” then.
29 Dec 02 at 11:10 pm #I’ll second my beloved heather, and add this: For a great many people the line between fiction and consensus reality is already blurry. Some authors choose to make this fuzzy demarcation a theme in their work; transcendance comes in many forms.
30 Dec 02 at 12:41 pm #