Geez, thanks people. I didn't really expect THIS.
Wolf, it's fine you didn't like it. I don't expect everybody to. We could go on and on about what happened but yes, I know that you read different kind of stuff. That's fine, that's just not what I'm aiming for. Maybe the second book will be more simplistic, I don't know, like I said in the thread, I only write to bleed. I do want your criticisms, though. Just know that I did write it the way I wrote it because of the kind of criticisms you gave me. I knew that was coming.
I was really waiting for you, Joad, to reply so I'm glad you made this thread. I was disappointed when it got closed cuz I knew you would discuss it and I knew Brandon wanted to read it (even harassed me for it

, just kidding).
So I guess a lil explanation/reply to Joad...
What you said about the footnotes was amazing.
The page with the penis (how many guys do you know think that their dicks make them men, so why not put a giant penis on a page to parody/satirize that?) had the names of the footnote people. The order that the names are in is the order that the people read the book.
It's a book that's been passed down by person to person in some way, even if it isn't directly. As it is now, you don't know too much about the people but as it goes on, they get their own stories but I don't know if they're gonna connect or not. Just imagine a library book that you take out and you see that people have underlined passages that meant a lot to them, or passages that they could use in a thesis, etc. That's what I'm going for. That's why it looks sloppy with footnotes all over the place.
And the reasoning for this is because... how you relate to books is more important than the story, which brings me to this:
Quote:
|
On the actual story. From my personal view, meaning "to me," it was as if the footnotes were the real story, and the actual "story" were the footnotes. Switch the roles, and thats how it was for me.
|
That theory holds grounds unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. There's the two levels of footnotes, the kind that's included in the "plot" and the people "reading." I hope that makes sense.
Haha, the reviews... I admit, it's random, and it loses its effect in the form of a document, but when it's as a book... just picture the reviews you always see at the beginning of books. I just wanted to parody that, and at the same time, kinda take the ammo away from critics. My book will get called pretentious, but I called it pretentious first. I mean... in that big long list of people who will be in awe of me, MY NAME is included, my GIRLFRIEND is included, my friends are... a goalie in the NHL is, etc.
God, this is a long winded post. But it shall go on!
The last footnote really is just an activist relating. That's why everything the person says has to do with some kind of problem in the world. That's all any of these footnotes are. By doing so I'm studying my own book but that doesn't mean I'm explaining it. Some of the theories presented will lead you in the right direction, some won't.
The book deals heavily with perception. What's real and what's not?
It's also me waxing philosophical over the town I live in, and genres (but the genre thing isn't clear yet).
It's war on books, it's war on my own book.
But yeah, Joad... I really liked what you said about it. I liked how you analyzed the last footnote and what you said.
I enjoyed when Wolf called it a "book." More right than he thought, really.
Sorry for being so selfish here.