the mortal enemy of videogames

If you‘re here in this thread and you’re not already aware of the work of Kelby Losack, well, I'm a little surprised! You should definitely consider subscribing to his excellent Substack.

@radicaledward has probably already talked about him in here.

His Amazon bio summarizes his stuff better than I could, so I'll copy it here so that you don't have to go to Amazon: "Kelby Losack is the hoodrat who penned Letting Out the Devils, Dead Boy (with J. David Osborne), Hurricane Season, Heathenish, and The Way We Came In. A man of many hustles, but mostly an audiobook narrator and voice actor these days, as well as co-host of Agitator, a podcast that blends the spirit of anime with underground rap music. He lives with his wife in Gulf Coast Texas."

So yeah, this is a plug, because this is a dude whose work I genuinely believe in. He's had a big impact on my life and work in recent times, and I want to help him build his audience if I can. [Link again](https://kelbylosack.substack.com?r=1ojc4d) just in case. Thank you <3

@“rearnakedwindow”#p120475

>

If someone asks me, “Why do you write?” I can reply by pointing out that it is a very dumb question. Nevertheless, there is an answer. I write because I hate. A lot. Hard

Great quote from Gass.

The last few I've read:
Crisis Zone by Simon Hanselmann (if we're counting comics here)
Incredibly funny, and a great way to relive all that was 2020 in America.

The Temple of the Golden Pavilion by Mishima
A re-read for me, liked it much more this time around. Mishima is almost more of a poet in the way he puts words to things that are immediately true but also impossible to rephrase.

Young Once by Patrick Modiano
This was okay. Reminds me of a mix between Peter Stamm and Simenon's Maigret novels in that it was noir-ish with a flat, SSRI-addled affectation. I would read more of Modiano's work, provided it's short.

Collected Poems of T.S. Eliot
Eliot is referenced heavily by Marias, which is why I picked it up. There are some great lines here and there, but could live with only _The Love Song..._ for the rest of my life.

Boy by Takeshi Kitano
Did anyone else know Kitano wrote some short stories? I didn't. The three here are not as good as his 90's films, but hit the same themes and have his fingerprints all over.

The Part of Me That Isn't Broken Inside by Kazufumi Shiraishi
I picked this up ages ago simply because it was on Dalkey Archive. The premise is it's an I-novel (I believe we call that auto-fiction in the west, these days) about a 29-year old guy in publishing that is more concerned with the meaning of life + his philosophical pet theories than his fledging relationships or ladder climbing. There's a lot of drinking and fucking. I liked it enough to pick up another one of his books, if that's any indication.

Megahex and Megg & Mogg in Amsterdam by Simon Hanselmann
I picked these up after liking Crisis Zone so much. They were not nearly as good, but still funny. Lots of gross out humor.

I'm not sure what to read next. I picked up a few books while traveling recently, so likely one of those (list follows for those interested)

>!

Pig Earth by John Berger, Checkout 19 by Claire-Louise Bennet, Rock Paper Scissors by Maxim Osipov, Written on Water by Elieen Chang, The Map and the Territory by Houeleebecq, But for the Lovers by Wilfrido Nolledo

@“MoH”#p121005 I love that Gass quote, and also this one:

"For example, Rilke, I suppose my favorite writer really, and in the best sense a profound writer, is full of shit."

I like these mini-reviews. I was just reading an article about T.S. Eliot (probably one of the writers I've spent the most time loving and hating) and some book reviews written by Claire-Louise Bennet, so, woo, connections.

comics are accepted here, and in the case of megg, mogg, and owl, encouraged

I really hate William Gass. I think he's the best example of someone who can write a sentence just about better than anyone but never bothered to learn how to write a short story or novel, despite teaching generations of writers how to do that and also having a number of them published himself.

I can't remember what books I last talked about here and I know I can scroll up but I'll just ramble a bit aimlessly, if'n you don't mind.

I've read all the Harry Potter books this year for a project that grew in interest as I've gone about it. The first two are pretty forgettable, so it's interesting how large they became. The third is why it became a sensation, I think, and the fifth is where the novels become actually kind of good. There are a lot of problems with the series and it's often quite clumsy, but I think that's because she began writing an amusing story about a boy and these wacky wizards, so she'd just toss out incidental worldbuilding meant to amuse rather than reveal, but as the series went on she couldn't undo these silly little things and so had to live with them and make them sturdier. But it is a surprisingly good series and possibly one of the most important literary achievements of the last fifty years, whether we like it or not.

Been burning through Cormac McCarthy's novels as well. Suttree was kind of a slog at times, but the farther I get from it the more I like it. Sort of a backwoods Ulysses. It's also probably the funniest book I've read in years. Like, laugh out loud funny.
Blood Meridian is better on a reread, I find. I also think it's somewhat overrated, mostly because of Harold Bloom's many writings about the novel. It's a good novel, no doubt, but I also think it's the height of a particular type of McCarthyism, which isn't what he does best, ironically. It's him at the comedown from the lush evocative apex of verbosity that is Suttree but it's also missing the humor that makes his novels something so much more than what people tend to talk about when they talk about McCarthy. I think considering this his best novel has much to do with how we respect and laud serious ass shit about serious ass shit by serious ass ol boys, even when their best stuff are the jokes.
All the Pretty Horses is an interesting transition because all of his previous novels sold very poorly but this one went on to become a bestseller after it won the National Book Award. I think this might be my current favorite (though Suttree continues to bloom and unfurl over this year, over his career). The language is stripped back a bit but I think the success comes from the straightforwardness of the narrative. It has such clear direction and such clean motivations that he's abandoned, here, much of the murkiness that defined the first thirty years of his career. It's a beauty, though. And even makes certain points more powerful than Blood Meridian.
The Crossing is also great. I love the sidequestiness of it. The whole novel is three separate sidequests full of smaller sidequests where a boy loses more each time he sets out on some venture, returning, finally, with nothing and no one but the long empty road before him.
Cities of the Plain brings the two previous protagonists together and also leans back towards verbosity, but I think it may be one of his least successful novels. It has the sidequestiness of The Crossing but also lacks the clarity of All the Pretty Horses. Though it does lead us inexorably towards what the ending of All the Pretty Horses promised, with all its tragic stupidity.
No Country for Old Men is the most screenplayesque novel I think I've ever read, so it makes sense that it began as a screenplay and then became a movie. The movie and the novel are almost identical, but I think the movie is actually better. Mostly because of where it chooses to end. The novel sort of ambles past the ending of both the movie and the novel, giving a long drawn out epilogue feel. Which is good. It's all quite good, but I think the way the Coen's shoved the last 70 or so pages into five or ten minutes of screentime makes those 70 pages hit more powerfully.
Onto The Road now, which is another reread, and I already cried about twenty pages in.

Been doing lots of Arthurian research this year for a project that may interest someone someday, but I picked up Spear by Nicola Griffith wholly unprepared for it to be an Arthurian story. I never read marketing material or even the backs of books, so that's on me, but I did quite like this twist on Arthuria. One of the best versions of Nimue I've encountered and the triangle of Lancelot, Guenevere, and Arthur mirrors exactly what I was going to do, which is slightly annoying, but I suppose there's always room for more Arthuria.
Finished The Once and Future King before this and I quite liked that, too, and it's clear how much Rowling was indebted to White, but it's also interesting how this silly novel about a boy preparing for destiny becomes a philosophical tragedy. But I suppose that's the draw of Arthur, yeah?

Read Altered Carbon, which was pretty all right, though it's a reminder, to me, of how much I tend to struggle with cyberpunk. The genre is most interesting to me, I suppose, when it's a playground. Morgan creates a real dense and fun playground here with memorable tech and gadgetry and characters and sidequests, but as the novel becomes more and more about the PLOT, the less and less I'm interested. I think this is because of the noir/hardboiled roots of the genre. I jsut kind of have never given a shit about cops and robbers and all the badass things that happen along the way. And so when the plot threads begin to weave tightly together, I kind of just wish we were still smoking cigarettes on the swingset under that one halogen bulbed street lamp.

Read The Wake and Beast by Paul Kingsnorth, which are fascinating. Beast is just a flex. 200 pages with only a single character and his surrounding. A million people could attempt such a novel and every single one of them would be somewhere between unreadable to borderline unreadable, but Kingsnorth manages to keep you enthralled and compelled.
The Wake is written in [anglish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_English), which is certainly part of the interest here. But it's also just a wild and savage story about hubris and monomania arrayed in revolutionary spirit.

I liked In The Heart Of The Heart of the country well enough especially “The Pedersen Kid”, but everyone likes that story. But that was 15 years ago. Not sure if I’d like it as much now that I’m totally Faulknerfied, meaning the real weirdness is right there rather than something arch. Couldn’t get into any of Gass’s novels because that sort of effortful archness is wearying. John Hawkes keeps things around 200 pages god bless

ever read any Mark Costello? @radicaledward speaking of similar geographical terrain

the other Mark Costello not the DFW buddy one

Every time I say i don‘t like Gass everyone asks if I’ve read The Heart of the Heart of the Country, so probably I should give that a shot.

Haven‘t even heard of Mark Costello but he looks interesting, though a quick googling shows that he’s severely out of print. Which, of course, makes him a bit more interesting. Any story you'd recommend starting with?

Also, I used to know a guy named Dominic Costello whose dad was Mark Costello but he worked at a hardware store.

@“edward”#p121275 he’s only got two short books as far as I know. I think the second is better but I’d just read them in order for the full effect

https://archive.org/details/murphystories0000cost

https://archive.org/details/middlemurphy0000cost_g9n7

I‘m about halfway through Cormac McCarthy’s The Passenger and I'm beginning to suspect that this might be his bad book. Everyone has one that manages to make it to print. I thought Child of God was the bad one, but The Passenger is filling me with a certain kind of dread.

It's McCarthy at his chattiest, which can be a good thing, but it reminds me a bit of Scorsese's The Irishman which felt like listening to a group of very old men ramble about old men shit punctuated occasionally by an old man kicking someone in the teeth or pointing a gun at someone.

Will probably finish in a few days. People seem to like this one a lot, but I think that may be because it's Cormac McCarthy and less because this book is especially good. This often happens with things. I mean, I'm _still_ pretending that I liked Wong Kar Wai's The Grandmaster and that was ten years ago.

Got a few picks from Boss Fight Books after hearing Frank interview Kyle Orland about Minesweeper. Just finished Michael P. Williams‘s Boss Fight Book on Chrono Trigger. Really enjoyed his queer reading on the game’s archetypes and characterization. Also learned about the term mukokuseki, which connected a lot of dots for me on Japanese character design, providing a term for something I previously didn't know how to articulate.

I’m gonna be a real punk rocker and read Stella Maris before The Passenger. I’ve been a little (lol) slow to dig in because as @yeso alludes to the premise sounds fucking ridiculous, and I am prepared to encounter a decent amount of stuff I didn’t like about The Counselor, but I’m confident that McCarthy’s swan song will at least be unforgettably weird. (In retrospect, you sort of have to wonder: after developing these dual novels for over a decade, did McCarthy eventually rush them to publication because he knew he didn’t have much longer? Are they the product of an artist searching for a career-capping magnum opus that never totally found its shape, like Orson Welles’ forever-unfinished Other Side of the Wind?)

@“2501”#p122031

Having just finished The Passenger yesterday, I wish I had read Stella Maris first.

I am very so-so about The Passenger. I think it's one of his weakest novels and I'm prepared for critical opinion to come around to this in about ten years. Having read all his books in order this year, with most of them over the last six weeks, this just feels like a miss, honestly. I think if this novel was published under any other name besides Cormac McCarthy, it would be considered an interesting but flawed novel. But because it's by Cormac McCarthy and it's his first novel in 16 years and he just died, people are giving it a lot more critical praise than I think is warranted.

Anyway, excited to start Stella Maris. I have the feeling it should have been folded into The Passenger or had the Stella Maris parts of The Passenger taken out. But I'll find out once the library's copy is available.

>

@“edward”#p122039 I think if this novel was published under any other name besides Cormac McCarthy, it would be considered an interesting but flawed novel. But because it’s by Cormac McCarthy and it’s his first novel in 16 years and he just died, people are giving it a lot more critical praise than I think is warranted.

Yeah, I was skimming over some of the more serious critical responses today and I feel like this is already kinda the consensus, it’s just been obscured somewhat by circumstantial hype factors and motivated arguments (people pumping McCarthy extra hard as a reaction to the current state of American literature and media criticism). It kinda seems like _The Counselor_ in retrospect was an accurate preview of where he was going with these books: shooting for something astronomically different from the style of his 2000s work, trying to stretch himself into language and topics outside of his known wheelhouse, with wildly uneven results. And also, perhaps, finally giving in to the miserabilism, myopia and despair that his previous works had at least wrestled with.

I skimmed a few pages of _Stella Maris_ and it reads pretty much like a screenplay, very close to _The Counselor_: a series of verbose dialogues that are basically monologues, with one character (a 20-year-old supergenius with autism, schizophrenia, synaesthesia, hyperthymesia, suicidal depression, an Elektra complex, and more!!) lecturing an uncomprehending idiot normie on the meaninglessness of existence in McCarthy’s voice, dropping seminar-level academic references in between racist jokes and lewd sexual asides. It seems a little much!! (Note how in _Sunset Limited_, the avatars of cosmic optimism and pessimism have equally strong voices and the “winner” is open to audience interpretation; it seems like one voice won out after that.)

Still though, I’m sure it’s dense and singular enough to be noteworthy to McCarthy completists, who will probably be the ones that care most in the long run. I certainly care enough to give it a go, though maybe I should catch up on all of his older work first. I’m a slow reader (ADHD) but also when I really like an artist I tend to savor and spread out experiencing _all_ of their work as much as I can, especially when there’s a permanently finite amount. So there’s a lot of classic McCarthy I still haven’t read.

@“2501”#p122051

I had only read three of his novels before this year and I read those all between the ages of 19 and 22, I think. But @whatsarobot planning on reading one of his twelve books each month got me to dive hard into his career. It's been interesting! I think all of his books are worth reading, though I think only half of them are actually that good and two or three of them being in the potential masterpiece category. Which is pretty significant, since most people never even write something that anyone would describe as a masterpiece.

I'm curious how many novels he has in his drawer. People who know him claim that he wrote for hours every single day, and doing that for 60-70 years seems like it would produce more than 12 novels and a few screenplays, even if he was religiously rewriting things until they were perfect.
Of course, if these novels do exist, they'll be released even though he quite obviously did not want them released. But it would be wild for there to be, like, ten or twenty more novels hanging around.

@“edward”#p122058 Something interesting when I was thinking/reading about No Country for my piece is how general consensus holds it’s a good novel but not in McCarthy’s top tier, yet the movie is (many would argue - such as I) a masterpiece and one of the greatest American films of the 21st century. All sorts of reasons why that is.

The ethics of releasing a Major Author’s unpublished materials seem pretty interesting. My first thought is, if it’s not a book its author regarded as complete, not professionally edited, not revised to the author’s satisfaction, can you even say it’s a novel? I mean… I guess technically yes, but the wording took me by surprise. I’d be inclined to say a manuscript not deemed fit for publication is something distinct from “a novel”, whether because it’s obviously unfinished or not fully revised. A work of writing intended as a specific _object_ with a certain form - like a “novel” - can look “finished” on the surface yet clearly not be. idk.

Counterpoint: Kafka, I guess.

@“2501”#p122068

Yeah, I'd agree with that distinction.

No Country for Old Men is an interesting one because even though the book is almost identical to the movie, the movie makes a few minor but very significant changes that actually make it better than the novel. The main difference is that the novel has what I would call a substantial epilogue. The movie collapses all these into about five minutes, which was very clever.

Also, I suppose someone could say that this proves that literature is better than film, but I don't feel that way and wouldn't agree with it.

@“edward”#p122071 It’s funny, I remember the first time I saw No Country I was actually shocked at how long the “epilogue” went on for - that is, how many more scenes the film continues for after the resolution of the plot’s central conflict - and how that totally changes its meaning. I do think some of the Coens’ changes - shortening Bell and especially Chigurh’s monologues to just their sharpest points, accentuating the absurdist humor already latent in the novel, giving female characters the slightest bit more agency and dimension to makes them stand out as meaningfully human rather than objects of incomprehension and pity - are clear improvements that make McCarthy’s storytelling more dramatically and emotionally plausible while preserving its basic philosophy. And the philosophy itself isn’t that far off from McCarthy’s other works, but the novel already envisions it in a distinctly cinematic language (it was rewritten from a screenplay) and the film, meeting it halfway and being directed by filmmakers as preternaturally skilled with cinematic language as McCarthy is with prose, turns that into something truly extraordinary on the screen where it was “merely” a genre spin on the page. (Though I think other McCarthy adaptations show how exceptional it is that the Coens were able to so fully approximate that in visual, aural and chronological terms.)

I think the interesting question this gets at is whether some of McCarthy’s other novels are “unfilmable”, as many have claimed, and whether the things that make for great literature and great cinema can ever mutually translate between mediums. McCarthy, for one, didn’t seem to agree with the “unfilmable” talk: for _Blood Meridian_ at least, he explicitly said he believed a great film could be made from it. I think you could theoretically make great films based on _Child of God_ and _The Road_ too, but it would be a steep challenge and require filmmakers with more impressionistic intensity and formal daring than either of them got. Terence Malick always struck me as one of the non-Coen filmmakers whose themes and cinematic language felt like the best fit for McCarthy’s more florid work - and he was one of McCarthy’s favorites, too - but it’s hard to imagine Malick being willing to film all the repulsive images you’d need for something like _Blood Meridian_. I think there’s several contemporary horror directors who could _theoretically_ be guided in the right direction on _Child of God_, if they had proper restraint.

But I guess my point is just that films resembling McCarthy’s “major” works already exist, they’re just rare because filmmakers of that caliber getting the freedom to make films that uncompromising is rare. Great films (or sometimes, great television) can be as rich with ideas and catharsis as great novels, they just by virtue of the form tend to favor calculated abstraction, a compressing of these ideas into jewels of symbolism, images, gestures… since everything is huge on the screen, you can convey or hint at things in a pointed facial expression or twitch of an actor’s hand, or any other framing or interaction of objects, that a fiction author in want of visuals, sound and motion might need paragraphs to explain to the reader.

_No Country_ was a work with more commercial potential than many, which helped it get made, which helped McCarthy’s motifs that he’d already tried in several different forms on the page be translated to a language on the screen that’s deeply outstanding within its medium.

Or also, like… if you just read The Gardener’s Son on the page, it’d be a decent early McCarthy work, but maybe not super exciting. When you get to actually see Brad Dourif’s face making the lead character feel real, to hear the weird otherworldly soundtrack taking you out of time, that elevates the material considerably. That one was explicitly meant to be experienced that way, but still. This is a platitude I guess but different mediums have different strengths!! What makes No Country work is the Coens identifying what in cinematic terms would make this story the best it could possibly be, and adapting it as necessary to match the needs of the medium and their own strong vision as interpreters and major artists in their own right. You don’t get Roger Deakins or Tommy Lee Jones on the page!