I am not interested in GOOD writing. I am not interested in well-wrought fiction. I am not interested in craft, or mastery. I find discussions of craft or mastery terribly fucking boring. Good writing can be hegemonic and boring. Good writing is behaving. So if I say I find a piece of writing interesting, that doesn't mean I'm saying whether it's "good" or "masterful."
Also I keep on getting shit for writing about MC, which I think is holding me back from working on this essay, where her writing and reception is just one small part of these ideas I'm interested in. I think writing about MC or Lena Dunham should come with its own trigger warning. But I also don't want to be somehow disciplined or controlled from writing about artists and ideas that I find interesting.
Who wants to be GOOD?
It's so much more interesting to be BAD.
OH MY GOD I NEED AN INTERVENTION I HAVE TO STOP FUCKING GOOGLING MYSELF.
"Kate Zambreno thinks Marie Calloway is a good writer."
It reminds me a lot of the intense hysteria and fervor over anyone claiming Zelda Fitzgerald had brilliance to her, everyone hedge-hedging but-buting BUT HER HUSBAND WAS THE TRUE GENIUS HE WAS A MASTER STORYTELLER. Jesus. What is being controlled? Contained? What is such a risk? A contagion? That is what I find interesting.
I'm interested in a new hysterical realism.
By the way James Wood since you're reading this you really annoyed me with your review of Sheila Heti's book.
And "mumblecore lit." What the fuck?