I recently (within the last month, or so) read all of the following (plus another five hundred or so pages that--while occasionally interesting--were of no use to me; all told, it probably adds up to 4,000 pages):

Abrams, Lynn. “Contexts of the Novel: Society, Politics and Culture in German-Speaking Europe, 1870 to the Present.” The Modern German Novel. Ed. Graham Bartram. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. 15-30.

Aust, Hugo. Der historische Roman. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1994.

Bance, Alan. “The Novel in Wilhelmine Germany: From Realism to Satire.” The Modern German Novel. Ed. Graham Bartram. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. 31-45.

Bartram, Graham. “The German Novel in the Long Twentieth Century.” The Modern German Novel. Ed. Graham Bartram. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. 1-14.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Storyteller.” Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach. Ed. Michael McKeon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000. 77-93.

Broch, Hermann. “Das Weltbild des Romans.” Theorie und Technik des Romans im 20. Jahrhundert. Ed. Hartmut Steinecke. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1972. 55-57.

Buchen, Irving H. “The Aesthetics of the Supra-Novel.” The Theory of the Novel: New Essays. Ed. John Halperin. New York: Oxford UP, 1974. 91-108.

Döblin, Alfred. “Bemerkungen zum Roman.” Arbeitstexte für den Unterricht: Theorie des Romans. Ed. Hans Ulrich Lindken. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998. 75-79.

Fogle, Richard Harter. “Illusion, Point of View, and Modern Novel-Criticism.” The Theory of the Novel: New Essays. Ed. John Halperin. New York: Oxford UP, 1974. 338-352.

Friedman, Norman. “Forms of the Plot.” The Theory of the Novel. Ed. Philip Stevick. New York: Free Press, 1967. 145-156.

Frye, Northrop. From “Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays.” Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach. Ed. Michael McKeon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000. 5-13.

Halperin, John. The Theory of the Novel: New Essays. Ed. John Halperin. New York: Oxford UP, 1974.

Hegel, G.W.F. “Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik.” Arbeitstexte für den Unterricht: Theorie des Romans. Ed. Hans Ulrich Lindken. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998. 41-43.

Hillebrand, Bruno. Theorie des Romans: Erzählstrategien der Neuzeit. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1993.

Jameson, Fredric. From “The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act.” Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach. Ed. Michael McKeon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000. 400-413.

Kaminsky, Alice R. “On Literary Realism.” The Theory of the Novel: New Essays. Ed. John Halperin. New York: Oxford UP, 1974. 213-232.

Kermode, Frank. “Novel and Narrative.” The Theory of the Novel: New Essays. Ed. John Halperin. New York: Oxford UP, 1974. 155-174.

Knight, Everett. A Theory of the Classical Novel. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1970.

Lehan, Richard. Realism and Naturalism: The Novel in an Age of Transition. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 2005.

Lindken, Hans Ulrich, ed. Arbeitstexte für den Unterricht: Theorie des Romans. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998.

Lukács, Georg. Die Theorie des Romans: Ein Geschichtsphilosophischer Versuch über die Formen der großen Epik. Frankfurt a.M.: Luchterhand Literaturverlag, 1971.

Mann, Thomas. “Die Kunst des Romans.” Theorie und Technik des Romans im 20. Jahrhundert. Ed. Hartmut Steinecke. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1972. 7-11.

McKeon, Michael. "Introduction." Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000.

Medina, Angel. Reflection, Time and the Novel: Toward a Communicative Theory of Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.

Moretti, Franco. From “The Way of the World: The Bildungsroman in European Culture.” Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach. Ed. Michael McKeon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000. 554-565.

Ortega y Gasset, José. “Notes on the Novel.” Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach. Ed. Michael McKeon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000. 294-316.

Schleiermacher, “Ästhetik.” Theorie und Technik des Romans im 19. Jahrhundert. Ed. Hartmut Steinecke. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1970. 3-5.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. “Zur Metaphysik des Schönen und Aesthetik.” Theorie und Technik des Romans im 19. Jahrhundert. Ed. Hartmut Steinecke. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1970. 41-42.

Shroder, Maurice Z. “The Novel as a Genre.” The Theory of the Novel. Ed. Philip Stevick. New York: Free Press, 1967. 13-29.

Steinecke, Hartmut, comp. Theorie und Technik des Romans im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1970.

---. Theorie und Technik des Romans im 20. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1972.

Stevick, Philip, ed. The Theory of the Novel. New York: Free Press, 1967.

Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding. Berkely: U of California P, 2001.

* * *

I was working on novel theory, as might be apparent from the list. I'd say the Watt, Knight, Bance, Halpernin and Hillebrand were the most useful texts, while the Kermode, Fogle and Medina were the most interesting. The most essential of all the texts, naturally, was the Lukács--since novel theory as we know it is more or less his creation.

I disagree with much of what he has to say about the novel, and I feel that he missteps by turning toward mysticism when trying to establish the novel as generically (in the "as regards genre" sense), formally and socially valid. It is a lazy move, and a bit of a cop-out. Of course, the Lukács of the piece's composition was the Hegelian Lukács. The Marxist Lukács would have done his best to distance himself from such mysticism.

He does make one brilliant insinuation, but he doesn't quite follow up on it. That insinuation is this: for the Greeks/antiquity in general, epic and historic writing know no real narrative distance (he doesn't come right out and say this because he knows better, but I almost wish he had). In other words, fact and fiction were written about in the same way.

* * *

I have been able to return to Franzen's The Corrections. I will finish it in the next day or two, as I want to return to, and complete, Döblin's Berlin Alexanderplatz before I watch the Fassbinder adaptation of it (finally released to home markets. We only had to wait twenty-seven years!).

I also read two friends' scripts while I was working on my last comp, and will finally be able to deliver to them the responses/reactions I promised to deliver to them once I finished working on my last comp.

I continue to re-read and re-digest chapter's of Musil's Mann ohne Eigenschaften (available in translation as The Man Without Qualities). I am convinced it has more to teach me than pretty much any other work of fiction.

So, what have you folks been reading?

I'm in the middle of Rutger Hauer's autobiography, All Those Moments: Stories of Heroes, Villains, Replicants, and Blade Runners. Although Hauer is a terrible writer, the stories are somehow very entertaining. Hopefully he won't give up his day job, but it's a nice afternoon read.

Oh, and all of the proceeds from the book go to AIDS research. So there's at least $20 of my money going to a good cause.

Does Rutger HAVE a day job?

From that book cover and title, you'd think the man only ever starred in one movie.

Yeah, instead of 'All Those Moments', I would've called the book 'Blind Fury'. The greatest ever autobiography title of course is 'Tears of Rage' by that America's Most Wanted guy. If I were to ever write one, it would of course be titled 'Raping the Wind'.

I contend (and people have heard me contend before) that Hauer's performance as Wulfgar in Nighthawks is one of the greatest villains ever. Completely underrated movie, and Stallone at his best (relatively speaking).

Currently I'm reading the Preacher series (I'm on the second trade, Until the End of the World). I'm also reading Peter Pan (having seen 2 movie adaptations, I just wanted to know how accurate the adaptations were).

I read one of those Preacher trades. I'm not sure which one. Preacher goes to a small town, causes a ruckus and flirts a little with a female cop. She tells him she could tell he was in love with someone else because she could see it in his eyes.

I think there's an angry dog in there, somewhere.

And he talks with The Duke.

Finished The Corrections. It finally won me over, though it never tried very hard to convince me to like any of the main characters. Franzen describes dementia particularly well, and he makes the wise decision to make a clean tack toward the comic after the book's halfway point.

I'm on the fifth book of Berlin Alexanderplatz. I'm enjoying it.

I picked up--and finished--Arthur Power's Conversations with James Joyce while I was in Dublin. It's one part Socratic/Platonic dialog, one part This Is Orson Welles!. For the most part, it's give-and-take between two blowhards saying forgettable things about the requirements of "good" writing. The descriptions of Joyce as a shoulder-shugging resigner to his conversant's misguided romanticism are nice, though, and it's one of the few (fairly) reliable sources to which one must turn if one wishes to know more about Joyce's opinions on modernity, fiction, Russian and French literature (the other major sources being Ellman, Joyce's letters and Stanislaus Joyce's My Brother's Keeper; anything else you are liable to read regarding Joyce's takes on modernity, fiction, Russian and French literature draws, more likely than not, from one of these sources).

I am a third of the way through Flann O'Brien's At Swim-Two-Birds. Its brilliance is at times jaw-dropping. It is likely to turn out to be one of the five-or-so funniest books I have ever read.

Now that I have finished my comps, I have no choice but to re-read Christian Kracht's 1979 some time in the near future. It's a quick read and it's not a terrible book. Still, though, a paper has to be drawn from my re-reading of it. I do not look forward to that. It borrows pretty heavily from Hesse's Steppenwolf (Is it "Steppenwolf" in English, too, or is it translated as "Wolf of the Steppes"? I'm guessing the band Steppenwolf took its name from a translation, so I'm betting Steppenwolf is the title of the translation [or is at least a title of one of the translations].)

I may start The Irish R.M. and/or Borstal Boy pretty soon.

* * *

I finally found an affordable copy of Luther's tranlation of the Old and New Testaments. If you can read german, I recommend it. The books benefit from having one translator. His phrasings have an inherent poetry--a poetry checked by his desire to keep the books accessible to the layperson. The Luther translation is a damned work of art, I tell ya.

I read a few stories I had never read before from the most recent Joyce Carroll Oates collection.

I read the first fifty pages of Updike's The Terrorist. It has been a disappointment so far. You're a better writer than this, Updike! You've always been a contemptable human being, and I rarely like what you have to say, but you usually say it well enough so's I don't mind. Shape up!

Oh. Okay. Here's what you read.

I liked The Corrections and loved the concept--we all try to correct what our parents did. Never have been able to muster up any love for Oats. Yeah, she's prolific but . . . so is Danielle Steele. Updike's book has been considered a bust by most in the business. I'm trying to remember the last really good book I read. Oh, yes, Harry Potter. Not much has inspired me since.

What I read and what I recommend are often two very different things.

The first few hundred pages of The Corrections annoyed the Hell out of me. I know scores of people like Chip, and I am not all that fond of them.

Also, Franzen's writing is often awkward and a little too grad-student-esque.

Oates is hit or miss.

I finished reading Coriolanus about a month back. I re-read The Sun also Rises, recently, along with some short stories. I'm currently reading Every Man in His Humour and The Third Policeman. This weekend I need to re-read Kracht's 1979 and write a paper on it (said paper is only four-and-a-half years late).

I read the Musil section of Ronell's Stupidity.

Most of my time, recently, has been spent moving and watching episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 with my old friend/new roommate.

Next week I'm going to begin working seriously on my dissertation, which means reading a lot of Hauptmann and a lot of secondary literature involving the First World War, mysticism, utopian and dystopian concerns.

Thurston McQ wrote:
Next week I'm going to begin working seriously on my dissertation, which means reading a lot of Hauptmann and a lot of secondary literature involving the First World War, mysticism, utopian and dystopian concerns.

Well, that sounds timely.[/url]

Everything's Eventual.

Stephen King.

Should I?

Why not?

I read through On Writing the other day. It was breezy, enjoyable. I feel a bit of a kinship with him--since we were both hit by vans, and all. Haven't read any of his fiction since I was a preteen.

I read most of Thurber and White's Is Sex Necessary?

Currently, I'm rereading Hauptmann's Der Narr in Christo. I'm also looking through P. Mellen's Gerhart Hauptmann: Religious Syncretism and Eastern Religions and Peter Sprengel's Die Wirklichkeit der Mythen.

:P I had almost forgotten that you were both hit by vans.

I presume much of this reading is for Die dissertation?

Die Dissertation.

You had it right the first time.

And yes. Much of this reading is for that very thing.

I also read The Complete Peanuts 1950-1952 and The Complete Peanuts 1965-1966.

I believe Snoopy lost the pool table and the van Goghs in 1966 to a fire .

What to avoid:

Anne Rice: Jesus out of Egypt.

Not a single damn vampire or demon. For some reason she decided to treat the subject matter seriously. What a let down.

I'm finally getting around to reading Gaiman's Anansi Boys after I saw the paperback on a chance visit to Barnes and Noble. I'm liking it so far.

Yesterday I read Hannibal Rising by Thomas Harris. Fun. I've enjoyed the nasty little Lecter series.

Pegasus Descending by James Lee Burke.

This guy is an Edgar Award winner and Pulitzer nominee. Anyone ever read his work?

Oh! I can contribue to this now.

I'm fininshing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Marc gave it to me for Christmas six years ago and I started it, but got to about the last 100 pages and stopped. Then, I acquired the book on MP3 a few years later. Got to the same point and stopped. I guess I wasn't supposed to know the ending before now.

Now, I've picked it up again and I'm going to finish it. Dammit.

So far, so good.