Re: 'Spiders' review from the LA Review of Books
nivekgnir <kdring <at> pacbell.net>
2012-05-23 18:48:55 GMT
No. And yes. But on purpose. As Chip kept adding things to the first few years it seemed to bloat. But not only
were there things he wanted to explore, I realized he is showing us in text how everything seems to take so
long when we're young--time flows so slowly--and as we age, it seems to slip by faster and faster. This is
exactly how the novel works. The farther you get into it, the quicker it moves forward in time.
--- In delany-list <at> yahoogroups.com, Jorge Rapalo <JRapalo <at> ...> wrote:
> I wonder however, what it says about the novel that you need a "stay
> with it that it gets better" warning. Was the initial part simply
> allowed to run too long?
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:19 AM, toddbehr60 <daddytodd <at> ...> wrote:
> > Yeah, great review. It's a big comfort to know that I don't have another 300 pages of uninterrupted
cum/piss/toejam/snot/dickcheese/shit (and precious little else) ahead of me.
> > I still may have to stop every once in a while and read something lighter to "cleanse the palette" -- I've
been using E.C. Tubb's "Dumarest," assorted "Star Trek" and assorted other books as diversions between
chunks of "Spiders". But I think I'll be able to finish now.
> > Daddy Todd
> > --- In delany-list <at> yahoogroups.com, Zvi Gilbert <zvi <at> > wrote:
> >> I think this review is exceptionally insightful, written by someone who is
> >> aware of Delany's output, and may give rise to some discussions about
> >> exactly what kind of a book it is and what it's trying to do, referencing
> >> our discussions over the last little while...
> >> <http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?type=&id=652&fulltext=1&media=>