My favorite metafiction is Omeros, Derek Walcott's epic poem set on St Lucia and elsewhere. It's about a rivalry between two fishermen named Hector and Achille and their rivalry over a woman named Helen. It's about colonialism and slavery and Caribbean culture and its relationship with Africa, with Europe and the echoes of European mythology and especially of Homer. It features the author as a character within the poem, thinking about writing his poem, about the characters, and features him living in Boston and traveling to Europe.
I'd thought of the comparison with Don Quixote and The Sound and the Fury.
This section and the sections to come make me question how much I can ever trust (and I use that word intentionally) a memoir. I tend to think, Oh, it's a memoir, so it's true. But there is a truth in fiction that is more true. When I got to the end of this book, I left thinking that perhaps the novel/part 1 was the most true after all.
I had a different experience with parts 1 and 2 -- the Benjamin:Andrew gap seemed as stark as the Helen:Mildred gap. In part 1, Benjamin comes across as a neuro-atypical savant, who is interested in finance for the abstract, complex economic interrelationships more so than acquisition of stuff. Andrew, on the other hand, comes across as not particularly intelligent; he strikes me as someone who happened to make the right investments through luck and yet attributes it to his own special "investment philosophy"/ideology (these people, along with people who claim their pets can predict sports outcomes, drive me nuts).
Separately, part 2 was super cringy and made me really think about how I talk about the free market and the Smithian notion of self-interest driving pro-social behaviors (Tim brought this up), because I'm an economics professor! Interesting to whole-heartedly agree with the notion but also totally gag at the A. Bevel "apologia" for it.
As a noun, "bevel" can be defined as a slant, which could be a clue about how much the reader should trust the narrator of this section. As a verb, "bevel" means to change a square edge on an object to a sloping one -- i.e., literally to cut corners, which might hint at questions about his business practices. Either way, an interesting choice of surname for Andrew!
One thought that was sparked by David's controversial take about trusting the narrator is about the way in which post-hoc storytelling is done.
There a so many documentaries, tell-all biographies, or period peice novels that attempt to fit a moral narrative around historical events. Maybe we should be skeptical of all sides of a narrative that is being given.
This episode was hilarious. Loved that it included Ayn Rand and chess skills but left us hanging on the big question until another episode. That question being what everyone's favorite M&M flavor is.
You guys touched on the puzzle element but I think that's really the key with metafiction. I think otherwise it'd include stuff like Curb Your Enthusiasm. Or even Don Quixote, Part 1 being a success in a Part 2 and the knight and Sancho being celebrities is more like a funny aside, but in Trust, it seems like it's the whole point.
My favorite metafiction is Omeros, Derek Walcott's epic poem set on St Lucia and elsewhere. It's about a rivalry between two fishermen named Hector and Achille and their rivalry over a woman named Helen. It's about colonialism and slavery and Caribbean culture and its relationship with Africa, with Europe and the echoes of European mythology and especially of Homer. It features the author as a character within the poem, thinking about writing his poem, about the characters, and features him living in Boston and traveling to Europe.
I'd thought of the comparison with Don Quixote and The Sound and the Fury.
This section and the sections to come make me question how much I can ever trust (and I use that word intentionally) a memoir. I tend to think, Oh, it's a memoir, so it's true. But there is a truth in fiction that is more true. When I got to the end of this book, I left thinking that perhaps the novel/part 1 was the most true after all.
I had a different experience with parts 1 and 2 -- the Benjamin:Andrew gap seemed as stark as the Helen:Mildred gap. In part 1, Benjamin comes across as a neuro-atypical savant, who is interested in finance for the abstract, complex economic interrelationships more so than acquisition of stuff. Andrew, on the other hand, comes across as not particularly intelligent; he strikes me as someone who happened to make the right investments through luck and yet attributes it to his own special "investment philosophy"/ideology (these people, along with people who claim their pets can predict sports outcomes, drive me nuts).
Separately, part 2 was super cringy and made me really think about how I talk about the free market and the Smithian notion of self-interest driving pro-social behaviors (Tim brought this up), because I'm an economics professor! Interesting to whole-heartedly agree with the notion but also totally gag at the A. Bevel "apologia" for it.
PLEASE do a reread pod of Brideshead! Pretty please!
As a noun, "bevel" can be defined as a slant, which could be a clue about how much the reader should trust the narrator of this section. As a verb, "bevel" means to change a square edge on an object to a sloping one -- i.e., literally to cut corners, which might hint at questions about his business practices. Either way, an interesting choice of surname for Andrew!
My question after this episode is: Is the Series of Unfortunate Events meta-fiction for kids?
Based on the definition we got, definitely!
I think so.
One thought that was sparked by David's controversial take about trusting the narrator is about the way in which post-hoc storytelling is done.
There a so many documentaries, tell-all biographies, or period peice novels that attempt to fit a moral narrative around historical events. Maybe we should be skeptical of all sides of a narrative that is being given.
This episode was hilarious. Loved that it included Ayn Rand and chess skills but left us hanging on the big question until another episode. That question being what everyone's favorite M&M flavor is.
You guys touched on the puzzle element but I think that's really the key with metafiction. I think otherwise it'd include stuff like Curb Your Enthusiasm. Or even Don Quixote, Part 1 being a success in a Part 2 and the knight and Sancho being celebrities is more like a funny aside, but in Trust, it seems like it's the whole point.