I don't always profess to understand Blake's stories, nor am I always in the mood for some of the images, but I am never, ever bored by his work. There's a wild imagination behind his work, and I truly don't think he writes things simply to shock the reader - I think there's something going on that I've just not fully been able to grasp as a reader up to this point.
Is there a particular aspect of these three different stories, or of Blake's writing in general, that you gravitate toward as a reader and editor?
David McLendon
Butler's work is a frame of seeing and sensation built from the flesh-work of Butler's syntax and diction. His choice of words and how he arranges them on the page create a convincing effect of increase in which language itself becomes a living organism. Let's carry this biological analogy a few steps further. In much the same way that protein disulfide isomerase (PDI) catalyzes the formation and breakage of disulfide bonds between cysteine residues within proteins as they fold, Butler's catalysis of language is one in which the words themselves do not change, but due to Butler's arrangement and selection they create a transformational reaction inside the reader who interacts with them as a whole.Wait a minute. What the hell am I saying? You asked a simple question, you deserve a simple answer. Here's all I can say. After receiving your question I revisited Butler's pieces in Unsaid. After reading them, I immediately responded to your question (above). My response spoke out from my body in a voice not mine. That's the simplest answer I can give: Blake Butler's writing is dangerous and may cause schizophrenia when read.
Comments