[What Came Before]

Callan, listening - excuse the sensual metaphor - to Dylan describe Cutter's manipulations is like listening Achamian describe Kellhus'.

If you take Dylan's word for it all the narrative of Summer '84 would seem orchestrated entirely by Cutter - on nothing but a whim - simply because Cutter, from Dylan's perspective, is a force of nature, a thunderstorm, a hurricane. A rewrite .

As Jorge mentioned in the other thread, it was Cutter, right from Susan Fennel's damned prime, that reminded me of Adaption.

[What Came Before]

If you take...

I know, I'm just saying how can you blame him for what you (the reader) do? Indeed, he has that problem with Cutter. Don't necessarily make Dylan your own/the readers own Cutter.

[What Came Before]

"From Dylan's perspective, the narrative of Summer '84 seems orchestrated entirely by Cutter."

Now what, Callan?

[What Came Before]

I'd ask who's saying that, but more to the point, what does it change about the events described? You could say Dylan lays a tone upon his descriptions, trying to lean them toward his prefered conclusion. But in the end, perhaps even pitifully (as in, he just can't bring himself to lie, not even to dress up his case) he speaks accurately - Cutter did shit in the baggie. Cutter is obnoxious and unpleasant. The question is, did these seem the attributes of a villain at the start of the text? Why so? And if not, then all we have is Dylan's pathetic attempt to lean facts, but otherwise perhaps a quite accurate anthropological evaluation of the social scenario.

[What Came Before]

I suppose, though, we're even faced with the question of whether or not that was, in fact, Cutter that he hit. "A dusty figure at the side of the road, shadowy for the brilliance of the sun, stark for the blocks of vegetation and bands of linear dust, coming nearer, thumb held out, trying to peer through the white windshield glare…" Doesn't sound like a slamdunk identification, especially when followed by "Forgetting to check the papers afterward." In other words, no written confirmation of Cutter's death. Or even that if he hit someone, they definitely died. Maybe, maybe not. I don't see anything definitive so far. (It's only an implication, after all, that Dylan even kills himself at the end - we only have the editor telling us that he's gone missing to go on.)
If he did kill Cutter, then one way of looking at it might be that he kills the guy who told the truth. He did fuck Harley and Cutter told Jerry.

One way of extending that further would be to say that Dylan, who has learned nothing from blabbing to Cutter in the first place, then tells us the truth (as he thinks it is) so there's a symmetry if he kills himself.

I'm also intrigued by how little he says about his second ex-wife. Perhaps she's a candidate for the mystery hand-writing on the manuscript?

[What Came Before]

Well, it's a bit hard to write down that you've definately killed yourself! Okay, just being cheeky!

I'd wondered if it was Cutter. Really to me it seems like you can travel down various avenues - I'd prefer to go with a straight Cutter run down. But if someone else goes for an innocent bystander run down, I wouldn't try to argue them out of it. It's interesting to see the avenue someone else went down. Heck, sometimes someones avenue is so compelling on hearing it, you wanna switch avenues! Anyway, to me Dylan wanted to run down Cutter - if it was someone else, it kind of doesn't matter. That's why I stick with the straight Cutter run down, cause that's what he wanted. BUT, did he want him to die - if he didn't check the papers? He does seem to become schismed latter, both shuddering (in mortal horror) yet not connected to his shuddering and laughing at it. So it might be better to talk about the motives of two Dylans.

On another subject, what's up with Missy? Was that just a straight up female empowerment role (with just a bit of 'but she starts falling for a dofus when he shows a bare minimum of kindness' cautionary tale)? I really like her "When you sign my fucking checks!" line, cause it wraps so much of the complex issue of demurement of personal will for money, forcefully showing it's not demurement for any old fucker. She even goes to quit instead of taking shit. Anyone else think Missy is cool?

[What Came Before]

Apropos of nothing, I just read a university job posting in which the search committee chair is named Dylan Wiersma.

I would be terrified to interview with that guy.

[What Came Before]

That is awesome...

[What Came Before]

So looking back, was it bad of me to think of Dylan with that guys wife having some future? I know it's sad that his romantic attribtue was to actually have read books. But still?

[Aural]

What is the meaning of a deluded life?

I ask this question the first day of all my undergraduate classes, as a segue to discussing the ‘Purpose of Literature.’

Someone in the class always laughs–or at the very least smiles. Perhaps they’ve confused ‘delusion’ for the passing of gas.

So, I liked the title and thought this one might have less semen/fart/urine/anus jokes, but no, he opens with one... It's like he didn't learn anything from his DotD failure.

[Wilshire]

I think he just writes what he likes. Sure everyone wants to make money and be successful, but some aren't willing to conform to outside pressures and just do what everyone wants.

Which is basically just saying: he likes to make fart jokes *shrug*.

[Madness]

I don't think DOTD was a failure. And I actually think it important to include the "human" elements in fiction. Not only does the mundane provide a good contrast to the epic, but it can't be movies all the time.

I fart.

[Aural]

I don't think DOTD was a failure. And I actually think it important to include the "human" elements in fiction. Not only does the mundane provide a good contrast to the epic, but it can't be movies all the time.

I fart.

I meant that DOTD is failure in terms of sales. Also,  filling every story you write with gratuitous fart and semon jokes that are not even funny (like the one above) is really not necessary, in fact it lessens his works. And as someone who likes Bakker and wishes him all the success that he deserves it's kind of sad to see him keep repeating the same mistakes over and over.

[Wilshire]

"Mistake", "funny", "failure" are all relative. Perhaps he has accomplished exactly what he wants with each word he has written. Maybe sales just aren't as important to the writer as telling what, in his opinion, are hilarious jokes.

[Aural]

Yeah, you're right humor is subjective. But there is no doubt that the book is at the very least a commercial failure, and the idea that sales aren't important to Bakker seems unlikely. But forget it, sorry for derailing the thread. I actually look forward to this title and will definitely buy it if it's released.