Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Jack Ross: Stories


Simon Creasey: Coromandel (2005)

Preface

'Talking against death'! yep that sums our craft up
in three brutal words
..."
- Tracey Slaughter. Email to Jack Ross (14/2/2024)


While I was in the early stages of compiling the pieces which would eventually turn into my latest book of stories, Haunts (2024), I decided to try to straighten out all the myriad drafts I'd accumulated by pasting them up online.

As it turned out, that didn't help me much (if at all), but it did provide the kernel for a larger Stories site which has now grown to include the texts of all my published short fiction to date - with the exception of my three novels, each of which already has one (or more) websites dedicated to it.

Like the earlier Poems site, then, to which this is intended as a companion,

contains the texts of all three novellas and four short fiction collections I've published so far. It's almost a year since Haunts was launched for sale online (well in advance of the actual physical booklaunch on Saturday, 5th October), so it seems like an appropriate time to share its contents with any of you who'd like to sample the text before buying a copy.

Before outlining the content of the site, though, I thought I'd better say some more about its structure.


The first thing you see, if you click on this link, will be the warning above.

After you've clicked on the orange "I understand and I wish to continue" button, you'll be taken to the following page:


This should give you full access to the site.

The reason for all this is because some of the stories do contain swear words and sexually explicit material, and I've found in the past that this tends to attract the attention of roving web editors, who red flag and - in some cases - simply take down any pages which offend in this way.

I've therefore decided to mark both this and my Poems site - as well with those devoted to the three novels in my R.E.M. trilogy - as containing "Adult content":

    Jack Ross: Nights with Giordano Bruno (2000)


  1. Nights with Giordano Bruno. ISBN 0-9582225-0-9. Wellington: Bumper Books, 2000. [xii] + 224.


  2. The Imaginary Museum of Atlantis. ISBN 0-9582586-8-6 . Auckland: Titus Books, 2006. 164 pp.
    1. Who am I? Automatic Writing
    2. Where am I? Cuttings

  3. Jack Ross: E M O (2008)


  4. E M O. ISBN 978-1-877441-07-3. Auckland: Titus Books, 2008. [vi] + 258 pp.
    1. EVA AVE
    2. Moons of Mars
    3. Ovid in Otherworld
This "sensitive content" gateway will, unfortunately, have to be renegotiated every time you access any of these sites. No doubt this will have the effect of reducing the number of visits to each of them, but it also increases the level of dedication needed to get there - not in itself a bad thing. Bona fide readers are always welcome.

Here, then, is a breakdown of the contents of my new fiction website. At present it contains 59 stories, ranging in length from novellas to flash fictions, taken from seven books:




    Jack Ross: Monkey Miss Her Now (2004)


  1. Monkey Miss Her Now & Everything a Teenage Girl Should Know. ISBN 0-476-00182-X. Auckland: Danger Publishing, 2004. 138 pp. [13 short stories]

  2. Jack Ross: Trouble in Mind (2005)


  3. Trouble in Mind. ISBN 0-9582586-1-9. Auckland: Titus Books, 2005. [ii] + 102 pp. [single novella]

  4. Jack Ross: Kingdom of Alt (2010)


  5. Kingdom of Alt. ISBN 978-1-877441-15-8. Auckland: Titus Books, 2010. [iv] + 240 pp. [8 short stories]


  6. The Annotated Tree Worship: Draft Research Portfolio. ISBN 978-0-473-41328-6. Paper Table Novellas. Auckland: Paper Table, 2017. iv + 88 pp. [first of 2 novellas]


  7. The Annotated Tree Worship: List of Topoi. ISBN 978-0-473-41329-3. Paper Table Novellas. Auckland: Paper Table, 2017. iv + 94 pp. [second of 2 novellas]

  8. Jack Ross: Ghost Stories (2019)


  9. Ghost Stories. ISBN 978-0-9951165-5-9. 99% Press. Auckland: Lasavia Publishing, 2019. 140 pp. [12 short stories]

  10. Jack Ross: Haunts (2024)


  11. Haunts. ISBN 978-1-991083-17-3. 99% Press. Auckland: Lasavia Publishing, 2024. 202 pp. [13 short stories]






Jack Ross: Stories (1996- )


Along with my Opinions site ("Essays, Interviews, Introductions & Reviews - 1987 to the present"), and the already available Poems, this showcases pretty much all of the work I've published to date. Enjoy!




Friday, May 23, 2025

'Everyone should be noted': Richard & Victor Taylor


Richard Taylor: The Secret of Being Unpopular (2024)
[photograph: Bronwyn Lloyd]


'Everyone should be noted' is the last line of the Acknowledgments at the back of Auckland poet Richard Taylor's latest book, The Secret of Being Unpopular.

This post isn't really meant as a formal review of his work - he is, after all, large, he contains multitudes - but more as a few comments, combined with reminiscences.

I've capped it off with two email interviews, one with Richard and the other with his son Victor, who's also just published a collection of poems, his first, entitled Rift.


Victor Taylor: Rift (2024)
[photograph: Bronwyn Lloyd]





Richard Taylor (1948- )


I've known Richard Taylor for nearly thirty years. We first met at Poetry Live, the weekly poetry reading / performance roadshow which has been migrating from bar to bar around Auckland's K. Rd for the last several decades. We were both friends with the late Rev. Leicester Kyle, and he might be said to have introduced us.

How shall sum up Richard? He can be quite a disconcerting person to meet for the first time. While immensely erudite and well-read, he doesn't exactly project a bookish demeanour. No, there's something more Rabelaisian about him than that: someone who loves food and drink and witty conversation - and is sometimes a little the worse for wear.

The freeflowing allusiveness of his talk is certainly not for the uptight, either. There have been some face-offs over the years - never (that I can recall) between Richard and me, but between him and others of the thinskinned poetry tribe.

Richard's mind is never asleep. He always pursues his own bent. I recall some of his experiments with photography and typography on his marvellous blog Eyelight (2005- ) - long treks over fields of associative imagery, which must have taken forever to construct, but which seem as anarchic and fluid as Walt Whitman's dithyrambic diatribes must have been to readers in the 1850s.

This dizzying sense of multiplying associations comes through in his prose, too. When, in the past, as a magazine editor, I commissioned pieces from Richard, I found that a little compression and tidying did have the effect of burnishing the power and originality of his ideas. But I also knew I was normalising them - attempting to obscure the particularity of the personality behind this mode of discourse.

He's not one of those law-giving critics people fear: a Belinsky, or an Edmund Wilson, whose verdicts can make or break a career. Richard belongs more to the side of the accommodating and celebratory: a Coleridge, or a Harold Bloom, wearing his idiosyncracies on his sleeve. He reads so much! Richard's always under the spell of some book or other, and he's combined all these years of apparently random text-sampling into an immensely powerful lens of critical insight.


Richard Taylor: Conversation with a Stone (2007)
[cover design: Ellen Portch]


There was a rather studied elegance to his previous book Conversation with a Stone. Now, as I glance through it, I can admire the ways in which Richard's anarchic muse has been kept in bounds (if not wholly tamed) by a clear layout with lots of white space around the lines. Is it quite him, though? The appearance of this book also spurred him to start a new blog: Richard, You MUST try to be more focused - (2012- ) - a quote (apparently) from one of his university tutors way back when - which continues to partner, but not supplant, his older site Eyelight.

For me, part of the interest of this new book is that it represents Richard's version of Richard, rather than that of a well-meaning editor or publisher. It's far closer to the true comprehensiveness of his vision (insofar as that's possible in the print medium).


Henry Wallis: The Death of Chatterton (1856-58)


I guess everybody knows the story of the death of Chatterton - both the suicide of the starving young poet ("marvellous boy", as Wordsworth called him), and the strange story of the commemorative painting above, by Pre-Raphaelite artist Henry Wallis.

The young poet and novelist George Meredith agreed to pose for the picture, as Wallis was a friend of his brother-in-law. To compound this chain of connections, Meredith's wife Mary Ellen eloped with Wallis shortly after the picture had been exhibited at the Royal Academy, and the two fled together to Capri.

"Richard Taylor's book's title and title poem The Secret of Being Unpopular's title was inspired by a strange review of George Meredith", he informs us on the back-cover blurb of his book. So just why was George Meredith so unpopular? Wikipedia informs us that:
His style, in both poetry and prose, was noted for its syntactic complexity; Oscar Wilde likened it to "chaos illumined by brilliant flashes of lightning".
There's more to it than that, though. His fame as a poet is based mainly on the sonnet sequence Modern Love (1862), "a sequence of fifty 16-line sonnets about the failure of a marriage, an episodic verse narrative that has been described as 'a novella in verse'." This sequence, while not directly autobiographical, was clearly inspired by his own experience of being abandoned by Mary Ellen. The impulse to write it came from her lonely death in 1861 - though neither Meredith nor her ex-lover Wallis nor her father Thomas Love Peacock, another well-known poet and novelist, deigned to attend the funeral.

The bitterness and disillusionment fostered by these early experiences informed almost all of Meredith's subsequent work. It has been argued, in fact, that his style grew more complex and convoluted in direct response to the public demand for further romans-à-clef from him. Only those works of his which seemed to have clear parallels in contemporary scandal achieved more than a succès d'estime.


Richard Taylor: Blogger profile (2005- )


Can one see in all this certain resemblances to Richard Taylor's own "chaos illumined by brilliant flashes of lightning"? You never know just what will come up in a Taylor poem or prose-piece - that is, if there really is much of a difference between the two genres for him.

Meredith's work, too, tends to be more honoured in the breach than the observance - his public, now, tends to be made up predominantly of literature professors. But Modern Love, in particular, is a very powerful poem indeed. As - for that matter - is that long title-piece of Richard's, "The Secret of Being Unpopular." If you're serious about learning more about the nature of Richard's work, this is probably the best place to start.

One thing's for certain: you'll be opening up a new and unaccustomed world for yourself if you do so.


Richard Taylor: The Secret of Being Unpopular (2024)





Victor Taylor: Rift (2024)


Richard Taylor has written of his son Victor's book:
For a father and son to publish poetry or anything else at the same time is very unusual and means there is surely hope for, not only human life (despite the many trials we are all subject to) but culture and creativity.
For, "while at times a philosophical pessimist," Richard says he "cannot help being a living and day by day optimist, except perhaps on a cold dreary morning before breakfast!"

I myself am writing this on just such a morning - cold and dreary, with a driving rain coming in from the sea - but I have had breakfast, so let's continue.


University of Auckland: Kate Edger Information Commons


I have a (probably bad) habit of starting to read poetry collections at the back, with the last poem, then dipping a tentative toe into the middle and leafing around a little before ever venturing to turn to the front.

In the case of Rift, this led me straight to a poem called "Star of south":
They call this university "an institution of learning". I sit with kate
edger in her block. The sparrows chirp, I feed them, I watch them
jump along; young students walk by. I sit and watch sparrows.
One leaps up and takes bread from my hand - back to his friends.
I like that. I like it a lot. I like the picture it paints: the sparrows, the students, the pomposity of this shabby old "institution of learning". What I like particularly, though, is the absence of fine writing or pretentious word choices in the descriptions. The sparrows "jump along" - they don't hop or frisk or congregate or anything else of that sort. And then one of them "leaps up" - rather than nuzzling or pecking or fluttering. Simple and to the point.

We then get a profusion of imagery suggested by a young lady descending a nearby set of stairs, absurdly hymned and idealised with full Keatsian exuberance through four full stanzas, until, again, the poet comes back down to earth:
Apart from that, not much happens in the kate edger block, or to
kate edger or the block. I will just keep feeding sparrows, watching
students, or maybe I will go to the bookshop. think up another
poem, short or prose. I could unleash four elements of multiple
patterns from all seven realms, circle earth, tap into ley-lines -
create a world of gold pyramids and bronze shine a pale sheen.
In form, this is clearly reminiscent of a Frank O'Hara "I do this, I do that" poem: the use of first person and present tense, accompanied by a kind of appositional irony.

And, as with Frank O'Hara's work, there's a delightful insouciance about it. O'Hara had to learn to curb his original surrealist urge and counterpoint it with more quotidian details. Victor, too, seems to have discovered how to retain portions of his more florid linguistic instincts by tempering them with the everyday. It's a splendid coda to his book.

Leafing back a few pages, I find "Golden horse":
Here is Jakey an autistic 15-year-old boy, he sits at his computer
playing computer games all day no one knows he exists except his
mother and his uncle; they all live in a rundown trailer park. "Be
quiet!" - His mother is opening the door to his room. "Shhhhhh!"
Well, I for one am hooked. I have to find out more of Jakey's story. I don't want to introduce any unnecessary spoilers, but I fear (like me) you already suspect that it will end badly.

But Jakey already exists by the end of that first stanza. Victor's talent for characterisation and vivid narrative is perhaps the most notable thing about this first collection of his poetry to date. It's an unusual skill in a field so often dominated by imagery and autbiographical musings. And it bodes well for the future, I think.


Bram Stoker: Dracula (1897)


"I’m also chipping away at Dracula," says Victor below, towards the end of his interview. I suspect that the reason this comment interests me is not simply because of my obsession with Bram Stoker, Sheridan Le Fanu, M. R. James, and other writers of gothic literature, but also because of the nature of the novel itself.

Readers who've come to the story by way of screen adaptations are often surprised by how complex and "intertextual" a novel Dracula is. It's made up of letters, diary entries, news reports - even transcripts of recordings made on wax cylinders: pretty dazzlingly innovative technology for the late 1890s.

In fact it could be argued that not only did this aspect of Stoker's narrative help to inspire steampunk, but its nature as a self-questioning artefact anticipates many of the innovations of the Nouveau roman of the 1950s.

I remark on it here because I think that it offers clues on how Victor might accommodate his taste for metaphysics with his undoubted talent for characterisation and narrative as he continues to develop as a writer.

If his father Richard exhibits a Walt Whitman-like taste for the vast and multifarious, sounding his "barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world", it might be said that it is Victor who more closely resembles George Meredith: not so much the syntactic complexity, but certainly the "chaos illumined by brilliant flashes of lightning."

How else could one characterise Jakey's story, this account of an "autistic 15-year-old boy" no one else knows exists?

I look forward to reading more by Victor in the future, while continuing to follow, with awe, Richard Taylor's fascinating, visionary, Blakean career.


George Meredith (1828-1909)





Richard Taylor (1948- )

'No Great Fixed Ideas':
Seven Questions with Richard Taylor

  1. What are the strengths of your new book of poems, would you say?
  2. I think the mix of "voices" and a mix of an intuitive and 'planned' way of writing. Thus I have mixed older (in style) with more recent work. I have a kind of focus. However I use as can be seen a range of texts to point to various ideas. In a sense - except inside my poems - I am not saying anything in the long titular poem -- or I am taking a position that explores. Also the book in the early stages signals later works. Often the quotes are either myself, others or a mixture of ... This creates an eerie effect sometimes beautiful. I mix more obviously 'beautiful' poems with more densely 'written' or language based.
  3. Why did you give it that title?
  4. The title is from a review of Meredith as explained. Then it grew upon me that I am referring to myself. I think I am somehow and even want to be 'unpopular' but not in any radical way. I like the idea I have read almost nothing of Meredith but he seems to fascinate me and he evokes that review which in an essay on Meredith, Pritchett quotes, which I found out later ... It, the words of the review inspired me to write and I wrote that long poem very quickly. The other poems echo later poems and things in that long poem. Acker describes, in a way, my technique in the interview I quote. Bouvard and Pecuchet I love and they question forever! Thus I am a questioner ... Like Wittgenstein.
  5. What pleases you most about it?
  6. I like the mix of poems. At the moment I need to do some more copies and correct some errors. But poems such as my truck poem join in with say 'Humpty Empty Back Make' or 'Glass Swan'. Although I use references or hints to other works I avoid the Eliot-Pound obsession with the decline of culture. I like their methods but I would celebrate William Carlos Williams as much as Eliot or his Paterson and also Hart Crane's Bridge, or the spirit of it, and also Moore's quotes sometimes as with Williams of 'ordinary' things and people. Hence both my father and mother talk in the poems as does the tramp in Gavin Bryars 'Jesus Christ never...' and there is a Maori Tohunga saying things we might not agree with but there he was, then my early story based on working in the freezing works (published) in Mate a long time ago, is there and some of a dramatic 'Shakespearean' poem mixes with my early paen to (it was my father and father-in law's death and so on. When I read the long poem or poems I find things that seem new each time.
  7. Is there anything about it that displeases you?
  8. I always feel limited by a single medium. I wanted, but couldn't afford at the time, many images, colours, font changes and much much more in the book and the text esp. the long poem. I am also a bit unfair calling Einstein 'Deathstein' but it was Leo Szilard (invented and patented (!) the chain reaction) who persuaded E. to write a letter to Roosevelt. Hence the Manhattan (Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb. I read this way before this film re Oppenheimer or Oppenhimmel.) But like Wittgenstein I think science and technology have been too highly lifted up into the light - this is something he felt during and after WWII and I feel this. But how to show my interest in philosophy and avoid something someone has seen in a movie and so on? There are poems in the first two parts I might have replaced but overall I feel I have a sufficient mix. I am trying to avoid one 'style'... perhaps influenced, say, by Barthes' Writing Degree Zero but also the idea to play, mix things, take a chance. The "bad" poems are always there. [Of course there are also typos etc but I am thinking of leaving them all in!] Ashbery and Sylvia Plath were two poets who in different ways were also important to me as Eliot was and still is given my wariness of him and Pound's obsessions ... Also Auden and some of the French symbolists et al ...
  9. Which people - writers, artists, musicians, or otherwise - have influenced you most?
  10. I think that as a teenager all the usual Romantic poets, Shakespeare, Eliot, certain artists (all art interests me) and many novelists. Also my reading of Gerald Durrell, and the Scientific Book Club Books, and much else. Lewis Carroll, R A K Mason, and much else. But more recently from about 1988 or so. Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, and later Oliver Sacks, but I read for years a lot of John Ashbery's poetry, but also the US Language Poets, Stein somewhat, Beckett, Auden when I was a teenager but I still quote him and many others. Wordsworth and Keats, Coleridge but there are many modern poets in NZ also, and elsewhere. I like writers like Donald Barthelme and Kafka and Richard Brautigan, Rilke. Possibly Ted Berrigan and Berryman. It is accumulative as I am 'always reading'!

    Joseph Campbell (1904-1987)


  11. Joseph Campbell said "Follow your bliss" - what's your bliss?
  12. I wasn't sure who Campbell was. I would say it is reading but also being and being healthy in the world. Also learning but added to that a proviso like the narrator in Ford's The Sportswriter I like also to not know some things. The myths etc I invent myself as if talking to myself. I like Ovid's Metamorphosis rather than Dante. One bliss was reading The Brothers Karamazov more recently. In the world, just being, seeing beautiful things and trees and flowers or experiencing beautiful or interesting ideas and word combinations. The general phenomena of this world. No great fixed ideas.
  13. What are you reading at the moment? Poetry, or something else?
  14. I am reading one of the diaries of Anne Truitt, an artist I hadn't known until I read her first book. Also I read some of Stein's 'Stanzas in Meditation', some Keats, but I like what to me is the comedy of Beckett so decided to read his trilogy Molloy, Malone Dies, and the Unnamable. I read widely but I read fairly recently Carson McCullers' The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. She was indeed a great writer.





Janet Robin: Richard & Victor Taylor at a Protest (2012)

'Pepperoni Pizzas & Metaphysical Ideas':
Seven Questions with Victor Taylor

  1. What are the strengths of your new book of poems, would you say?
  2. I’d say the main strength of my book lies in the variety of forms. The idea is to further separate and isolate each poem from the others. Every poem exists in its own spiritual domain — they don’t link up or form a narrative chain. This means the reader is encountering something entirely new with each piece.
    There is a similarity, however, in the metaphysical ideas. Many of the poems are surreal and transcendent, so the central strength is really in the images themselves.
  3. Why did you give it that title?
  4. Well, I played around with a few names — VAST, VOID, and some other more extravagant ones. RIFT felt simpler, perhaps more neutral. A rift means a break, split, or crack in something, and one of my goals is to break the reader’s perception of reality — to get them to question what is real. To me, dreams are just as real as waking reality.
    RIFT may have been chosen unconsciously. Maybe I felt isolated, like there’s a rift between me and everything else. Maybe I should have called it I am in the rift.
  5. What pleases you most about it?
  6. This is my first book, and I’m really pleased with it. For one, it’s the best thing I’ve ever produced. I began my journey into poetry when my father encouraged me to start reading books. From there, I eventually started writing a few poems of my own. I fell in love with the art form — it felt like magic, which, in many ways, it is.
    What pleases me most is being able to express all my visions and images through poetry. That, to me, is the greatest joy.

    Fiona McEwen: Victor Taylor reading at Poetry Live (April 1, 2025)


  7. Is there anything about it that displeases you?
  8. Nothing really displeases me about poetry itself — except perhaps the continuous wave of confessionalist poetry. At its height, particularly around 2022 and 2023, it felt like a dense cloud of pathological blackness. That trend became overwhelming. Recently, I noticed an new style of poetry I call “Encryptic” poetry - emerging in 2025.
  9. Which people - writers, artists, musicians, or otherwise - have influenced you most?
  10. Many people have influenced me. In the early days, I probably absorbed too much from others, which made it difficult to develop my own voice. That’s a common challenge when you’re starting out. But over time, with more experience, I’ve learned how to hold on to my own style while still drawing inspiration from others.
    My dad — who’s a great poet — introduced me to many poets early on. I was especially drawn to the Romantic symbolists: Blake, Keats, Shelley. More recently, I’ve been reading Bob Kaufman, whose work offers a different kind of intensity and rhythm.
    These days, with Facebook full of poetry groups and so many styles circulating, I think originality is more important than ever. I also have several friends who are poets, and being around them keeps me sharp and engaged with the craft.
  11. Joseph Campbell said "Follow your bliss" - what's your bliss?
  12. Apart from pepperoni pizzas? Well — fantasy, and useless metaphysical ideas.
  13. What are you reading at the moment? Poetry, or something else?
  14. I’m currently reading American Literature, which I was introduced to through my university course at Massey. Some of the authors include Henry James, Emily Dickinson, Sylvia Plath, and many others. I’m also chipping away at Dracula.

Father's Day (July 6, 2018)
l-to-r: Finnegan, Ellery, Richard & Victor Taylor


Times like this make life worth living
- Richard Taylor





Wednesday, May 21, 2025

The "Red Flag" Bookshelf Revisited


Jess McHugh: "Top 7 Warning Signs in a Man's Bookshelf"
[@MchughJess, Twitter, 24 August 2020]


In his fascinating essay "Unpacking the 'Red Flag' Bookshelf: Negotiating Literary Value on Twitter." [English Studies. 103:5 (2022): 706-731], my friend - and former collaborator on the Aotearoa New Zealand Poetry Sound Archive - Edmund King expertly breaks down the context and larger implications of the list above.

In particular, he reveals - to ignorant ol' cellphoneless me, at any rate - the existence of a personage known as the "lit-bro":
The “Lit-Bro,” according to Geoff Baillie [in his article "Bro, Do You Even Lit?The Strand (2015)] was “that guy in your English course: loquacious” and “eager to impress,” but chauvinistic towards women and ultimately utilitarian in his approach to literature. “Rather than reading for enjoyment or enlightenment,” Baillie suggested, “Lit-Bros treat reading as a means to show off how smart and cultured they are.”
King goes on to suggest that the consequent wide take-up of the term "indicates that the lit-bro resonated with a much wider audience than students in graduate-level American creative writing courses."

That's putting it mildly! I've certainly run into more than my fair share of lit-bros myself ... Alas, I always lacked the poise and savoir-faire to aspire to that lofty perch myself.

But Jess McHugh's list presumably exists more as an early warning system for the detection of potential stalkers and serial killers than of the lesser menace of mansplaining pseuds. There'd be a lot more lit theory and L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry on the latter's shelves, I would imagine.

Before we begin to break down the reasoning behind McHugh's particular selections, though, it might be as well to point out (as King does) the complex prehistory of such lists:
The title selections in McHugh’s tweet ... resonated with already existing expressions of the “problematic male bookshelf” theme (such as the contents of Dana Schwartz’s 2019 satire, The White Man’s Guide to White Male Writers of the Western Canon). Although this was not a deliberate reference on McHugh's part, the seemingly metatextual quality generated by these resemblances may have especially appealed to Twitter users already familiar with the genre.
Long before the rise of Twitter, it would appear, lists of “dating red flags” were "an established publishing and advice column phenomenon." In particular:
the most visible application of the “red flag” meme format to bookshelves in the context of dating lay in a series of list-format online articles that appeared in the early 2010s. In a June 2012 Flavorwire article, Emily Temple sought to identify which “books might send a potential mate running for the hills should they be spotted on your nightstand or peeking out from your back pocket.” Based on anonymous contributions from readers and other Flavorwire writers, her article listed J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, Ayn Rand, Charles Bukowski, Hunter S. Thompson, Hemingway, and “Anything — I don’t care if it’s Infinite Jest or Lolita or Moby-Dick — if it’s on an e-reader.”
This article gave rise to a good deal of correspondence about just why these particular texts were so problematic:
Thompson readers were suspected of straightforwardly identifying with the author, one interviewee commenting that “I have never met a dude who was super-into Hunter S. Thompson who didn’t also wish he were Hunter S. Thompson.” A similar collapse of boundaries between book and reader also applied to Catcher in the Rye. “In my personal experience, any man over a certain age who still idolizes this book also still acts like a child,” one respondent noted.
And so, brick by brick, the "red flag" canon was built:
A 2014 BuzzFeed article took the idea of identifying books with their male readers as an explicit conceit. Structured as a series of short, quick-fire conversations among six female contributors, the piece made humorous predictions about what various books would be like if they were reimagined as dating prospects. Infinite Jest would be “a self-identified feminist who mansplains feminism at you” and tells you “race isn’t real,” while A Farewell to Arms would be “So hot you don’t know why he’s single … until you do.”

Dr. Kit Bryson, Jean-Luc Legris & Selina Fitzherbert: The Complete Naff Guide (1984)


I have to say that all this puts me in mind of such would-be side-splitting self-help manuals of the past as The Complete Naff Guide (which did admittedly while away many a weary hour for me in the 1980s); or - to go back even further - to Nancy Mitford's snobbish nonsense about "U and Non-U" English; or (for that matter) to Stephen Potter's comprehensive guide for social climbers, One-Upmanship (1952).


Richard Buckle, ed.: U and Non-U Revisited (1978)


So it's not by any means that I'm blind to the attraction of such lists. I guess their appeal is two-fold, really. On the one hand, we want to laugh at other people's bad taste; on the other hand, we want to confirm our own superior acumen (if only by avoiding the texts so handily identified for us in advance) ...

Since McHugh's original tweet in 2020, King informs us, her list has inspired a number of other viral tweets on the “red flag bookshelf” meme:
These included one posted by the American comedian Michele Wojciechowski ... on 10 May 2021 that asked, “You’re on a first date with someone and they tell you the name of their favorite book. You immediately leave. What’s the book?” and received nearly 26,000 replies, 27,500 quote tweets (many of which nominated suggested titles), and 37,800 likes.



Kat Rosenfield: "top warning signs in a woman’s bookshelf"
[@katrosenfield, Twitter, 24 August 2020]


The next step in the response to McHugh's tweet was, naturally enough, a series of speculations on the possible “warning signs in a woman’s bookshelf”:
A diverse range of female- and male-coded accounts produced parody ... sub-tweeted lists that consciously appropriated and redirected the negative potential of these stereotypes, featuring Anais Nin, Camille Paglia, Louisa May Alcott, Jane Austen’s Emma, Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, Cheryl Strayed, Elizabeth Gilbert, “a dog-eared copy of Rebecca,” The SCUM Manifesto, and the assertion that “Wuthering Heights is my favourite book.”
This sub-branch of the meme probably requires its own separate commentary - though I certainly appreciate that detail about the shrunken human head shelved behind a copy of Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu ... What I can't quite work out, though, is whether this constitutes a critique or an endorsement of the French writer's somewhat fluid gender identity. Or neither. It's still pretty funny, though.

No, I think I'd better just stick to the straight and narrow and continue to speculate just why Jess McHugh's original group of authors have ended up in the dogbox. To recapitulate, then, her not-so-magnificent seven are (in alphabetical order):
  1. Charles Bukowski
  2. Johann Wolgang von Goethe
  3. Ernest Hemingway
  4. Vladimir Nabokov
  5. Ayn Rand
  6. Ivan Turgenev
  7. David Foster Wallace

  8. To these we should probably add the two further writers in Emily Temple's 2012 Flavorwire article (she also mentions Moby-Dick in passing, but only if it's "on an e-reader", so I think we can absolve Herman Melville from inclusion - for now, at least):

  9. J. D. Salinger
  10. Hunter S. Thompson

  11. But the roll of dishonour doesn't really end there. King mentions that a large number of the responses to McHugh's original tweet listed:
    additional “warning sign” authors and titles. The most commonly suggested titles were J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye and Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, with five nominations each. Other titles and authors suggested by more than one user were Robert Greene’s 1998 self-help book, The 48 Laws of Power (three nominations), Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club (two nominations), and Friedrich Nietzsche (two nominations) ...
    My own simple strategy of comparing my book collection to the "warning signs" list "and then simply tallying how many of its seven items they owned or had read" was also (unsurprisingly) anticipated by a number of the male respondents.
    Several users suggested that their ownership of titles by William S. Burroughs, Mark Danielewski, Bret Easton Ellis, H. P. Lovecraft, and Mark Twain might also be “problematic.”
    So where does that leave us? With a lot more candidates for inclusion, obviously:

  12. Jack Kerouac’s On the Road (1957)
  13. Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power (1998)
  14. Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club (1996)

  15. along with the following authors:

  16. William S. Burroughs
  17. Mark Danielewski
  18. Fyodor Dostoevsky
  19. Bret Easton Ellis
  20. H. P. Lovecraft
  21. Friedrich Nietzsche
  22. Mark Twain
It's all a bit messy, since sometimes a particular book is specified, and sometimes the entire tenor of an author's work is in question, but I'd suggest that a master-list of all of these "red flag" authors, each with a "representative" title, could easily be compiled along the following lines:
[NB: If I own any books by the author in question, I've put the name in bold;
if I own that particular title, I've put that in bold, too].


  1. Burning in Water, Drowning in Flame: Selected Poems 1955-1973. 1974. Santa Rosa, California: Black Sparrow Press, 1989.
  2. There is something a little cultish about Bukowski's admirers. He's generally the only poet they read, and the blunt reductiveness of his style is seen by them as a kind of guarantee of integrity. And yet, having said that, there must be a reason that I still own a number of his books - as well as a copy of Howard Sounes' biography Locked in the Arms of a Crazy Life (1998). His horror and despair resulted in some terrifyingly effective poems - not to mention the blank, Beckettian neurosis of his "novels". I wouldn't want to meet him, but I do think he has something unique to say. He shows no sign of fading on the page, as so many modish authors do.
    Edmund King records in his essay that one of the tweets prompted by McHugh's list "suggested that stigmatising Bukowski readers could be regarded as 'classist'.” Whether or not one accepts that contention, King also mentions a tweet thread:
    by the American screenwriter Melissa Turkington ... [which] posted (with her own affirming commentary) photographs of an anonymous female reader’s disparaging marginalia that she had discovered in a second-hand copy of Charles Bukowski’s Love Is a Dog from Hell (1977).
    So the battle-lines have certainly been drawn.


  3. Naked Lunch. 1959. Introduction by J. G. Ballard. Flamingo Modern Classics. London: Flamingo, 1993.
  4. I feel a lot less equivocal about owning Naked Lunch - along with most of Burrough's other works - than those few books by Bukowski. As for reading him: well, many of his texts - particularly during the 'cut-ups' era - are admittedly a bit of a chore. There is, however, a central core of terrifyingly visceral work saying some things about modern society which could only have come from so complete an outsider as Burroughs.
    Does he still have fans? Maybe. I've never met any. For the most part, like so many counter-culture authors, he seems to be read now mostly by aging hippies and literature professors (not that these categories are mutually exclusive).


  5. House of Leaves. 2000. London: Doubleday, 2001.
  6. I did enjoy House of Leaves - but then, I'm rather keen on odd layouts for books, and Danielewski must have driven his printers mad with all those blocks of differently-sized text leaking into marginalia and other acts of graphic bravado. The story was solid, though - if a little over-elaborated in parts - and it was a certain feeling of anticipation that I opened the copy of his follow-up novel, Only Revolutions (2006), which I'd purchased from a local second-hand bookshop. They had a stack of them there, oddly enough. I wonder why?
    I don't know who his target audience was - "lit-bros", perhaps - but this new book was unfortunately a long way outside my comfort zone. The article about it on Wikipedia does its best to explain it as follows:
    By reading both stories some sense can be made from this poetic styled puzzle. The words written are a vague mix of poetry and stream of consciousness prose. Both Hailey and Sam depict their feelings as well as ideas and thoughts towards one another.
    Is that enough to sustain interest through all those hundreds of tightly-packed pages, though? Not for me, alas. His projected 27-part epic The Familiar (2015-2017) appears to have bogged down after a mere five volumes. He's certainly a talented writer, and perhaps future ages will hail him as a genius, but (for now, at least) I fear my interest peaked with House of Leaves.


  7. Crime and Punishment. 1866. Trans. Constance Garnett. 1914. The Novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Vol. 4 of 12. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1964.
  8. I first came across a link to Edmund King's intriguing essay in the replies below a May 1, 2025 facebook post by David Hering, entitled "The absolute worst cultural trend of the last decade staggers on." Hering went on to add, with the caption "What the hell, sure":
    Zachary Norwood replied to this: "This is sad. Lolita and Crime and Punishment are necessary reads, imho."
    While he isn't included in King's analysis of the responses to McHugh's tweet, Dostoevsky does seem a natural candidate for the list, given the notorious gloominess and psychological intensity of many of his plots. Whether or not it's true that his work appeals more to adolescents than to "mature" adults, there's no doubt that it contains a good deal of tortured introspection.
    What's more, like most nineteenth-century Russian novels, his later works (in particular) are very long, and therefore somewhat time-consuming to read. They certainly match the paradigm of being exceptionally difficult and demanding common to many of the other items included here. For myself, I'd gladly reread The Brothers Karamazov or The Idiot, but it's been a long time since I felt the impulse to revisit Crime and Punishment or The Possessed.


  9. American Psycho (1991)
  10. I do remember seeing the ugly-looking paperback version of this book for sale in local bookshops - in a clingfilm wrapper so that children wouldn't pick it up and chance upon some appallingly gruesome scene which might scar them for life. It was the first time I'd seen such an extreme reaction to a novel in these parts, but I fear that even that didn't tempt me to read it. I've never been a big fan of splatter-movies and gore in general.
    Of course, the book is far more sophisticated than that (as we were told ad nauseam by various wiseacres at the time): a satire on the shallowness and consumerism of the 1980s. I did eventually watch the movie, but - dare I say it? - found it more boring than anything else. The murder scenes were nasty, but it was all the stuff about business cards and ties and so on which was really yawn-making. I understand that that was the point Ellis was making, but there's always a certain risk in underlining just how boring some things are by portraying them boringly.
    Again, I've never met anyone who seemed to admire the book or to have enjoyed reading it, but it certainly made Bret Easton Ellis a mountain of moola and confirmed his status as an "edgy" star author.


  11. The Sufferings of Young Werther. 1774. Trans. Bayard Quincy Morgan. 1957. London: John Calder, 1976.
  12. The question "Why Goethe?" is a pretty obvious one, and it's one which came up repeatedly in the response to McHugh's original tweet:
    A representative example of these tweets asked, “What’s wrong with Goethe? Wilhelm Meister is wonderful.”
    Goethe's numerous love affairs might be regarded as somewhat problematic, I suppose, though hardly affecting his status as a "classic" author. Luckily King is able to tell us why he's there:
    The large number of users puzzled by Goethe’s presence in the list ... were presumably unaware of Goethe’s inclusion in earlier iterations of “problematic male bookshelf” discourse, such as Dana Schwartz’s White Man’s Guide to White Male Writers of the Western Canon. The specific pushback against Goethe’s inclusion also, perhaps, illustrates the highly US-centric nature of the “red-flag bookshelf” meme. A German Twitter user would likely have a very different response to Goethe’s presence on the list than an American user familiar with Schwartz’s book and, perhaps, with Goethe’s recent appropriation by certain platform-based micro-celebrities associated with “incel” (involuntary-celibate) American internet subcultures.
    I'm assuming that it's his early novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers which inspired the interest of these "micro-celebrities." It's useful, too, to be informed what "incel" (mentioned in Kat Rosenfield's tweet above) means - as well as being reminded how "US-centric" all this palaver actually is.


  13. The 48 Laws of Power (1998)
  14. I hadn't previously heard of this book, so it's been quite interesting to read up on it. In the Reviews section of the Wikipedia article devoted to Greene, I note the following reactions:
    People's Magazine has referred to it as "a wry primer for people who desperately want to be on top." Allure described the book as “satisfyingly dense", and "literary", and continued that it is filled "with fantastic examples of genius power-game players" ... Jerry Adler, writing in Newsweek, lists ways the laws contradict one another and states, "Intending the opposite, Greene has actually produced one of the best arguments since the New Testament for humility and obscurity." Kirkus Reviews said Greene offers no evidence to support his world view, that his laws contradict each other, and that the book is "simply nonsense".
    Still, it so impressed the rapper 50 Cent that he proposed a collaboration between Greene and himself to produce a sequel. The result, The Fiftieth Law, became, in due course, another bestseller.
    The 48 Laws of Power does sound as if it's earned its place on any respectable "red flag" list, but perhaps I'm just biassed against self-help books in general ...


  15. A Farewell to Arms. 1929. Penguin Modern Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965.
  16. I haven't read it for many years, but this novel affected me greatly when I was a teenager. I still recall many passages from it, and it's hard for me to see it as constituting any kind of disgrace either to its author or its many admirers.
    It's important to note that what McHugh actually says is: "Too Much Hemingway", rather than citing any particular text (or texts). So the question then becomes, how much is too much? And, as usual, I fear the answer may be: "If you have to ask, then you're already in trouble."
    My own obsession with literary completism means that collecting Hemingway involves all of Hemingway: novels, stories, travelogues, biographies and memoirs included. But then that's probably a problem of a different stripe from the one envisaged by McHugh.



    Jack Kerouac

    Jack Kerouac
    (1922-1969)


  17. On the Road. 1957. London: Pan Books Ltd., 1967.
  18. This one, too, I read as a teenager, but I'm afraid that even then I found it a bit difficult to understand what all the fuss was about. I'd been expecting something considerably more revolutionary and mind-bending, I suppose.
    I suppose a generalised fear of hippiedom in general is not entirely unreasonable, but otherwise I would see this as a fairly innocuous addition to any respectable bookshelf.


  19. "The Horror at Red Hook" (1925). In Dagon and Other Macabre Tales. Ed. August Derleth. 1965. Sauk City, Wisconsin: Arkham House, 1975.
  20. The thing to note about Lovecraft is that he wore his prejudices on his sleeve to such an extent that they're impossible to ignore. His phobias included (according to a blogpost by David Haden):
    • Gelatinous seafood and the smell of fish (severe).
    • Unfamilar types of human faces that deviated from his ethnic norm (severe).
    • Doctors and hospitals (mild).
    • Large enclosed spaces - subway systems, large caves etc. (mild).
    • He also seems to have had a mild phobia about tall buildings and the possibility of being trapped under one after a collapse.
    • Very cold weather (probably justifiable, since he tended to faint in it).
    He was, to be quite honest, one sick puppy. And yet ... there's something endearing about him, nevertheless. He was such a simple soul - so fond of writing to his friends about his latest antiquarian and literary discoveries, so keen on travelling to strange cities and examining every architectural detail of their buildings.
    If you read through the five volumes of his Selected Letters (as I have) you begin to feel to know the man - and I have to say that a lot of the appallingly racist and sexist comments he made on a regular basis seem, in context, more like listening to a South Islander slag off Aucklanders than manifestations of a violent Ku Klux Klan-style mania. He was just as prone to look down on anyone who wasn't fortunate enough to have been born in Providence, Rhode Island as on people of other ethnicities. His wife, who was Jewish, asked him once how he could be such an antisemite in theory and still be married to her. "Oh, you're different," he replied. "You're civilised."
    I don't say this to excuse him (Heaven forbid!) but if you can get past your immediate sense of recoil at his racist rantings - generally in the context of fictional recreations of New York, which seems to have appalled and alienated him to an extraordinary degree during the 18 months or so he lived there - you may find the sheer gothic power of his writing and the acuteness of his intellect not without interest.


  21. Lolita. 1955. A Corgi Book. London: Transworld Publishers Ltd., 1965.
  22. King mentions that five of the tweets prompted by McHugh's list "defended Lolita’s literary value".
    One user judged it “brilliant” despite her having avoided reading it for many years due to its subject matter. Another female poster claimed that the book had a feminist message about the male domination of women and that any man who understood it in that way was “a keeper.”
    I used to tutor a university paper on the modern novel which included lectures on Lolita by Professor Brian Boyd, Nabokov's biographer. Any critical distance between author and biographer had long since evaporated during all his years of researching the great genius (whom, interestingly, he never met). To hear Brian talk, you'd think Lolita was a pure morality tale: a horror story told from the point of view of the monster. And there's something to be said for this view. I should know. Brian said it all - at length.
    Nabokov's own comments about the inspiration for the novel are interesting in this respect:
    As as I can recall, the initial shiver of inspiration was somehow prompted by a newspaper story about an ape in the Jardin des Plantes who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: the sketch showed the bars of the poor creature's cage.
    But is the ape to be identified with Humbert, confined in the cage of his own intricately self-justified perversion? Or is it "Lolita" (Dolores Haze herself) - warped by his remorseless abuse into the proud but damaged young woman we encounter briefly towards the end - who can see nothing beyond these manifestations of her own imprisonment?

    It's hard to imagine anyone actually being sexually aroused by the intricate logorrhoea of Nabokov's strange novel, but I suppose anything is possible. As a study in morbid psychology, it certainly does run the risk of encouraging readers to identify with the solipsistic Humbert rather than with his (carefully muted) victims, but that is the risk of fiction: no matter how ironic your intent, someone can always be found who will take it all literally.
    Did Nabokov himself share Humbert's proclivities? He does such an excellent job of portraying the mentality of such a man, that it does make one wonder. But then, if you did have such urges, would writing a confessional novel about them be such a wise procedure? And Nabokov was nothing if not canny.
    All in all, while he was clearly able to imagine a Humbert, there's really no reason to suspect that there was any more to what he was doing in the novel than that.


  23. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One. 1883-1885. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. 1961. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2003.
  24. In a way I envy those who can sit down and read through the works of Nietzsche. I have to say that I tend to nod off pretty quickly - but then that applies to my experience of the writings of most other Germanic metaphysicians. Dare I suggest that many of his staunchest admirers base their enthusiasm on a few stock aphorisms, plus some dim recollections of a first-year philosophy course?
    Du gehst zu Frauen? Vergiß die Peitsche nicht!
    "Goest thou to women? Forget not thy whip!" Certainly this particular piece of wisdom, from Also sprach Zarathustra, has not exactly endeared him to posterity. An interesting discussion on the Philosophy Forum suggests that, in context, Zarathustra may be referring here to "life" and "wisdom" as female personifications - thus implying that you should impose yourself upon life rather than simply submitting to it.
    Unfortunately for this reading, however, there are plenty of other misogynistic passages in Zarathustra's long rant which leave rather less room for manoeuvre:
    Surface is woman's soul, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water.
    Man's soul, however, is deep, its current gusheth in subterranean caverns: woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.
    It does appear to be true that Nietzsche's final work The Will to Power was edited for posthumous publication by his enthusiastically Nazi sister in order to align it more with the Führer's views. Nevertheless, I can see the justification in seeing copies of any of his works in pride of place as a danger sign in a potential partner.

    The most endearing thing about the man seems, in retrospect, to be his (alleged) sympathy for carthorses.


  25. Fight Club (1996)
  26. I do own one novel by Chuck Palahniuk. I had some discussions with a graduate student in our department who was studying his work, during which she did her best to convince me that it constituted some great Balzacian Comédie humaine of interlocking fictions.
    I didn't much like the film of Fight Club - though the book may well be better for all I know. It was impossible for me to persuade myself that a bunch of guys who saw Edward Norton beating himself up in a parking lot would immediately adopt him as their guru. Having a fist-fight with Brad Pitt, yes, maybe - but punching himself? Nah. They'd either laugh and move on, or give him a kicking themselves on general principles.
    The book of his I did end up buying was called Haunted: A Novel of Stories (2005). I'd hoped for something ghostly, but the first story concerned a boy who tried to use a vacuum cleaner for various nefarious purposes and ended up doing permanent damage to his insides. It just didn't seem either: 1/ life-enhancing; or 2/ plausible enough for me to take much of an interest in it.
    So I guess I'd have to see some justification for this one's red flag status, though our quondam PhD student would certainly demur.



    Ayn Rand

    Ayn Rand
    (1905-1982)


  27. Atlas Shrugged (1957)
  28. Well, I haven't read any of her books, so I don't really have a right to an opinion. Certainly the overall tenor of her views - as expounded in the various articles about her I have read - does sound a little on the reactionary side. Nor has the critical reponse to her work been particularly encouraging:
    Rand scholar Mimi Reisel Gladstein later wrote that "reviewers [of Atlas Shrugged] seemed to vie with each other in a contest to devise the cleverest put-downs", with reviews including comments that it was "written out of hate" and showed "remorseless hectoring and prolixity". Whittaker Chambers wrote what was later called the novel's most "notorious" review for the conservative magazine National Review. He accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming, "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'".
    In 2019, Lisa Duggan described Rand's fiction as popular and influential on many readers, despite being easy to criticize for
    her cartoonish characters and melodramatic plots, her rigid moralizing, her middle-to-lowbrow aesthetic preferences ... and philosophical strivings.
    All in all, beyond her immediate magic circle of "Objectivist" disciples, it's hard to find anyone much who seems to rate her either as a novelist or a philosopher.


  29. The Catcher in the Rye. 1951. Penguin Modern Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.
  30. Well, yes, like everyone else, I read this book as a teenager. I did enjoy it, but it didn't impress me as much as his short stories, to be honest. Franny and Zooey is probably my favourite book of his.
    The reason why Salinger came up in the correspondence caused by Emily Temple's 2012 Flavorwire article was apparently because of a "collapse of boundaries between book and reader" in the case of The Catcher in the Rye specifically:
    “In my personal experience, any man over a certain age who still idolizes this book also still acts like a child,” one respondent noted.
    Certainly a recent viewing of the 2013 Salinger documentary revealed just how many earnest seekers would try and hunt down the author in order to receive personal wisdom from him, so there could be something to be said for this point of view. It's a little extreme to equate everyone who "idolizes" the book with those who simply read it, though.


  31. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream. Illustrated by Ralph Steadman. 1971. London: Paladin, 1972.
  32. The responses to Emily Temple's 2012 Flavorwire article also contained the following aperçu about the apostle of gonzo journalism:
    Thompson readers were suspected of straightforwardly identifying with the author, one interviewee commenting that “I have never met a dude who was super-into Hunter S. Thompson who didn’t also wish he were Hunter S. Thompson.”
    I must confess to having myself read most of Thompson's works, including his collected letters. I've never felt any particular mission to become a gonzo journalist myself - I doubt I lack the stamina, for one thing - but Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, in particular, was very informative about the true nature of American politics. The same could be said of his other major works of reportage: Hell's Angels and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, in their very different ways.
    And yes, his super-fans can be a bit of a pain, but Thompson himself seems to me to have had more in common with the equally self-destructive F. Scott Fitzgerald than with most of the other coke-fuelled obsessives of his time. Like Jay Gatsby, Raoul Duke now feels like a figure locked in amber, lost in the dark backwards and abysm of the 1960s.


  33. Fathers and Children: A Novel. 1862. The Novels of Ivan Turgenev, 4. Trans. Constance Garnett. 1895. London: William Heinemann, 1926.
  34. Nabokov and Nietzsche, yes, I get it - even, perhaps, Goethe. But why has poor old Turgenev - or, rather, more specifically, his most celebrated novel, Fathers and Sons - ended up on this list?
    The rather dodgy Gateway to Russia website attempts an answer to the question "why iconic Russian novel 'Fathers and Sons' is still controversial today":
    Ivan Turgenev was ... the first author in Russian literature who openly raised the topic of the generational divide. “Aristocracy, liberalism, principles… Just think what a lot of foreign and useless words! To a Russian, they’re no good for anything!” This is what the young nihilist Bazarov thinks about the older generation and its conservative way of living. The novel’s title in Russian is “Otsyidety,” which has become a catchphrase still widely used today.
    Bazarov is certainly a bit of a pill, and meeting someone who admired him intensely might be rather a buzz-kill. The main problem Turgenev had with the novel, however, was that it simultaneously offended both the left and the right in Russia: the left because it failed to endorse Bazarov's nihilism; the right because it dared to air such questions at all in a non-judgemental context. ""Oh, those Russians", as Boney M. once put it. You just can't win.


  35. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 1884. Ed. Peter Coveney. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985.
  36. Mark Twain had a good deal to say on a great many subjects throughout the course of his chequered career. I don't quite know why anybody should feel ashamed to have his books on their shelves. True, Huck's companion on his raft-trip ("Come Back to the Raft Ag'in, Huck Honey!", in Leslie Fiedler's famous phrase) has a name which can no longer be repeated in polite society - a little like the title of Joseph Conrad's third novel - but is that really of consequence?
    For myself, Twain's strident denunciations of European colonial aggression in the Congo, coupled with his even more eloquent account of the attempts at genocide by the American government in the Philippines, would be sufficient in themselves be enough to place him on the side of the angels.
    "He was the Lincoln of our literature," stated William Dean Howells. Like Lincoln, his complex views on race and freedom have received almost as much criticism as praise in recent years. In the end, though, if you're blind to the merits of the great emancipator, then I suspect that you may have set your bar impossibly high.
    The same applies to Mark Twain. He never created a flawless book - but at his best, as in certain chapters of Huckleberry Finn, he wrote in letters of fire. As Hemingway said in The Green Hills of Africa: “It's the best book we've had. All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since."


  37. Infinite Jest: A Novel. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1996.
  38. Edmund King explains helpfully that: "Revelations of domestic violence by David Foster Wallace made in the context of the #MeToo movement in 2018 ... moved journalist Julius Taranto to publicly re-evaluate his youthful Wallace fandom":
    [Wallace’s] work reads differently to me now than it did then. I’m a little ashamed of how much I once loved it. It … seems sort of juvenile and aggressive in a way I didn’t sense before. It feels infected by postmortem evidence of his real-life moral failings, including his pretty shameful treatment of women.
    I did try to read Infinite Jest. After a few hundred pages, though, I found that my interest in the Canadian mafia and the intricacies of tennis was insufficient to motivate me to continue. Various friends reassured me of his brilliance, though, so I purchased a copy of the equally immense David Foster Wallace Reader, which included many of his short stories and other work.
    Alas, even there I found myself unable to proceed beyond a certain point. Wallace seemed to expend so many words to get to his objective that the subject matter itself began to buckle under the strain. How does Prince Hal put it while reading Falstaff's grocery list? "But one halfpennyworth of bread to this intolerable deal of sack!"
    I'm quite prepared to believe that this failure to finish is mine, not his - but I suppose the point I'm cranking around to, is that the presence of a book on a shelf may mean far less than it seems. The fact that it's still there could be an indication that its owner (or borrower) has not yet managed to get beyond the first page ...


When you see them en masse, I have to agree that there is something a little grim and depressing about this particular rogue's gallery of authors - but then, while there are many reasons for shutting yourself up in a small room and writing obsessively, the fact that you've been blessed by nature with extravagantly good looks isn't one of them.

As the rather sheepish owner of some 20,000 books, I have to say that that fact alone is more likely to form a lasting impression on any chance visitor than the presence (or absence) of any particular tome.

Some of those who tweeted in response to McHugh's original list
suggested that owning no books, using bookshelves for any purpose other than housing books, or not being able to specify a favourite author when asked should also qualify as potential “red flags.”
That's certainly not my problem. Naming a single "favourite author" might be a little more challenging, however - given the bewildering catholicity of my tastes.
The strategies embodied in these tweets resemble the “I know perfectly well, but still … ” formula ... [In] this way, readers either strategically disavow their own literary tastes (but in ambivalent ways that enable them to maintain emotional distance), or, via absurdist humour or provocative self-implication, seek to undermine the logic of the meme itself.
Yep, that pretty much sums up the purpose of this post, I'd say. I didn't think I'd get away with it unscathed - but it's nice to know that King had my type of would-be smart-arse pegged in advance.
The [2014 BuzzFeed] piece ends by straightforwardly offering market intelligence to the (single) male reader. The types of dating partner most in demand, it asserts, are men who read diverse authors (“NOT JUST DEAD STRAIGHT WHITE DUDES”) but not in a too-obvious or tokenistic way (by, for instance, claiming to like Zadie Smith’s White Teeth simply in order to “shout,” unconvincingly, that “‘I RESPECT WOMEN!’”).
I don't know about America, but certainly in New Zealand it'd be rare to find many books at all in most of the flats and apartments one enters - so I doubt it's a comparably major determinant in mating rituals in these parts.


Otago Daily Times: Brittany McKinnel and Natasha Pelham in their Brown St flat
Photography: Peter McIntosh (28/9/2011)