|
D: That’s a big one too. But I think William is on to something. To the degree that his methods, his techniques, are critical of canonical and conventional literature, they are, in and of themselves, besides being creative work, which, of course—I hate that word ‘creative writing’—besides that, they are criticism. W: In what way? D: You write literature and criticism simultaneously. Because— W: Really? S: Works that critique themselves while they’re critiquing society while they’re critiquing the nature of storytelling. D: And critiquing the conventions around the genres that they adopt, but only to spit upon, kick, turn inside out, warp, alter, transform, etc. etc. S: And yet with a gleeful sense of humor. D: Yeah. It’s great criticism because it’s funny, and it’s also literature. S: Great criticism, great witticism. D: All we’re doing is sort of tilting the axis a little more toward the critical side—we are attracting, or waiting for—a more conventional, quote unquote, type of criticism of the critical works that are criticizing the conventional blah blah blah blah and so on and so forth. S: Yeah— W: You guys like criticism? S: —which are unpublished. D: I love criticism. I think criticism is just as much an art form as literature is— W: Yup. S: Really good criticism. D: Yeah good criticism. S: Really bad criticism—[Raspberry.] D: Well, that’s just bad art. S: Yeah, um. But there’s some brilliant work being done by—uh—Critics. D: Oh yeah, there’s a hell of a lot of good— [William and Scott Laugh Uncontrollably] D: I don’t know if you people are in shape. S: Aw, I know. I love criticism. [Laughs] Okay, back to starting a movement. |
Transcript (2) 1:50 210K RealAudio Clip |
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
