Richard Derus's Reviews > Blackouts

This is on my very short list of the best novels I've read this year. Hope you enjoy it too.

David wrote: "This is on my very short list of the best novels I've read this year. Hope you enjoy it too."
Thank you, David. I hope I will, but honestly I bought it to support the author, so it's not too high a priority.

I've recently decided collective statements, speeches, open letters are maybe never the best idea. If each of these writers had stood up and said what they individually wanted to say--how they as individuals feel--that would have been completely to the good. It's their time, their honor. Making a collective statement like there is a powerful group called "NBA Winners" who can make a difference by binding together to make a statement? I don't like it.

Lark wrote: "I've recently decided collective statements, speeches, open letters are maybe never the best idea. If each of these writers had stood up and said what they individually wanted to say--how they as individuals feel--that would have been completely to the good. It's their time, their honor. Making a collective statement like there is a powerful group called "NBA Winners" who can make a difference by binding together to make a statement? I don't like it."

Like all other things in the realm of politics, it's theater. Performing on a bigger stage than any of them could've commanded alone. Groups are inherently dangerous because now, no matter what, all those people are committed to A Position. That could come back to haunt any of them, and could cause trouble for all of them if the darkest eventualities presently on our global horizon eventuate.

Collective action is preferable to individual inaction, or ineffectuality, but is not without repercussions for any and all of them. They took the limelight and made a statement. I hope their results won't be career-damaging. As to the Body Politic, I reiterate: Collective action is preferable to individual inaction.

I suspect the National Book Foundation itself supported this idea. It was much less disruptive to have a collective (and likely vetted) statement at the end, rather than unpredictable statements scattered throughout the night.

David wrote: "I suspect the National Book Foundation itself supported this idea. It was much less disruptive to have a collective (and likely vetted) statement at the end, rather than unpredictable statements scattered throughout the night."

They learned, then, from the Giller Prize embarrassment. Good on 'em.