Saw

by Steve Katz

The first work of fiction ever to hide a hippopotamus, "Saw" is a milestone novel of the 1970s. Katz, acclaimed by "The New York Times Book Review" as a "witty fantasist who can homogenize pop detritus, campy slang and hallucination to achieve inspired chaos", offers a work of science fiction, irrefutable fact, and gourmand fantasies. **Lightning Print On Demand Title

Genres: Fiction, Novels

170 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Steve Katz (May 14, 1935 – August 4, 2019) was an American writer. He is considered an early post-modern or avant-garde writer for works such as The Exagggerations of Peter Prince (1968), and Saw (1972).

Reviews

[Nathan "N.R." Gaddis]

RIP Georg (29Dec18) ::





He is survived by Eurphrates ::



by Tigris ::



and by Finnegan ::





Etc ....
And, as promised, Katz Himself ::



I’m sure no one will give me voice or vote, but I think any one of my Katz would serve better as The Astronaut than would Mr Katz. And, to be clear, I have no knowledge as to the reason that Saw is called “Saw” except that the working title was all too direct.

Steve Katz is Creamy & Delicious. He has written a few books lately with suspicious titles ;; Wier and Pouce and Swanny's Ways. His first book is called Exagggerations of Peter Prince (“ggg” sic) which looks like a glorified children’s book without pictures and a lotlot more words. Our BURIED author even has a new book being released from the crypt shortly and it is called The Compleat Memoirrhoids: 137.n. Order yours today.

And here is the obligatory Note on the Type, because real human craftspeople did this ::




[A note on my own lack of type :: in fact this photo collage anti-review took more work on my part (more effort) than would my usual xxx-word review. I chose this format today for reasons of ART, not of expediency, efficiency, nor sufficient quantities of laziness. Quite the contrary. In fact, The Astronaut himself has said, and I quote, “You ought to use a camera. You can never catch the flavor of this scene using mere language.” Unquote.]

[MJ Nicholls · Rating 3 out of 5]

Saw, you say? I see Saw, I hee-haw. You see Saw, you hee-haw? Say, you saw Saw, no hee-haw? I say Saw, you see, hee-haw, you may say Saw, you no hee-haw. Saw’lright.

[A.D. Jameson · Rating 5 out of 5]

SAW is one of the best novels I have ever read. It deserves to be considered among the great novels of the late 60s / early 70s, alongside John Cheever's BULLET PARK, Rudy Wurlitzer's NOG, Philip K. Dick's THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH, and Barry Malzberg's GALAXIES. It is totally far-out! I wish more people knew about this book, but maybe it is destined only for those special few who are willing to read something that can totally destroy, then rebuild them as a person?

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book I have ever read that nobody has ever heard of or recommended to me. I wanted to read Creamy & Delicious but since it’s out of print I got Saw instead. Hilarious and fascinating, definitely captures the spirit and feeling of New York in a really strange way, maybe like being on acid in the summer. In terms of themes and meaning, your guess is as good as mine. That’s the fun of it.

I’m off to buy every other Katz book I can find.

[Geoffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is kind of amusing at first, but it kind of wears out its welcome a bit and gets sort of tedious with its nonsensical meanderings (also, there's a moderate amount of the usual kind of chauvinism). Notwithstanding that I kind of liked The Exagggerations of Peter Prince, I feel like generally, Katz is a writer who might be best appreciated in the short-story format.

[Hannah Fennell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the ideas are fun, but I think I am over male authors for a little bit. The first chapter was very entertaining, but perhaps I couldn’t keep up with the rest of it? A lot to think about, and a lot I don’t necessarily want to think about. Very sexual, VERY male centric hmmm

[Brent Legault · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the very definition of hippy-dippy. Do you remember Laugh-In? (Or were you too stoned?) Well, youtube it for five or so minutes and you will have suffered through something similar to what Saw does, minus the laughter. There is no intentional laughter in Saw, only the unintended kind, and even that is on a laugh track, faintly heard. Saw may have had a fresh sensibility upon its initial publication (1972?), but since then, Saw hasn't seen better days.