William T Vollmann Central discussion

True or False? This review, titled "Empathy for the Devil" would have it that The Atlas is Vollmann's most accessible work. Vrai edo Valse?

And on another topic entirely, the 65% of that review that I actually read seemed pretty darn positive. Why, though, are virtually all Vollmann reviews highly qualified? How often does a reviewer say Vollmann's great, as opposed to the thousands of reviewers who reference his reputation for greatness... reputation as exhibited only in deference to some theoretical other party, with a little bit of skeptical reserve on the part of the one who is citing it?

And why are none of Vollmann's books his best work? I mean, Father's and Crows may be referenced as his best work, but only in a review of Europe Central, as a way of qualifying, saying "this isn't his best work." I expect a review of Fathers and Crows to also proclaim "this isn't his best work." Undoubtedly that would be Afghanistan Picture Show. Or something.

So um, repost in the atlas thread ; and perhaps another , general vollmann discussions or that thing about We Need a Thread With No Obligations or Orientations . But good q.

EDIT -- nevermind.

The Atlas Q in the Atlas thread ::
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Meanwhile, by retitling this thread, I found a way to both preserve the integrity of Z's post and my own anal=ness about organization.

So, is it too soon to state in an unqualified manner which exactly is Vollmann's best work?

I tend to think that he's not read widely enough and critically enough yet for any kind of consensus to be formed. I mean, I say that I suspect his Dreams will be what he's remembered for, but then I've gotta stop and recall the other great stuff too.

Accessibility? I've no clue.

Venturing an opinion, perhaps the completion of the 7 Dreams will help decide that question, and we might want to consider the fiction aside from the non-fiction. Just two minor thoughts, Nathan.

The ideal situation is probably to be respected without one definitive "best," or consensus-best. Once an artist is identified with a single work, it's easy to ignore the rest. But it interests me that in Vollmann's case it seems that reviewers like to point out that each of his works is not his best. It's like a violation of some grammatico-mathematico-logico law or something.

Also, on the other hand, etc., every reader seems to have a different favorite. It's not like it's a split between two or three clear choices. Even among us fanatical folks, looking only at the seven dreams, each of the books published so far is, to someone, the definitive best yet, while to others its okay, but not as good as XYZ.

Do you think it would be profitable for us to split into clans? Or perhaps we could just apply for honorary membership in the various native tribes that are represented. By default I'll have to go with the Powhatans, though I've always thought the Tsalagi/Cherokee were more my style.

Jeff wrote: "Venturing an opinion, perhaps the completion of the 7 Dreams will help decide that question, and we might want to consider the fiction aside from the non-fiction. Just two minor thoughts, Nathan."

But I'm ready to crown the Dreams now! Or, rather, when we get The Dying Grass next summer I think all hesitation in my mind will cease. (but I'm forever prejudiced toward the Dreams because it was the Ice-Shirt which turned me V-manniac within the first dozen pages)

The non-fic/fic distinction, yes, should be fruitfully made. I'm almost entirely ready to give that crown to RURD, even if within its own area of research it hasn't even made the slightest echo --- but I'm not sure that over all and as to form and undertaking etc that perhaps it might be Imperial which gets to wear The Purple.

Zadignose wrote: "The ideal situation is probably to be respected without one definitive "best,""

I'm just going to generally skip out on the obligation of picking The One Without Qualification because I want to say "Conceptual Continuity". I have to take Bill's whole work as a whole. Of sorts. What makes him totally Hype-able is the totality of what he's done. It's like asking for The Best Zappa Record -- it does rather miss the point, don't it?

But lack of consensus as to The Best Vollmann -- is this due perhaps to the fact that we readers and critics etc haven't read him long enough to figure out which criteria etc according which to make determinations such as good-better-best? I mean, what's the criteria? Mass, page-count, number of interviewees? Years-in-writing? Profundity? Sales figures? Ratings and Reviews on gr? [of course those are all facetious criteria....]

Just to say that in order to make the judgement, The Best, we have to know enough about the work in order to decide upon the appropriate method/criteria of making that judgement.

But too like I said for me the fundamental unit is not The One Book, but The Whole Damn'd Corpus.

Well the reviewer does label Markson a maximalist which is just so fundamentally wrong as to be funny, so am not sure about the validity of their comments...

The Dreams sequence is, for me, the most impressive of his projects - when (and if!) completed it will surely stand as one of the Great Works - the range of its scope and ambition is breathtaking and I don't think there are any writers around today who get close to it.

The Rifles is my favourite fiction.
and Rising Up and Rising Down my favourite non-fiction.