Comments on: February 8, 2010 — Roberto Bolaño: “William Burns”

By: Trevor

Trevor — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:41:00 +0000

Hi Laura. I read your review and tried to leave a comment but it wouldn’t process my OpenID credentials. So here’s what I said. Hopefully soon I’ll figure out how to get around whatever is blocking my comments:

Glad to see another New Yorker forum! And it’s also nice to see the debut feature such an obscure and difficult piece of fiction. Some would disagree that it is “difficult” because “difficult” connotes some sort of worth — it could be worthless. I don’t see it that way anymore. I am also one whose relationship with Bolaño developed from rocky to very indulgent. I have no idea what this story is really saying, if it is really saying anything, but I loved the ride and stopped minding the “huh?” factor several stories ago. There never has been a doubt in my mind, however, that the man could write beautiful, vibrant prose. I think this piece is no exception in “huh?” or beautiful, vibrant prose.

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0000

http://laurasnewyorker.blogspot.com/2010/02/william-burns-by-roberto-bolano.html

The above link goes to my blog post talking about the story if anyone is interested.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:18:10 +0000

There's a spot-on quote (for me, anyway) at the end of The New York Times' review of Monsieur Pain (reviewed by me here).

It is Bolaño's great gift to make us feel the dimensions of this darkness even when we cannot see exactly what it hides.

I think that puts it nicely, though it certainly doesn't make things any clearer.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:27 +0000

I don’t think you were excessive, Kevin. I have a great admiration of your taste and discernment — and I sometimes wonder if I should feel the exact same way about Bolano! What a perverse admiration I have for this author! Strange to admire someone because they make you wonder if there’s any substance there at all (which is not, I assure you, the basis of my admiration for your literary views :) ). Still, my conversion story can be found in By Night in Chile; I think that got me through the curtain, though the room on the otherside is still dark. I’d be interested in your take on it, Kevin, but don’t call this a recommendation. When people say they don’t like Henry James, I have to wonder about their ability to read (I am making my way through more of his work now, and will have some reports in the future); when people say they don’t like Bolano, I have to say “I understand fully.”

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:24:43 +0000

Perhaps I was a tad excessive in my comment. Still, I think I’ll leave Bolano to others.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:50:09 +0000

I’m not sure I would read it that way, Colette. I don’t think these people have normal motives, just irrational fear. And that tie into one reason I don’t agree with Kevin on Bolano: I think there is artistic value in presenting a situation in a way that makes us look for clues and patterns when really it is all arbitrary and pointless — or so it seems. I also think there is a point in that pointlessness given the politcical events from which Bolano is writing. There’s some intrique for me in trying to put an unsolvable puzzle together, though I realize that is not valuable tI’me for everyone, and I do agree that some have overstated Bolano’s case (even as I see myself swaying their way). There’s a great image in 2666 where there’s a book of geometry getting destroyed in the brutal desert. I think that perspective has helped me go along and enjoy Bolano more an more. Plus I beleive that By Night in Chile is one of the best structured novels I’ve read, showing that he is not all smoke and mirrors. And there are times I wonder whether I’m victim of a scam too — but that actually just makes me more intrigued at this point. I think his writing is self-conscious enough (he makes his readers feel compelled and disorientated just like his characters) that I can’t help but get a bit giddy t the prospect of the next one!

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:04:31 +0000

For me, the best thing about this story is that it will be the last Bolano that I will ever read. In my opinion, he has put over a tremendous scam on the reading world and I don’t intend to be part of it — the emperor is not wearing any clothes. The strength of this story is that you can discover that with relatively little effort or expenditure of time. Bolano weaves a complex scheme that doesn’t make sense — because it has no sense. That is pretty much consistent with the rest of his work. And trying to attach any meaning to that is all your work and not the author’s. Bolano has certainly impressed a lot of critics — I’m not one of them. I think he is a fraud of the first order.

By: Colette Jones

Colette Jones — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:45:42 +0000

Is Burns worried that the women might prefer Bedloe to him and goes into a jealous rage?

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:14:53 +0000

Upon a more mature re-reading (i.e., two hours after reading it the first time!), I see how “the killer” in this story is, of course, Burns himself. He brutally murders a complete stranger who never poses any serious threat to anyone.

As to what is behind this fear and the reflexive reaction it provokes, I suppose I’m not any closer to an answer than I was after reading 2666… but the journey was interesting.

With Bolano, I sometimes feel like I’m absorbing something profound on a subconscious level (at least I hope so, because it sure ain’t happening on a conscious level!)

By: Trevor

Trevor — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:27:32 +0000

Great that you found us, Joe! And particularly on this thread. The end of this story brought 2666 back to my mind too — particularly sudden out-of-control violence in Part I. I think there is definitely some fear underlying William Burns’ sudden kicking fit that caused him to kill the “killer.” What caused that fear, though? What makes such violence reflexive — and so matter-of-fact.