Pastoralia - Suanders - Moderator Gail

[Kristel]

BOTM . By George Saunders is moderated by Gail.

[Gail]

Thank you Kristel.

Pastoralia, our May 2018 BOTM read, was first published in 2000. To begin, here is a short bio on George Saunders:

George Saunders (born December 2, 1958) is an American writer of short stories, essays, novellas, children's books, and novels. His writing has appeared in The New Yorker, Harper's, McSweeney's, and GQ. He also contributed a weekly column, American Psyche, to the weekend magazine of The Guardian between 2006 and 2008.
As a professor at Syracuse University, Saunders won the National Magazine Award for fiction in 1994, 1996, 2000, and 2004, and second prize in the O. Henry Awards in 1997. His first story collection, CivilWarLand in Bad Decline, was a finalist for the 1996 PEN/Hemingway Award. In 2006 Saunders received a MacArthur Fellowship. In 2006 he won the World Fantasy Award for his short story "CommComm".
His story collection In Persuasion Nation was a finalist for the Story Prize in 2007. In 2013, he won the PEN/Malamud Award and was a finalist for the National Book Award. Saunders's Tenth of December: Stories won the 2013 Story Prize for short-story collections and the inaugural (2014) Folio Prize. His novel Lincoln in the Bardo won the 2017 Man Booker Prize.

Phew!

[Gail]

Here is what Amazon has to say about the book, Pastoralia:

Hailed by Thomas Pynchon as "graceful, dark, authentic, and funny," George Saunders gives us, in his inventive and beloved voice, this bestselling collection of stories set against a warped, hilarious, and terrifyingly recognizable American landscape.

Here is a slightly more in-depth overview from Goodreads:

His remarkable first collection of stories was hailed by The New York Times as "the debut of an exciting new voice in fiction." Garrison Keillor called him wildly funny, pure, generous--all that a great humorist should be." With this new collection, George Saunders takes us even further into the shocking, uproarious and oddly familiar landscape of his imagination.

The stories in Pastoralia are set in a slightly skewed version of America, where elements of contemporary life have been merged, twisted, and amplified, casting their absurdity-and our humanity-in a startling new light. Whether he writes a gothic morality tale in which a male exotic dancer is haunted by his maiden aunt from beyond the grave, or about a self-help guru who tells his followers his mission is to discover who's been "crapping in your oatmeal," Saunders's stories are both indelibly strange and vividly real.

[Gail]

BOTM Pastoralia:

Here are some questions to contemplate BEFORE you start reading to get warmed up:

1) Although Saunders bio sounds as if he is an academic with many awards and with strong teaching credentials he himself talks about his environmental engineering work and his geophysical engineering work before going back to school for creative writing. He also mentions being a doorman, a roofer, a convenience store clerk, a guitarist for a country and western band and a knuckle-puller in a West Texas slaughterhouse.
Do you think these jobs will show up in this book of short stories and in what way?
Extra points for informing me as to what a knuckle-puller is.

2) There have been 25 editions of Pastoralia published since it came out in 2000 (some in other languages). If you click on the cover in Goodreads it will take you to all the various editions and all the different covers. They are all, well, odd.
If you could read any of them, which would you read and why?
What edition are you going to read?

3) Saunders has been compared to Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace. Have you read Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace? Does it make you want to read Saunders?

4) Have you read any other of Saunder's work? Which ones and what is your expectation for this book?

5) Saunder's book of short stories; CivilWarLand in Bad Decline really brought him into the public's eye and only after publishing short stories and essays did he publish his first novel Lincoln in the Bardo in 2017. Do you think that was a natural progression? Do you usually prefer reading short stories to short novels?

More questions to come once we start reading.

[Kristel]

Gail wrote: "Thank you Kristel.

Pastoralia, our May 2018 BOTM read, was first published in 2000. To begin, here is a short bio on George Saunders:

George Saunders (born December 2, 1958) is an American writer..."


Great job, Gail! I am looking forward to discussing this book. I’ve finished the book but need some time to process this question.

[Diane]

So I have read the book before so I will try and answer the questions not related to the book.

1) I will have to ask my mid-west friend if she knows what a knuckle-puller in slaughterhouse does.
2) I don't usually pick a book by its cover so I am not swayed by the photographs but yes they are odd. I think I read the addition with the deer on the front.
3) I have not read any Thomas Pynchon or David Foster Wallace.
4) Pastoralia is the only Saunders I have read.
5) I prefer novels to short stories but I have read quite a few short stories mainly for this group.

[Kelly_Hunsaker_reads]

1. I don't want to know what a knuckle-puller is. I already know it is gross. But, yes, I do think that his experiences will show in the book. I don't think it is possible that they wouldn't.

2. I don't get a choice as I get what the library obtains for me.

3. No. It is the opposite. I have read a Pynchon and didn't enjoy it...

4. I have Lincoln in the Bardo up next.

5. I much prefer novels, and rarely enjoy short stories.

[Pip]

1. I am hoping that his varied work experience will be reflected in his writing as he skewers America.
2. I loved the painting of the farming couple, him with a pitchfork and her with a bottle. I will be reading the Kindle edition though.
3. I loved David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest and didn't much like Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. I hated Lincoln in the Bardo. I have just realised that I listened to Audible versions of them all. I do want to read Pastoralia to see which end of the spectrum it falls
4. I think I disliked Lincoln in the Bardo because there were so many different voices and I couldn't tell one from another and I didn't know who were ghosts and who were real characters. So I am looking forward to actually reading some Saunders and see whether that makes a difference. This book was chosen for 1001 Books a while ago and I couldn't get a copy anywhere. Saunders is still not in New Zealand libraries, at least when I last looked, it may have changed since he won the Booker, but I was able to get a Kindle version this time.
5. Short stories to novels has been a natural progression for many writers. I love Alice Munro's stories. I think I really like short stories but I don't read enough of them.

[Chinook]

1. I don’t want to know about the knuckle-puller. I think his experiences will be reflected, though I don’t think of him as a particularly autobiographical writer, based on what I’ve heard.

2) the oddness of them all appeal to me. My library copy has the deer on the cover.

3) I’ve only read The Crying of Lot 49 and Consider the Lobster. Pynchon intimidates me. I really like DFW and don’t know why I haven’t sought out more by him.

4) No. I’ve heard a lot about him, but this will be my first.

5) I think that’s a common progression for a writer. As a reader, I’ve only come to appreciate short stories more recently, maybe he last decade or so. Before I thought I didn’t “get” them.

[George P.]

I did a search on "knuckle puller" and found a Youtube video of packinghouse workers cutting big sections of meat apart and also found a picture of an Orion T-4684 knuckle puller. Apparently it's a hydraulic device to assist in the deconstruction of a cow or whatever. But I still don't precisely know. I think he has made very good use in his writing of all the time he spent around blue collar workers.

Anyway I've been reading the book, which is my 1st by Saunders. I've read 2/3- and have found it pretty amusing- certainly not serious literature, but he has a great skill in depicting working- class characters realistically, and doing satire well is certainly a challenge. I wondered if he will put those skills to more serious use sometime? Has he done so in Lincoln in the Bardo?

I have read a bit of Thomas Pynchon (The Crying of Lot 49) and D F Wallace's book of essays A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again: Essays and Arguments (mini-spoiler: the "Fun Thing" is go on a cruise, and obviously he was right, sadly, he won't). I do see some similarity to their writing styles, exploring the lives of somewhat typical people and finding humor and pathos in them. Alice Munro does this very well also- I share Pip's admiration- Munro doesn't go as much for the humor though.

I haven't been a real big short story reader, but semi-regularly. Annie Proulx, Daphne du Maurier, Nadine Gordimer, and Jhumpa Lahiri are some of my favorite shorts writers- a few men also: E A Poe, Robert Sheckley, Hemingway. Some of them published shorts before any novels. BTW there is a Goodreads list of best books of short stories that I found interesting.
I read that F Scott Fitzgerald's wife encouraged him to write shorts rather than novels because there was a ready market for them in magazines of their time, and he could produce them much more quickly for a steady income. Good that he didn't stick to them exclusively isn't it?

[Diane]

1) Although Saunders bio sounds as if he is an academic with many awards and with strong teaching credentials he himself talks about his environmental engineering work and his geophysical engineering work before going back to school for creative writing. He also mentions being a doorman, a roofer, a convenience store clerk, a guitarist for a country and western band and a knuckle-puller in a West Texas slaughterhouse.
Do you think these jobs will show up in this book of short stories and in what way?

So far there are some very unusual jobs depicted in the book. I haven't come across any of those listed yet, though.

2) There have been 25 editions of Pastoralia published since it came out in 2000 (some in other languages). If you click on the cover in Goodreads it will take you to all the various editions and all the different covers. They are all, well, odd.
If you could read any of them, which would you read and why?
What edition are you going to read?

Mine has a deer on it. I think the deer goes with the title better than some of the other covers.

3) Saunders has been compared to Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace. Have you read Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace? Does it make you want to read Saunders?

I do see some similarities. I didn't care for the Pynchon book we read. I definitely like this one better. I think he is more similar to DFW, which I did like.

4) Have you read any other of Saunder's work? Which ones and what is your expectation for this book?

No, I haven't read any of his other books so I have no expectations.

5) Saunder's book of short stories; CivilWarLand in Bad Decline really brought him into the public's eye and only after publishing short stories and essays did he publish his first novel Lincoln in the Bardo in 2017. Do you think that was a natural progression? Do you usually prefer reading short stories to short novels?

It is a natural progression for a lot of authors. I like short stories, but I prefer novels.

[Kristel]

Although Saunders bio sounds as if he is an academic with many awards and with strong teaching credentials he himself talks about his environmental engineering work and his geophysical engineering work before going back to school for creative writing. He also mentions being a doorman, a roofer, a convenience store clerk, a guitarist for a country and western band and a knuckle-puller in a West Texas slaughterhouse.
Do you think these jobs will show up in this book of short stories and in what way?
Extra points for informing me as to what a knuckle-puller is.

I think that Saunder’s vast experiences in so many walks of life will give him a wider scope of what it means to be human in the US. I am trying to invasion a knuckle puller and I am thinking cows have hooves and I am assuming this is beef so not sure what knuckle would be pulled. Are they pulling the knees out from under the cow? So no can’t tell you what a knuckle puller is but it sounds like it might be nasty job.

2) There have been 25 editions of Pastoralia published since it came out in 2000 (some in other languages). If you click on the cover in Goodreads it will take you to all the various editions and all the different covers. They are all, well, odd.

If you could read any of them, which would you read and why?
What edition are you going to read?
I have a kindle edition and used the cave woman as my cover as it is the first story in the book. So it seemed to fit. Ugly cover though.

3) Saunders has been compared to Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace. Have you read Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace? Does it make you want to read Saunders?

I’ve read both Pynchon and David Foster Wallace in 2017 and 2018. I can see some similarities. I did want to read Saunders because I enjoyed his book and it seems like I read something else by Saunders and he is a good writer.

4) Have you read any other of Saunder's work? Which ones and what is your expectation for this book?

I’ve read Lincoln in the Bardo.

5) Saunder's book of short stories; CivilWarLand in Bad Decline really brought him into the public's eye and only after publishing short stories and essays did he publish his first novel Lincoln in the Bardo in 2017. Do you think that was a natural progression? Do you usually prefer reading short stories to short novels? Saunders always wanted to write a novel but was never able to do so until he wrote Lincoln in the Bardo. I think he was finally able to write a novel cause if you look at the structure of the book, it has a lot feel of the short story.

[Gail]

New Questions for those who have read Pastoralia.

1) Although Saunders is clearly a satirist with a dark comic view of American modern culture, did you find the stories to be largely laugh out loud funny or did they make you sad? Depressed? Both? Can you articulate why?

2) In relation to the first question, the characters are not people I have ever met, yet I found I was able to relate to their anxieties and to some foundation of their common humanity. Which characters did you relate to the most and why?

3) All of the stories outline a largely untenable situation which the characters have to deal with. Did any of the situations strike a particular chord in you so that you felt empathy with them?

4) While reading, did you have the sense that the stories were happening now, in the near future or actually in the near past? Did you find Saunders use of corp speak, pop phrases and colloquial language a delight or did it put you off?

5) Almost all the stories display and sometimes play with rigid gender roles. Our protagonist is almost always a male loser. What did you think about this? Did you find the women any more capable? How does Saunder’s writing style reflect these gender stereotypes?

6) Saunders is often credited with having capitalism as his major theme and yet he approaches this theme consistently but obliquely. Examples: having to “labor” at being caveman dumb and inarticulate, or “…great pity for the poor stiffs renting hazardous shitholes even smaller than his hazardous shithole”. Can you relate other references and speak to this theme?

7) And finally, which story was your favorite? And why? Do you want to read other short stories by Saunders?

[Diane]

I read this book back in 2014 so I don't think I can answer these questions in great detail. I will post my review which has snippets from the different stories. Overall I thought the book was amusing. I rated it 3 stars.

A book of 6 short stories. From Pastoralia "Do I note any attitudinal difficulties? I do not. How do I rate my Partner overall? Very good. Are there any Situations which require Mediation? There are not. I fax it in." I laughed every time I read this. From Winky, Neil attends a “freaking” seminar at the Hyatt to attend to unfinished business in his life. From Sea Oaks, “At Sea Oak there's no sea and no oak, just a hundred subsidized apartments and a rear view of FedEx.” “Guest rank us as Knockout, Honeypie, Adequate, or Stinker.” George Saunders seems to focus on the dark, seedy side of life.

[Liz M]

Gail wrote: "BOTM Pastoralia:

Here are some questions to contemplate BEFORE you start reading to get warmed up"

1. Do you think these jobs will show up in this book of short stories and in what way?
Saunders writes about "ordinary" people in a reality that is not quite our own. So I expect a couple of the characters will have jobs that are variations of jobs Saunders knows or has held.

2. If you could read any of them, which would you read and why?
What edition are you going to read?
I like the concept of this cover, if not the execution:


I am reading this edition:


3. Have you read Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace? Does it make you want to read Saunders?
Yes, I've read Pynchon and DFW, but Saunders makes me want to read Saunders.

4) Have you read any other of Saunder's work? Which ones and what is your expectation for this book?
I thoroughly enjoyed the audio of Tenth of December. I expect this will be more of the same -- short stories, some of which are brilliant, some that are thought-provoking but do not resonate, and maybe one that doesn't work for me. I expect a little weird.

5. only after publishing short stories and essays did he publish his first novel Lincoln in the Bardo in 2017. Do you think that was a natural progression?
No, I think short stories and novels are different art forms. Maybe not as different as painting and sculpture, but perhaps as different as Monet and Picasso.

[George P.]

"only after publishing short stories and essays did he publish his first novel Lincoln in the Bardo in 2017. Do you think that was a natural progression? "
Liz M wrote: No, I think short stories and novels are different art forms. Maybe not as different as painting and sculpture, but perhaps as different as Monet and Picasso. "

I'm not saying you're wrong Liz, but it's worth noting that Picasso did sculpture as well as painting, though his reputation is primarily as a painter. www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/arts/desig...
Admittedly, it's rather uncommon for an artist to do both.

[Gail]

Diane, Do you remember the stories well enough to remember if you had a favorite? There is something about his language which makes me think that they may all run together in my memory after a few years but I really appreciated The Falls.

[Kristel]

Liz M wrote: "Gail wrote: "BOTM Pastoralia:

Here are some questions to contemplate BEFORE you start reading to get warmed up"

1. Do you think these jobs will show up in this book of short stories and in what w..."


I agree that short story and novel are different forms like literature and play. Often an author does take a series of short stories and make them a novel but I don’t think Saunders does. I think Saunders is and will always be a short story author. I think Lincoln in the Bardo read like a short story more than it is like a novel.

[Liz M]

George wrote: "I'm not saying you're wrong Liz, but it's worth noting that Picasso did sculpture as well as painting, though his reputation is primarily as a painter...."

Of course. I didn't say that artists couldn't work in more than one medium or that authors couldn't write short stories and novels (and poems and plays and film scripts....).

I was trying to make the point that I don't think there is a "natural progression". I don't believe short stories are training wheels for novels any more than an artist "progresses" from painting to sculpture (or vice versa).

[Diane]

1) Although Saunders is clearly a satirist with a dark comic view of American modern culture, did you find the stories to be largely laugh out loud funny or did they make you sad? Depressed? Both? Can you articulate why?

I felt the stories were more on the funny side instead of sad. Saunders created a cartoon-like mood that made it difficult to take anything too seriously. The situations depicted are grim, however, and would be depressing in real life.

2) In relation to the first question, the characters are not people I have ever met, yet I found I was able to relate to their anxieties and to some foundation of their common humanity. Which characters did you relate to the most and why?

I felt that I related to most of them on some level. I probably related to the caveman-actor most. He was a nice guy and didn't complain about his partner (despite pressure to do so) until he finally had enough.

3) All of the stories outline a largely untenable situation which the characters have to deal with. Did any of the situations strike a particular chord in you so that you felt empathy with them?

Many of the characters were in bad situations which made me empathize with them. It is hard to say who I empathized with most.

4) While reading, did you have the sense that the stories were happening now, in the near future or actually in the near past? Did you find Saunders use of corp speak, pop phrases and colloquial language a delight or did it put you off?

They seemed to be happening in the present-day or near-past, for the most part. I enjoyed Saunders use of language. It did not put me off in the least. I felt it was essential to the stories.

5) Almost all the stories display and sometimes play with rigid gender roles. Our protagonist is almost always a male loser. What did you think about this? Did you find the women any more capable? How does Saunder’s writing style reflect these gender stereotypes?

Although the protagonist's were male losers, the women were also losers (they just had smaller roles). For the most part, I didn't find them necessarily any more or less capable. I just assumed he wrote from the perspective of the male since that was what he best related to, being a male.

6) Saunders is often credited with having capitalism as his major theme and yet he approaches this theme consistently but obliquely. Examples: having to “labor” at being caveman dumb and inarticulate, or “…great pity for the poor stiffs renting hazardous shitholes even smaller than his hazardous shithole”. Can you relate other references and speak to this theme?

I can see this. He seems to empathize the hardships of the working poor. His characters are in survival mode and have to give up some of their humanity in order to get through. The ridiculous jobs add humor to the situation, but through them we can see the injustice of capitalism and how the working poor are ignored and exploited. These characters have dead-end jobs and few prospects.

7) And finally, which story was your favorite? And why? Do you want to read other short stories by Saunders?

My favorite was Sea Oak. It took an incredibly bleak situation and made it impossibly humorous. I enjoyed the elements of magical realism in this story, too. I would like to read more from this author.

Review: I honestly went into this book with dread since Saunders was compared to Pynchon. I did not think I would enjoy this, but was pleasantly surprised. His writing is truly off-the-wall and borderline nonsensical. It reminds me of those vivid dreams one has that make so little sense after one recalls them later in lucidity and wakefulness. Saunders has a great imagination and a refreshingly different perspective on things.

Rating: 4 stars

[Diane]

Gail wrote: "Diane, Do you remember the stories well enough to remember if you had a favorite? There is something about his language which makes me think that they may all run together in my memory after a few ..."

Gail, since I remember the first story best, Pastoralia, I will say that one is my favorite. I don't remember the others as clearly after 4 years.

[Chinook]

I’m halfway through and Pastoralia is my fav so far.

[Kristel]

I liked most all the stories and while they are humorous they are also quite sad and depict people on the edge, people struggling to make ends meet, people who want more than they have. I think over all the stories are sad, people lonely and wanting.

[Chinook]

1). I laughed out loud a couple of times, but there were a few stories I felt were more bleak. The FIRPO one was just sad for me. The Barber actively aggravated me as I read it because it seemed like such a realistic inner narrative and after the incident in Toronto and reading about incels, it angered me to think of men for whom physical features are the only thing he’s interested in and that ridiculous notion that though he’s not particularly attractive he should clearly deserve an attractive woman.

2) That anxious in social situations narrator of the last story, with his two kids that he loves I related to the most.

3) The little kid on the bike and the barber I didn’t feel as much empathy for - though the kid on the bike was more empathetic. The others I did really feel for as they seemed to be trying hard to be happy and make their way in difficult economic conditions.

4). The first two stories felt like they were simultaneously happening in the near future and near past and that’s one of the things that I really liked about them. It was really unique. The others felt more like present day to me.

5). I thought it was really interesting to come across a male stripper - that doesn’t show up in what I read often. I wrote about my dislike of the character of the barber above - it was masterfully done, that story. Saunders really gets you into the head of his protagonists. The women, while smaller characters, didn’t seem poorly done at all, or one-dimensional, though I agree with what was said above that he may focus on male protagonists because he feels he can write them better.

6) The capitalism and portrayal of the poor was more interestingly done than in so many books that try to cover the same situations. In particular, there wasn’t any romanticizing the people or the situations, which I liked. I thought it was interested that so many different living situations were covered as well.

7) And finally, which story was your favorite? And why? Do you want to read other short stories by Saunders? My favs were Pastoralia and Sea Oak. I liked that the time period was hard to judge and I enjoyed the humor in those two the most. I am definitely going to have to read more Saunders eventually because I found his voice quite unique.

[Sushicat]

Though I started reading I'll tackle the "before reading" questions first:

1) Having all sorts of life experiences is bound to enrich the writing of any author. The spectrum of "write what you know" is just so much broader.

2) I like the cave people at the bar edition - but the one I have on the kindle has this weird pink thing on it. As it's on the kindle, it doesn't really matter.

3) I haven't read any Pynchon and got stuck around page 250 on Infinite Jest (though I did like it well enough). When comparing authors, I like to know what the similarities are. Just "similar author" does not really give me much to work with. Maybe the aspect that is similar is important to me - or maybe not.

4) I've read Lincoln in the Bardo earlier this year. I liked the writing concept, but I don't think it is entirely representative for Saunder's writing. Don't have any particular expectations, except different.

5) I don't think it is a natural progression. An author may be good at one and not the other or at both. Some of you have made the comparison to painting vs. sculpting. I would rather think that a three dimensional work can be either sculpted or modeled. Two entirely different processes to get to something very similar.

[Anita]

Thank you, Gail, for providing a bio and some interesting pre-reading questions. I've just finished the first story, so like Sushicat, I'll work on the pre-reading questions first.


1) While I'm not necessarily expecting to see the specific jobs show up in Saunders work (I've read him before btw), I do think his interactions with all sorts of people color his work and help him develop the wit he displays throughout.

2) Lol, I read ebooks almost exclusively so covers really don't influence my choice at all. I'm just buying the boring ol' Kindle version.

3) So I've read both Pynchon and Wallace, and frankly I don't see these comparisons at all. I don't care for either one of those authors (have read one Pynchon and two Wallace), but I absolutely love Saunders. Tenth of December and Lincoln in the Bardo were both outstanding; creative, interesting, and to me, there's a plot that makes sense although it might be a little "out there".

4) Yes, and based on the two books I have read, I expect to like this one as well. I find my sense of humor and pathos dovetails very well with Saunders' so I do appreciate what he is doing tremendously.

5) I'm increasingly a fan of the short story format, but I don't necessarily see it as a precursor to a novel, and I think Lincoln in the Bardo is quite different from Saunder's short story collections. However, the one thing I will say is the creativity is there in both. He's clearly an inventive thinker . . .something I find enjoyable in his work . . .he is original. I actually think it might be harder to write a good short story as opposed to a good novel. A novel gives you time to make the readers attach to your characters . . .a short story needs to pack a punch so quickly. It strikes me as challenging to write a good one.

[Kelly_Hunsaker_reads]

1) Although Saunders is clearly a satirist with a dark comic view of American modern culture, did you find the stories to be largely laugh out loud funny or did they make you sad? Depressed? Both? Can you articulate why?

I found the stories to be a very odd mix of funny and sad. Sometimes it even felt inappropriate.

2) In relation to the first question, the characters are not people I have ever met, yet I found I was able to relate to their anxieties and to some foundation of their common humanity. Which characters did you relate to the most and why?

All of them, and none of them. LOL. Most were far more negative than I am, but I was able to have compassion for them so they weren't completely unlikable.

3) All of the stories outline a largely untenable situation which the characters have to deal with. Did any of the situations strike a particular chord in you so that you felt empathy with them?

I think I liked most of the characters on some level and still disliked them as well. And, for me that is a good thing. It makes them more flawed and more real.

4) While reading, did you have the sense that the stories were happening now, in the near future or actually in the near past? Did you find Saunders use of corp speak, pop phrases and colloquial language a delight or did it put you off?

Maybe present day. Or at least it didn't feel like it was very old. I think I enjoyed the colloquial language as it seemed appropriate.

5) Almost all the stories display and sometimes play with rigid gender roles. Our protagonist is almost always a male loser. What did you think about this? Did you find the women any more capable? How does Saunder’s writing style reflect these gender stereotypes?

It didn't bother me. I just felt that was how he wrote at the time. He had some wonderful female characters in Lincoln in the Bardo.

6) Saunders is often credited with having capitalism as his major theme and yet he approaches this theme consistently but obliquely. Examples: having to “labor” at being caveman dumb and inarticulate, or “…great pity for the poor stiffs renting hazardous shitholes even smaller than his hazardous shithole”. Can you relate other references and speak to this theme?

The working poor were the stars here and I liked it. THere is a lot of story to tell there. That is why Dickens did it so much.

7) And finally, which story was your favorite? And why? Do you want to read other short stories by Saunders?

I think Pastoralia is the one that pops to mind.

[Gail]

Thank you Anita and Kelly. I think that Pastoralia is the running favorite so far. I am finding that even though these stories are funny, sad, quirky small gems they really stick to the ribs. They come to mind more than I would have thought.

[Pip]

1. I found the "dark comic view of American modern culture" absolutely terrifying. I struggled to read them, they were so painful. I only found an occasional situation funny. They made me sad because, from an outsider's viewpoint, they depict much that we fear and despise about the USA today. For example, I quote from Pastoralia "Because what is truth? Truth is that thing which makes what we want to happen happen. Truth is the thing which, when told, makes those on our team look good, and inspires them to greater efforts, and causes people not on our team to see things our way and feel sort of jealous. Truth is everything which empowers us to do even better than we are really doing, which by the way is fine, truth is the wind in our sails that blows only for us. So when a rumour makes you doubt us, us up here, it is therefore not true, since we have already defined truth as that thing which helps us win." Numbers attending the inauguration, for example?
2. The characters were caricatures of failing white men (Trump voters?) whose inner monologues were excruciating. I have read that Saunders has been compared to Monty Python sketches, which are also excruciating, but I found Monty Python to be hilarious, whereas these stories seemed to me to be strained. They reminded me of television comedies that used studio audiences to tell viewers when they were supposed to laugh. The story that I related to the best was The End of Firpo in the World. I think it was because the stream of consciousness worked best when it was a child who was doing the thinking. In the other stories the character was a grown man and the thinking was so warped as to be unenjoyable.
3. As above, I had little empathy for any of the other characters, except, perhaps,Morse in The Falls.
4. I felt that the stories were happening now, which would have been the near future when the book was written. (I fear I am beginning to sound like Saunders!) Sometimes the language was puzzling and I had to look up the meaning of a word (double-side, for example) but I found the language as excruciating as the characters, especially in the pop-psych sessions in Pastoralia.
5. The women were as dismal as the males, especially Jade and Min in Sea Oak.
6. I thought not so much capitalism per se, but modern American society was the object of Saunders' satire. An example was "If you are losing, somebody's doing it to you" from Winky. This sums up the current fashion for blaming others for one's incompetence, whether it is immigrants (Build the wall) or the opposition (Lock her up).
7. My favourite, which is not saying a lot because I didn't really enjoy any of them, was The End of Firpo in the World, because the inner monologue really could have been that of a child. I just found the other characters to be too awful and sad and exaggerated for me to have any empathy with them.

On reflection I am beginning, begrudgingly, to acknowledge that Saunders' characterisation was eerily prescient. I am currently reading Educated, and last year read Hillbilly Elegy. It is very difficult for someone outside present day America to understand how people can tolerate the police brutality, the casual use of guns and the apparently omnipresent threat of violence. Although none of these are themes of Pastoralia, the characterisation of men who are completely lost in the society they are in, points obliquely toward such warped points of view.

[Anita]

Just finished! Here's my spoiler free review:

6 stories, one 5 star, two 4 stars, two 3 stars, and one 2 star = 3.5. I'm rounding to a three despite my LOVE for this author. One of the issues is the stories appeared in the order of best to worst (in my opinion), so that left you feeling a little bereft at the end instead of elated. Had the order been reversed, I probably would have gone with 4 stars.

Saunders' stories make fun of the mundane in very creative ways, and I really enjoy his weird characters. But you can tell this was his first book. Tenth of December was five stars all the way for me, so if you want to try Saunders short stories, I'd start there instead.

My favorite of the six stories was Pastoralia. A man and a woman portray cave people for some type of exhibit/amusement park. The on the job rules are very strict, and the living conditions are difficult, but both need the job because of challenging family situations. When the amusement park undergoes hard financial times, the pressure on job performance increases which leads to all sorts of consternation. I feel like this story is typical Saunders. Take a realistic situation - - people in a high pressure job which they need and which is vaguely exploitative - - and re-write it in a way that is both funny and a bit horrifying with fascinating characters that you actually do get to know in a very short period of time. Saunders sense of humor definitely aligns with mine, so I find myself chuckling, but it is subtle so perhaps it might not appeal to all.

[Anita]

Although Saunders is clearly a satirist with a dark comic view of American modern culture, did you find the stories to be largely laugh out loud funny or did they make you sad? Depressed? Both? Can you articulate why?

So it is funny I actually like Saunders writing at all because I'm generally really not a fan of satire. I didn't like The Sellout or A Confederacy of Dunces. But Saunders I do appreciate. I mostly find his work funny, but edged with pathos. Definitely not light hearted funny, but there's a truth to his work, and a certain sarcasm that appeals to me.

In relation to the first question, the characters are not people I have ever met, yet I found I was able to relate to their anxieties and to some foundation of their common humanity. Which characters did you relate to the most and why?

Honestly, I probably most related to the male character in Pastoralia. Here's a guy just trying to do the best job he can, and he's saddled with a partner who just doesn't want to play by the rules. He tries to straddle a position between doing his job well and being loyal and kind to his partner, and as a result finds himself in a moral, no-win situation. As someone who tends to be a little compulsive in work situations, I can completely relate to this man's quandry.

All of the stories outline a largely untenable situation which the characters have to deal with. Did any of the situations strike a particular chord in you so that you felt empathy with them?

I could relate to most of the characters to be honest. Most of them were somehow torn inside between their internal view of themselves and the behaviors being required of them by some external force or situation.

While reading, did you have the sense that the stories were happening now, in the near future or actually in the near past? Did you find Saunders use of corp speak, pop phrases and colloquial language a delight or did it put you off?

Most of the stories felt current although a couple had a slightly futuristic feel to them (Pastoralia and Sea Oak especially). Personally, I enjoyed the language, but my job was in a corporate setting so it felt more true to life than anything else. I do think these stories feel very American . . .and I wonder if that might impact non U.S. readers negatively.

Almost all the stories display and sometimes play with rigid gender roles. Our protagonist is almost always a male loser. What did you think about this? Did you find the women any more capable? How does Saunder’s writing style reflect these gender stereotypes?

Personally, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of the protagonists being "losers". I saw them more as truly human where the reader was treated to the inside view of their insecurities. I think most people have insecurities, and these may manifest themselves in different ways, but in these cases, the protagonists were having a hard time overcoming them. For me, that was an interesting perspective to see. The female characters seemed more flat to me than the males ones - - as if they were comedic foils at best.

[Anita]

Gail wrote: "Thank you Anita and Kelly. I think that Pastoralia is the running favorite so far. I am finding that even though these stories are funny, sad, quirky small gems they really stick to the ribs. They ..."

I really like and agree with your characterization of Saunder's stories.

[Anita]

Chinook wrote: "1). I laughed out loud a couple of times, but there were a few stories I felt were more bleak. The FIRPO one was just sad for me. The Barber actively aggravated me as I read it because it seemed li..."

We shared the same two favorite stories, and I love your answer to #6 as well. If you liked these, I highly recommend Tenth of December . . .

[Dree]

So many questions!

I finished this yesterday. I liked it, but I really didn't find it funny at all. Mostly I found it sad. Pastoralia was my favorite of the stories, and I found it rather dystopianish. I also found Sea Oak a little dystopianish until it got all zombieish and then I found it kind of stupid.

I have not read any other George Saunders. I had never even heard of this book before, but when it was published I was in new-baby-land and was thus busy LOL.

[Kelly_Hunsaker_reads]

Dree wrote: "So many questions!

I finished this yesterday. I liked it, but I really didn't find it funny at all. Mostly I found it sad. Pastoralia was my favorite of the stories, and I found it rather dystopia..."

I have read his Lincoln in the Bardo -- and I am among those that loved it -- so this was disappointing for me.

[Tatjana]

Gail wrote: "New Questions for those who have read Pastoralia.

I will try to answer to some of your questions, but before doing that I must say I had low expectations after reading that Saunders is compared to Pynchon, which I disliked very much. Nevertheless, I do not see that comparison to be affecting my joy after reading Pastoralia, which I rated 4 stars, and wishing to read his other works, especially Lincoln in the Bardo.
I must admit I didn’t laugh while reading at all. Almost all of Saunders stories made me feel sad for his protagonist, some more than others. During reading I was more and more involved in his characters, and therefore, unlike others, preferred some later stories, including Sea Oak, Firpo, Barber’s Unhappiness and the Falls. And yes, many of the characters are people from other social background, but I was really feeling involved in their lives, how they were feeling depressed, worried for their families, looking for love, security, or confirmation; how they wish others would see them and feel about them. I was really sad after reading about this boy Cody in Firpo, who, after being hit by a car was thinking how his mother would be pleased to hear him admitting he was a clumsy and bad boy.
Finally, I must admit that while reading first two stories I had a very strong impression of them being written by a US author. Was it because of the colloquial language, or this corp speak or culture, I don’t know, but I didn’t like it much. Later I lost that feeling and appreciated later stories more.

[Sushicat]

Now to the questions for those who have read Pastoralia:

1) I find satire to be a tricky balance - veer too much on either side and things fizzle. In this collection it worked best in the title story. Not laugh out loud, but a chuckle at the absurdity of it all. The other stories felt more sad/annoying.

2/3) The main character of the title story finds himself in a situation I can fully relate to (not the caveman display setting ;-)). Giving honest feedback is a tightrope walk between improving a situation and providing excuses to get rid of someone.

4) I felt mostly the stories were happening now or in the near future.

6) He takes aspects of our (corporate) culture and takes them a couple of steps further to a slightly absurd level.

7) Favorite: definitely Pastoralia.

[Paula]

Gail wrote: "BOTM Pastoralia:

Here are some questions to contemplate BEFORE you start reading to get warmed up:

1) Although Saunders bio sounds as if he is an academic with many awards and with strong teachin..."

I never visit the discussion thread before reading the book (I don't like spoilers), but I'll try to answer the questions as if I hadn't read the book.

1) Do you think [Saunder's divers work experiences] will show up in this book of short stories and in what way?
- I don't know. It seems like he would have encountered a lot of different kinds of people, so I guess that would influence his stories.

2) If you could read any of them, which would you read and why?
What edition are you going to read?
- I have this edition: I'm not sure how it fits with the themes of the stories, but it is nice and weird enough.
I keep seeing this cover: and it makes me think of old pulp fiction. That fits the stories, but it doesn't look like a book I'd be interested in reading.
I think I like best. It both fits the stories and looks interesting.

3) Saunders has been compared to Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace. Have you read Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace? Does it make you want to read Saunders?
- I haven't read either of those authors, so I can make no comparison. They are known as difficult authors, so that makes me less interested in reading Saunders.

4) Have you read any other of Saunder's work? Which ones and what is your expectation for this book?
- I have read nothing by him, and based on most common cover of the book I don't have high expectations. The cover makes it look like the book could be uncomfortable and gory.

5) Saunder's book of short stories; CivilWarLand in Bad Decline really brought him into the public's eye and only after publishing short stories and essays did he publish his first novel Lincoln in the Bardo in 2017. Do you think that was a natural progression? Do you usually prefer reading short stories to short novels?
- Many authors stick to either short fiction or novels, so I agree with the others that there is no natural progression.
I usually prefer novels.

[Paula]

Gail wrote: "New Questions for those who have read Pastoralia..."

1) Although Saunders is clearly a satirist with a dark comic view of American modern culture, did you find the stories to be largely laugh out loud funny or did they make you sad? Depressed? Both? Can you articulate why?
- I found the stories more depressing than laugh out loud funny, but I didn't feel depressed after reading them. Somehow he managed to inject a bit of light and hope for humanity, into the dark depressing lives of the characters.

2) In relation to the first question, the characters are not people I have ever met, yet I found I was able to relate to their anxieties and to some foundation of their common humanity. Which characters did you relate to the most and why?
- They were very relatable. I found their inner monologues rather similar, so I have no particular favorite.

3) All of the stories outline a largely untenable situation which the characters have to deal with. Did any of the situations strike a particular chord in you so that you felt empathy with them?
- The aunt coming back from the dead to get her nieces and nephew to start taking responsibility for their lives. While this ended up with the main character (view spoiler)[becoming a prostitute (hide spoiler)], I still felt that the story held some hope for a better future for them.

4) While reading, did you have the sense that the stories were happening now, in the near future or actually in the near past? Did you find Saunders use of corp speak, pop phrases and colloquial language a delight or did it put you off?
- Near future, but it felt a bit like reading Asimov's robot short stories - they are set in the near future, but not our near future, rather a more technologically advanced version of the 1950s or 1960s. I liked how he used people's language as a way to show that the story wasn't set in the here and now.

5) Almost all the stories display and sometimes play with rigid gender roles. Our protagonist is almost always a male loser. What did you think about this? Did you find the women any more capable? How does Saunder’s writing style reflect these gender stereotypes?
- I didn't notice the gender stereotypes so much, but they might be the reason I felt the stories had a 1950s vibe. Both men and women were losers in the book.

6) Saunders is often credited with having capitalism as his major theme and yet he approaches this theme consistently but obliquely. Examples: having to “labor” at being caveman dumb and inarticulate, or “…great pity for the poor stiffs renting hazardous shitholes even smaller than his hazardous shithole”. Can you relate other references and speak to this theme?
- the self-help seminar is one example

7) And finally, which story was your favorite? And why? Do you want to read other short stories by Saunders?
- I don't really have a favorite, but I really liked the collection as a whole. I wouldn't mind reading more Saunders.

[Gail]

The first short story in the book, Pastoralia, seems to be most people's favorite although there were some votes for Sea Oak, The End of Firpo in the World and mention of not liking any of them and mention of liking all of them.
Anita makes a good point about my characterizing the Main Characters as losers:
"Personally, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of the protagonists being "losers". I saw them more as truly human where the reader was treated to the inside view of their insecurities. I think most people have insecurities, and these may manifest themselves in different ways, but in these cases, the protagonists were having a hard time overcoming them. For me, that was an interesting perspective to see. The female characters seemed more flat to me than the males ones - - as if they were comedic foils at best."

Has anyone changed what they thought about the stories after having time to let them settle?

reply | flag *



reply | flag *

[Melissa]

Glad I didn’t read the pre-reading questions first, or I’d never have read it. I didn’t enjoy The Crying of Lot 49 at all.

This one I did enjoy, and found myself quickly sucked into each story, and the pathos that goes on inside people’s heads as they simultaneously talk themselves into and out of things, at the same time, all day long.

[Kristel]

Following along with the individual comments about stories always adds to my appreciation of a book. Sometimes what another person says puts words to a feeling that I have toward a book.

When I read a book, I read without paying a great deal of attention to details like gender issues. Reflecting back, I think most characters were masculine, either children or men. This never bothers me if the author is of like gender, after all, it makes sense that one would know your own gender better than the opposite. When I read strong female characterizations written from a male author, that grabs my attention more often.

[Liz M]

1) Although Saunders is clearly a satirist with a dark comic view of American modern culture, did you find the stories to be largely laugh out loud funny or did they make you sad? Depressed? Both? Can you articulate why?

I rarely find satire funny. These stories definitely left me depressed. I think Saunders brilliantly captured the hopelessness and resentment felt be the characters and transmitted it quite successfully to me.

2) In relation to the first question, the characters are not people I have ever met, yet I found I was able to relate to their anxieties and to some foundation of their common humanity. Which characters did you relate to the most and why?

To some extent, the narrators all felt the same and i can relate to all of them somewhat. But I may have identified the most with one of the narrator's in the last story -- the one that was so worried by everything, even worrying about why a person he wanted to leave him alone didn't stop to bother him...

3) All of the stories outline a largely untenable situation which the characters have to deal with. Did any of the situations strike a particular chord in you so that you felt empathy with them?
Yes.

4) While reading, did you have the sense that the stories were happening now, in the near future or actually in the near past? Did you find Saunders use of corp speak, pop phrases and colloquial language a delight or did it put you off?

I would say the title story is the near future of an alternate universe. I don't think I noticed the language as particularly poppy or colloquial?

5) Almost all the stories display and sometimes play with rigid gender roles. Our protagonist is almost always a male loser. What did you think about this? Did you find the women any more capable? How does Saunder’s writing style reflect these gender stereotypes?

I don't think anyone is Saunders' stories is portrayed as capable.

6) Saunders is often credited with having capitalism as his major theme and yet he approaches this theme consistently but obliquely. Examples: having to “labor” at being caveman dumb and inarticulate, or “…great pity for the poor stiffs renting hazardous shitholes even smaller than his hazardous shithole”. Can you relate other references and speak to this theme?

Saunders seems to portray a liberal dilemma of capitalism -- to get ahead and be successful, you have to hurt other people or compromise yourself: the caveman must participate in the firing and likely ruination of his co-worker, Yaniky would have to force Winky to move out, the narrator of Sea Oak has to perform distasteful, disallowed acts to earn enough money to move the family into a better apartment, and so on.

7) And finally, which story was your favorite? And why? Do you want to read other short stories by Saunders?

Sea Oak was my favorite. One, it is the least realistic (Aunt Bernie) and therefore allowed a little distance -- empathy without identifying with the narrator. Also it is the one story that seems to offer hope and a chance that life improves.