h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Julian Barnes x Flaubert's Parrot - A87723174
Author: Trout Montague - U188966

This has a blob good to go.

Question 1

Well, if I am right in assuming that this is a reworking of the style of Flaubert's Parrot to provide a biography of Julian Barnes, then I rather hope so. It was gloriously bizarre and I can only read bits at a time.

I'm not sure I'd want it as the only biography of Julian Barnes, but I am not sure why. Perhaps because of readability?

But it's clever (assuming...) and I am ever a sucker for that.

Question 2.

No idea.

Question 3.

Also no idea. Is JB the guy who wrote the History of th World in 9 1/2 chapters? I have read that. That is everything I knew about JB until I read this. Should I know?

I rather loved this entry. It's great. ()

Sol, Thanks for giving it a go. Yes, you are quite right, the chapter headings, some of the themes and at least the three chronology mechanism are all inspired by [or lifted straight out of] Flaubert's Parrot. FP is in part a sort of biography in collage of Flaubert. I tried to turn it around in homage to FP to present a biography of JB, who has just won this year's Booker. There is a great deal of i.e., parroted words. I'm disappointed that you (especially you) found it hard to read - that obviously wasn't the intent. Flaubert's Parrot itself (the JB version) is a damn good read (don't let this Entry put you off): I think also that it should be read in close chronological proximity to Flaubert's Madame Bovary.

Z/Dr Zen, That is truly an unexpected response, but transparently the sort of reaction I was hoping for so thanks for that.

If anything, I'd like to think that someone would be moved to read both Flaubert's Parrot and Madame Bovary just to satisfy their curiosity.

And I realise that this might be boundary testing the EG a bit. Hence the Exam Paper, which could be modified for the EG (how self-referential!).

We need more people with literary backgrounds here, and I cheerfully admit that this isn't my strength.

So I shall have to sit and wait and hope you get a bit more feedback soon.

I think the reason why I found it initially hard to read was that I wasn't sure what I was looking at, so my brain wasn't taking in what the entry said, it was trying to figure out what it was.

You do have to remember that we are talking about someone a tad sleep deprived.

Would an introductory paragraph be too much of a violence?

I'm hovering at the edge of reading it, tbh, if for no other reason than to be able to be properly amused at you entry, Trout.

This is great. I haven't read Flaubert's Parrot for a long time, but this made me want to re-read it - I have a lot of his other work.

People who haven't read the book will have to work a bit to process this entry, but that is not a bad thing, IMO.

Julian Barnes himself is a bit of a star - I like the fact he doesn't take himself too seriously.

sprout

I know nothing about Barnes, or Parrott, or whoever this was about, but I found it ultimately rewarding.

No idea why, mind.

I'm about to see if Flaubert's Parrot is available on Kindle as I want to read it now.

When I see something like this I first have to decide whether the author is taking the p-roverbial (Pinniped tends to 'telegraph' it a bit when he is). I don't *think* the author is here, but if someone I trust can confirm this for me, then I'll be a lot happier.

I think I can only treat this entry a little like I'd treat one on atomic physics. I have to defer to people for the technical parts. In this case there are a lot of them. Has anyone here read the books? Is this written in the right spirit?

Shall we ask on Ask if anyone has specific parrot experience?

Yes please Z, I have asked in various places, but not Ask.

Could you make it a general request? as well as Flaubert's Parrot, we need people to read frleon's mathematical Entries which are languishing for lack of reviewers.

Entry in Ask duely posted.

And now I need to get back to work.

It does give the reader work, to sort out the alternative chronologies, though pretty soon it's obvious that II and III are the negative and positive versions (unless I'm mistaken).

Interesting. I think Bovary is extraordinary, but not Sense of an Ending; I found that annoying. An extension of the unreliable narrator trick. The guy didn't see what was going on, which makes his account fascinatingly patchy don't you know.

Bovary is a book that really changes your life. My.

Two bits of punctuation, both in the same sentence:

He would be described a Century and a half later as L’Idiot de la famille by Jean-Paul Sartre.

1. I know we are supposed to say 19th Century with a capital C, (though I can't think why) but the word in the middle of a sentence surely doesn't need a capital?

2. Do you need a capital L and a capital I for idiot?

Good bit of writing though. Dangerously creative . . .

I like the sound of 'dangerously creative'

This is all good, thanks to Sprout, Zen, Recumbentman [Icy N., I'll come to you shortly], for your feedback and to Sol and Lanza for your efforts (I think that if you do read the books, you will feel rewarded for having done so).

Specifically:

'The "L'Idiot...' was taken directly from the book cover...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/415Xd5cz7rL._SS500_.jpg

... so I daredn't change it.

'Century' -> 'century': no worries.

The "work" in the chronologies, some of which Sol perhaps alludes to, is correctly identified by Recumbentman. It is mechanism that Mr Barnes invents for Flaubert's Parrot and which is bastardised here for a slightly different end. Chron I was meant as a raw chronology of Flaubert, and then II & III are intended to document aspects of Mr Barnes' life with +ve and -ve perspectives, perhaps





***

Icy,

I am wide blinking eye astonished that you think I might be untrustworthy []. But I suppose I can in the glorious absence of his fishy breath afford to be flattered to be compared to Mr Pinniped.

Otherwise, I kind of respect the double-edged sword you serve up. Having read the Entry (which is intended as a biographical entry about Julian Barnes), you write "I know nothing about Barnes, or Parrott, or whoever this was about, but I found it ultimately rewarding.".

Perhaps you take the silent b out of bdroll.

"... are intended to document aspects of Mr Barnes' life with +ve and -ve perspectives, perhaps"

Perhaps to be continued.

perhaps to show the reader that (and these are more or less the same thing):

(i) there is usually a different version of history
(ii) there is usualy a different memory of events
(iii) that there may be an Unreliable Narrator: check.

I'm going to post here to record the fact that I have read this Entry. However I have absolutely nothing to say about it as the whole thing is a complete mystery to me.

I'm hoping that TM is not taking the proverbial p*** (which I'm sure he's not btw) but this has flown WAY over my head. As such, I hope this particular parrot doesn't cr*p on my head as it flies over

With respect, TM, you are at perfect liberty to alter the capitalisation of l'idiot de la famille since you are putting it into the middle of a sentence. It will not be a bibliographical reproduction of the original, but it won't be anyway, as you are not showing the line break after idiot (nor should you).