Skaters on Wood : Leslie Epstein

Having read about ¾ of the stories in this collection without posting one review, I suppose that I need to reassess how I go about “doing” this. I need to have the discipline to read one story and then post my thoughts. –RIGHT –

I first encountered this story shortly after receiving the BASS 1978, so you can do the math by looking at previous entries to see when it arrived. I started reading it one morning at my car dealership, and it not holding my attention at the time, I decided to skip ahead and read the JCO story positioned right behind it.

The second encounter came sometime between the hours of 6 and 7 a.m. this morning. I think you will see that my stories are going to be read mostly during this time block. Either I will be reading or doing my morning exercise routines.

The review and other thoughts.

It held my attention. I enjoyed the description of the “Macbeth” production by the Polish Jews. The description of the audience and their reactions to the play was another hook that held my interest. Being that these were Jews in Poland, most readers could deduce what would ultimately happen to them and that this would be factored into the story.

How may readers of this collection actually read each story? How many read the first few...with the editor knowing this, positioning certain authors up front. Joyce Carol Oats in the second slot...Solotaroff recognized talent. Dribble a few other “well-knowns” towards the end, keeping the reader’s interest.

Was Epstein a friend of Solotaroff? Was this story purposely placed in the first position? I can only think it was...given Solotaroff’s editorial skills...if he paid attention to every word...every sentence...the position of an entire story in a collection would certainly fall under his decision.

I wonder what the frequency of “Holocaust” stories were back in 1978. This piece appeared in Esquire, and must have been read by hundreds of thousands.

Was the short story market in recent years saturated with Holocaust stories? Surely there was an explosion of interest after ‘Schindler’s List”. I wonder though, are the masses a bit tired of these stories today? Do the number of these stories cause me to really struggle to give this story all the attention it deserves?

Overall, the story was fine. Just that – fine. I was happy to find that Leslie Epstein is still alive and according to online sources, is the director of the Creative Writing program at Boston University. He joined the BU faculty in 1978. It also appears that he has produced quite a collection of writings. I’m glad that Epstein continued to write. Will I read any more of his writing? Not unless any of his other stories appear in future collections. I would imagine that they might. I have no desire to seek out his other writings.

Points – 5 out of 10. Initially a 6 but changed after thinking about it a little more.

The Introduction

I’m on my third reading of the introduction.  I have started reading the stories, and am about ½ way through the collection, but as you can see, I have yet to comment on any of them. 

I suppose some of this is to a desire to comment on the introduction. 

I intended to completely trash the introduction -  really lay into the guy and pronounce him full of himself.  Once again, delaying writing anything about the actual book, I decided to see what I could find about Ted.

 Much to my surprise, the first entry that pops up on Google is his obit in the NYT. 

So, there we are.  The NYT did a nice job in summing up his life (as they usually do), and with that they also created the need in me to discover a bit more about my search subject. 

Printed out 3 articles, made it through two and started on the 3^rd reading of the introduction feeling that I should give Ted one more shot...since he is dead now.  I owe that to him at least. 

Looking over the notes along the margins of the book that I have scribbled, I can see that I am not being too harsh.  I still hold fast to the thought that I think he is a bit long. Perhaps I am not accustomed to the writing of 1977-78.  These were lazy days.  People read.  There was no competition for our attention- TV-radio-movies-drugs, maybe.

It seems that there was some money spent on this book though.  Nice thick paper, sewn pages and Ted writing for pages and pages.

 

 

So, here we go. 

 

The introduction

 

 

BASS 1978 is the first year that a guest editor was brought in to edit the volume.  Knowing now, what this has done to the series, one can only praise the individual who had this idea stumble into their head. 

 

In 1978, there is a short introduction by the publisher (H M Co,) explaining the shift to this guest editor format.  There is also the revelation that the guest editor will be guided, in a way, by a series editor Shannon Ravenel (series editor 1978-1990).  It will be Shannon’s job to read hundreds...many hundreds of short stories (the luck and the discipline of this woman is astounding!), and whittle those down to a manageable pile to present to Ted who in turn will make his selection form those to include in the BASS.  Ted also is able to make selections from stories he happens upon himself.  He is not totally restricted to Shannon’s filter.  I found it wonderfully interesting, and perhaps a little slight was made at Shannon, for the position he was in, that he had to select from what she provided. 

 

Ted opens his introduction with a report on the state of the American (North American) short story.  Ted informs us that he intends to present to us what he defines to be a short story strictly in that sense.  No deviation of what most would consider a typical “short story” no “experimental or really innovative presentations of prose. 

I think this is fine. 

He states the he wants to present to us “the waif of the magazine and publishing industry”.

 

Ted then, in what seems an effort to fill pages, starts to list off several stories that he decided not to include in the collection. 

 

Dude, stop wasting my time.

 

 It is not until the 5^th page of writing that  we get to the real meat of the introduction.  Previous pages were taken up by Ted writing looooong about his process and how many stories he had to read and how he was bummed that he didn’t include certain stories. 

 

Ted introduces the stories he chose, and gives reason to why he chose those particular stories.  I feel that this is a bit unnecessary because he can just let the stories speak for themselves without him lending his voice to them.  I think it is difficult to read the stories once you get to them without hearing Ted in the background whispering into your ear

 “See, wasn’t I a smart guy for picking this?”

 

“Remember I told you exactly why I choose it?” 

 

Pages 13-30 make up the introduction.  Honestly...is it really necessary?  You are the editor you are not one of the authors.  Let them have their place, and let the reader admire you for the fact that you chose this story. 

 

I think that I wrote at the beginning of this entry that I would be a bit more forgiving to Ted since he is dead.  Well, after slogging through the introduction...struggling through the introduction, and actually getting pissed off every page that I turned finding that there was more introduction to be read, I could no longer help myself from lashing out at the guy. 

He wrote to hear his voice. 

He killed the intro.

It’s like eating a crappy appetizer at a wonderful restaurant that ruins your entire meal.

 

I want a collection with stories, not pages from an editor grinding me down attempting to prove his intellect. 

Well...no shit. 10/9/1928 - 8/8/2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/books/12solotaroff.html

Excuses are like...

Excuses are like...

This is turning out to be more about my excuses for not writing and posting than actual reading and writing. I suppose this is all about development.

Here are my excuses and I think they are pretty valid.

You have no choice but to accept them just as I have.

We will suffer together.

First -I was training for, and finished my first marathon. Due to the fact that all of my training takes place early in the morning, that pretty much knocks out morning reading. Days between runs are taken up by cross training.

Second – I discovered DFW, and I bought IJ. I then began to read everything I could about DFW, and once I obtained a copy of IJ, I began reading it.

Third – Through my readings about DFW, I discovered that he enjoyed Stephen King’s book “The Stand”. Setting IJ aside, I borrowed “the Stand” and plowed through 600 or so pages of it before I discovered that I was bored with it and returned it to the library..

I have now picked up another book called “Sashenka” (Russian themed) and since I am obsessed with Russia (as you will soon realize) I had to start reading this book. I am about 60 pages into it, and honestly, it really isn’t doing anything for me so I am now at the point where I think I will be picking up the BASS once again.

So, I am great at making excuses, and the presence of this blog really hasn’t done anything to get me motivated to read and report. I suppose that also illustrates my lack of discipline.