west of rome by fante (1 Viewer)

[jordan]

i may have grossly misinterpreted this book (well, the first novella at least)... i read my dog stupid as the lashings-out of an impotent out-of-work writer who is unable to hold any sway over any elements of his life (kids, wife, career, dog). i don't find the main character to by sympathetic at all, which makes his shortcomings and vulgarities comical in a tragic sense.

reading the reviews of this book on amazon, i'm surprised to see that people seem to identify with this guy (the main character), and they praise fante for being so "real" and telling it "like it is". oh, and for continuing the hemingwayan tradition of toughness in literature. so... did i miss something? was fante a racist, sexist homophobe like the main character in this novella who I'm supposed to respect for his realness?

it's kind of like the scene in factotum where chinaski hits jan in the bar- to me, this scene is important because it makes chinaski less likeable and less of a tragic hero, and more of just a tragic asshole. that the piercing insights about modern life come from such a tragic asshole elevates the book in my opinion, even moreso than if they came from someone who you really identified with and rooted for. i'm hoping i'm not totally off base reading fante the same way...

 

[HenryChinaski]

the fact of the matter is, when Fante was growing up, he suffered at the hands of his last name and the fact that he was a "dago son of a bitch". back in those days, it was a lot more common and almost even "accepted" for people to use words like "dago" "wop" "nigger" and the like. Now, as for my opinion on the book, I have none...for I have yet to read it. But, I can tell you that I will probably be able to add a hell of a lot more to this thread once I do.

Fante is a great writer. This is much like the Bukowski "slapping/kicking scene" discussion taking place in another thread. it all comes back to taking the good with the bad and being able to accept a writers good qualities and some of his mistakes or "short comings?" I might be sounding like I don't make sense but that could be due to the fact that I need sleep.

that is all for now.

 

[jordan]

i guess my point is that the slapping scene doesn't show a shortcoming of bukowski to me as much as it shows a shortcoming of chinaski. same thing with [i think] the main character in fante's novella. i'm a huge celine fan, so i definitely have no problem separating the author's personal life from his writing.

i guess my question here is of authorial intent... do you think that bukowski intends us to side with chinaski and think, "yeah, man... slap that stupid bitch"? i don't. and i didn't think fante intended the reader to side with the main character of my dog stupid and think, "yeah, you're right, your son is a fuckup for sleeping with a black woman." i was surprised when the reviews i read were full of people identifying with how great this character is (so great! so tough!).

i have no problem if fante had shortcomings as a man in real life. what i have a problem with if is he writes [albeit good] books about racist assholes as the "hero". but, honestly, that's not what i see in this book. am i misinterpreting it? i think it's a great book, according to the interpretation i expressed in my original post, but that good feeling was somewhat tarnished by all the people who seem to take that character seriously.

 

[ROC]

Fante knew his craft well enough to be able to make you like the central character if that was what he wanted.
His 'warts and all' version of events in My Dog Stupid is intended to show the shortcomings in his character as much as those around him.
Who says a central character needs to be likeable anyway? Look at A Confederancy of Dunces, A Personal Matter and many other books for the same theme.

 

[jordan]

i don't think the main character needs to be likeable... in fact, i was only worried that i had misinterpreted this book because i was worried that the reader was intended to root for this asshole. and i'm a huge bukowski fan because i think chinaski is such an interesting, although ultimately unlikeable character.

and i was thinking the same thing, ROC, about fante knowing his craft. you'd have to be pretty much KKK to have a character say something like, "Don't you have any race pride?" and intend people to think, "damn straight!"

let it be known: i do like this book... a lot. i'm just kind of surprised how many people seem to get behind the main guy, who really is a douchebag.

 

[ROC]

HEHE! - It reminds me of the interview with Dan Castanaletta (sp?) in which he tells of all the fans who come up to him and say "Homer Simpson is my hero!". It's a real worry!

Incedentally, I never thought of Chinaski as ultimately unlikeable.... Interesting....

What does that say about me??!

 

[RichardWagons]

I think West of Rome might be Fante's best book. I don't know what the person who started this thread is going on about- I thought the My Dog Stupid novella was some of the funniest, most insightful, and-as is the case with all of Fante's work-heartfelt writing that I've ever read. Hell, every one of Fante's characters is an ambivalent, arrogant, deeply insecure jerk...but big-hearted, and easily hurt.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

I found Fante's characters in West of Rome and The Road to Los Angeles to be unlikeable, and unlikeable in the sort of way that doesn't sway me even if Fante wanted me to think that way. In other words, it's possible to like hateable/pathetic/despicable characters if presented in such a way, but not here.

Very much unlike his characters in Bandini, Ask the Dust and Bunker Hill. I really dig his stuff, in many ways, but there are some hiccups that make me wonder. Still, he ranks right up there as one of the best, at least most of the time.

 

[jordan]

I think West of Rome might be Fante's best book. I don't know what the person who started this thread is going on about- I thought the My Dog Stupid novella was some of the funniest, most insightful, and-as is the case with all of Fante's work-heartfelt writing that I've ever read. Hell, every one of Fante's characters is an ambivalent, arrogant, deeply insecure jerk...but big-hearted, and easily hurt.

i feel like i explained pretty well "what i was going on about"... i read some reviews on amazon of this book that praised the main character as this awesome badass who tells it like it is... and since it was the first fante book i had read, it got me wondering if fante intended for the main character to be our hero or someone more like you described.

where did i come off saying i didn't like this book? for chrissakes, i said IN BOLD that i REALLY LIKED IT. i just had a question about it, because i was new to fante. i do agree that it is humorous (in a tragic way) and heartfelt, especially as the novella starts to wrap up at the end.

oh, and my name is jordan, nice to meet you. hopefully now you know what i was going on about.

 

[mjp]

...i read some reviews on amazon of this book that praised the main character as this awesome badass who tells it like it is...

I answered a reporter's question this morning, I wasn't going to bring it up, but those Amazon reviews kind of make a point that I was trying to make.

The article is about Bukowski ("why is he still popular?" - yawn), and the reporter had some questions about the site, how many people visit, how many participate in the forum, blah, blah. Then he asked why I thought Bukowski endured. I answered:

"Bukowski's writing endures is because he created a larger than life persona that continues to draw in the curious and rebellious. Once they are drawn in, one of two things happen; they stay on the Barfly/DirtyOld Man surface and never see past it, or they start to dig into the thousands of poems he wrote and find the writer who changed the very language of poetry more than half a century ago, and virtually created what we consider "modern" poetry."

I think the same can be said for Fante (because, let's be honest, the road to Fante starts in - and runs all the way through - Bukowskiville). Bukowski fans read Fante and either have a surface reaction to it, or they dig a little deeper. You're just digging.

I don't remember West of Rome, it's been a while since I read it, but in general I thought Fante wrote his characters both good and bad, and left it up to the reader to identify or not. He was telling stories he knew first hand, and just putting them out there for what they were. I always had the same feeling about Bukowski's work. He's putting these things in front of you without any judgment. How do you feel about them?

But like HenryChinaski said, it can be difficult to see these works in context of their times. I have (for some coincidental reason or another) been watching a lot of documentaries that cover the early part of the 20th centruy in America recently, and racism was an open and ugly fact of life well into the 1960's. It's easy to forget how blatant it was (in these times of more dignified racism ;)).

I'd have to read "My Dog Stupid" again to really comment specifically, but sometimes I have to remind myself that guys like Bukowski and Fante grew up in a very different America than we did.

 

[RichardWagons]

i feel like i explained pretty well "what i was going on about"... i read some reviews on amazon of this book that praised the main character as this awesome badass who tells it like it is... and since it was the first fante book i had read, it got me wondering if fante intended for the main character to be our hero or someone more like you described.

where did i come off saying i didn't like this book? for chrissakes, i said IN BOLD that i REALLY LIKED IT. i just had a question about it, because i was new to fante. i do agree that it is humorous (in a tragic way) and heartfelt, especially as the novella starts to wrap up at the end.

oh, and my name is jordan, nice to meet you. hopefully now you know what i was going on about.

I'm not sure what it is you're going on about.

joking...

I answered:

"Bukowski's writing endures is because he created a larger than life persona that continues to draw in the curious and rebellious. Once they are drawn in, one of two things happen; they stay on the Barfly/DirtyOld Man surface and never see past it, or they start to dig into the thousands of poems he wrote and find the writer who changed the very language of poetry more than half a century ago, and virtually created what we consider "modern" poetry."

That's a good answer, and absolutely correct. A lot of folks-nice, respectable, boring literary types- get hung up on the whole drunkard persona and act like the work itself doesn't have any merit. I liked what John Martin said in Born Into This- that he's interested in the work, and not the part of Bukowski that was "distorted". Distorted. That struck a real chord with me.

 

[mjp]

Bukowski built his own myth, and he distorted what he wanted to be distorted. I think that frustrated Martin on some level, but on the other hand it was making one of his poets famous (which brought more $$$ to Black Sparrow) so he must have had mixed feelings.

But he was definitely interested in the work before the myth building began. Or at least early on in the myth building.

 

[Gin Soaked Boy]

Im reviving an old thread I know but I just finished with West of Rome and I disagree with Jordans view on the main character and the whole interpretation of what my dog, Stupid is about. I think its about a man and woman growing older together and experiencing some ambivalent feelings about their feelings toward their children (moving out of the house etc.) and a midlife crisis at 50+ (in a spur of the moment selling his car, golf clubs etc to move to Italy then instead using that money to help out his children). Sure he has some trouble writing a novel again and feels frustrated by this but that to me was just a minor sidestep of the main story.

The road to los angeles was pretty much ruined for me; couldn't get passed not liking teenage Arturo. But I definitely did not feel this way about My dog stupid. I found Fante overall quite likeable. In contrast to Arturo in T.R.T.L.A I felt that in My dog, Stupid the main character truly had a sense of warmth and deeper, heartfelt emotions towards his environment and the people closest to him. Its his wife who expresses some doubtful racial opinions; not so much Fante.

The orgy, the other story in W.o.R., is not as great as the first one but has a great ending. A great depiction of childhood angst and love towards a father.

A great book! Hilarious and sad at the same time. One of the best Fante books I've read. West of Rome and The Brotherhood of the grape are just some of the finest writing ever in this genre. (I just wish I could love the Bandini quartet as much too)

 

[jordan]

i hope that people still come back to this thread many years from now and add that UNLIKE THAT IDIOT JORDAN WHO TOTALLY HATED THE BOOK AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR, they really like it and totally disagree with THAT IDIOT JORDAN FOR SAYING WHAT A RACIST HOMOPHOBIC BOOK IT IS.

i really have a hard time taking someone seriously who says that a main character who goes on about homos, niggers, and "race pride" as "quite likable." WHICH IS WHY I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES IN THIS THREAD THAT I ONLY LIKE BOOKS WITH HEROES I CAN ROOT FOR, AND THAT THE FACT THAT THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THIS BOOK HAS SOME SHORTCOMINGS IS THE REASON WHY I TOTALLY HATE THIS BOOK, HATE HATE HATE HATE, I HATE IT I HATE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gerard K H Love]

So, didn't you start this thread? I'm confused, did you really hate this book?

 

[Gin Soaked Boy]

i hope that people still come back to this thread many years from now and add that UNLIKE THAT IDIOT JORDAN WHO TOTALLY HATED THE BOOK AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR, they really like it and totally disagree with THAT IDIOT JORDAN FOR SAYING WHAT A RACIST HOMOPHOBIC BOOK IT IS.

Yes. You've been forever tagged as the idiot person who thought W.o.R is a bunch of racist ramblings.

 

[justine]

jesus fucking christ, for a bunch of people who apparently enjoy 'reading', some of you really seem to have trouble 'reading' this thread. practically no one - except mjp - responded to the opening post's question about authorial intent (even though it was repeated like 3 damn times).

 

[mjp]

Yes. You've been forever tagged as the idiot person who thought W.o.R is a bunch of racist ramblings.

Oh dear. Time to simmer down now, Boy, and recognize you place in this ecosystem. Don't make me come to Sweden and have a talk with your parents.

Well, you know, it being Sweden I might have to do more than talk to your mother, but you get the point.

 

[Gerard K H Love]

jesus fucking christ, for a bunch of people who apparently enjoy 'reading', some of you really seem to have trouble 'reading' this thread. practically no one - except mjp - responded to the opening post's question about authorial intent (even though it was repeated like 3 damn times).

Okay, from my own experiences I do not like to admit to slapping a crazed manic bitch. In a story it becomes easier for a writer to express the feelings and motivations of what would otherwise be a despicable act of violence against a woman. Most people are prejudiced that women do not deserve it no matter what. My dear ex-wife egged me on for months taunting me, insulting my manhood and hitting me in the face while I was driving her because she thought I was looking at some girl. Sometimes we only remember the bad people the evil things they did and the pain we felt. In spite of all of the hate we have for the evil nasty blood suckers of this world as soon as you fight back you become the bad guy and become the despised. But people still watch and listen. They can't get enough of others pain and suffering. It's a selfish release from their own hell.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Any comments regarding the author's intent are purely speculative, so I little little value in making them, but my sense is that Fante presents his main character as various facets of himself. The point I was trying to make two years ago is that the main characters in Wait Until Spring, Ask the Dust and Bunker Hill are much more likeable and capable of inducing sympathy than those in West of Rome or The Road to LA.

So to me, it seems clear that Fante had the intent to expose all of these facets of his personality and experience; some sympathetic and some despicable. Whether he hoped that the despicable characters would elicit some sympathy is impossible to know. I suspect he just wanted the reader to deal with them in a fashion similar to how he had to deal with them as parts of his whole. Here they are; I deal with them, you deal with them.

As for the Buk slapping incident, I do sense that it is not just a sign of shortcoming in Chinaski, but also of himself. The couch incident w/ Linda would seem to support that. Perhaps not in magnitude, but in concept.

 

[slimedog]

I still can't figure out why Jordan doesn't like this book.

 

[jordan]

Yes. You've been forever tagged as the idiot person who thought W.o.R is a bunch of racist ramblings.

wait, are you being sarcastic? if not, you're reading comprehension is laughably bad.

 

[justine]

Any comments regarding the author's intent are purely speculative, so I little little value in making them

i don't really understand this? how is a discussion about authorial intent worthless?

 

[Purple Stickpin]

My typo aside, since we can never really know whether our mental ramblings about an author's intent are hitting the mark or way off-base (especially in the case of posthumous discussion), I fail to see significant value in them. Sure, they pass the time and may trigger ideas, but as a scientist, I seek explanations. Since Fante isn't here to say "Yup, that's it," or "you've missed my point by a mile," what do we gain by trying to figure out his intent?

Don't take this the wrong way; although I do find it a bit odd that you chose to quote my introductory remarks and not my actual discussion on the point you so vehemently invoked people to address. I obviously see some value in the concept because I provided my thoughts on the matter; never once using the term "worthless." But it's just my opinion and as such, it ain't worth much.

 

[justine]

'little value' seems pretty close to 'worthless'. as for explanations: that's what i don't get. you're never going to ever really get an 'explanation' about literature from the author. that's why we talk about books.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

That's why I generally don't.

 

[nervas]

I loved the book, well, loved everything I've ever read from Fante. Gotta say, over the last three years I shared a lot of Gerards driving/being hit in the face stories, also kicked in the head, and had boiling pots of coffee thrown at my face, just to mention a few things(And in all my life I've never experienced anything like this, save for the last 3 years.) Never once did I react with physical violence towards my girlfriend. And I remember the first time I saw Buk kicking Linda off the couch, I felt sick to the stomach. But in all of Buk and Fante's writing, I always accepted it as their way of dealing with things. Obviously fictional, or not, I would have reacted differently to many a situation, but never got behind Fante for telling it like it is, when it came to racism or smacking my girl around. I was watching some South Park episodes the other day, where Cartman goes on and on about how he would smack a girl around, it was funny, in an entertaining way, though I'd gladly drive off a cliff before I'd ever lay a hand on a woman. So I don't know, I love Fante, worship Buk, but had I read reviews on Amazon about getting behind these types of characters actions, I'd only think of the guy I saw throw 3-4 full beer cans at his girlfriend last weekend, and really, it just made me sick to my stomach again. Especially, after watching 4 L.A.P.D cars come, talk to the girl(they were unable to find her boyfriend, he walked off somewhere) all to see the guy come back an hour later with no problem. Today, I saw them both, happy in love, bar b queing outside. Love is all that matters, right!

 

[Gin Soaked Boy]

wait, are you being sarcastic? if not, you're reading comprehension is laughably bad.

Yes I was being sarcastic (seeing how you jokingly referred to yourself as an idiot in the previous post). It was NOT intended to be interpreted as me actually calling you an idiot. Would never do a thing like that.

I guess its risky being sarcastic on the internet when not using smileys. But I really dislike smileys.

 

[LickTheStar]

From a 1972 letter to Carey McWilliams, "I wrote Bandini because it was a boil that had to be lanced. Ask the Dust was a painful boil. It had to be bled and cleansed...My Dog Stupid is another boil. I lanced it."

I think that My Dog Stupid is a great story, but I would also agree that Molise is a pretty deplorable father and husband at times... As far as authorial intent... My feeling is that Fante is probably more similar to the main characters of My Dog Stupid and Road to LA than he is to the other main characters in his novels and short stories. He's always come across as having a short temper and being a rather large asshole in social situations, embittered by a life toiling in Hollywood and constant literary failure.

But I do agree with you. Based on Cooper's Full of Life and Fante's own letters (and much of Fante's own writing) My Dog Stupid is probably a more accurate picture of his home life, I also believe that a lot of it is exaggerated for comedic, or dramatic, effect. Of course, Dan Fante's upcoming memoir of growing up Fante should be out some time in the next year and would be a real eye-opener...

 

[jordan]

Yes I was being sarcastic (seeing how you jokingly referred to yourself as an idiot in the previous post). It was NOT intended to be interpreted as me actually calling you an idiot. Would never do a thing like that.

I guess its risky being sarcastic on the internet when not using smileys. But I really dislike smileys.

haha, i'm glad i checked before flying off the handle. am i finding maturity at the twilight of my 20's?

 

[Hosh]

Dan Fante's books, so far, have provided some insight as well.

As for INTENT, I'd say writers want to create characters that are accurate and compelling--so fashioning a realistic persona with both good and bad qualities might just have been the intent. As someone said before, I think both Buk and Fante's work is pretty free of judgment--they created characters reader can wonder about...not characters that necessarily "represent" anything more than a character's mindset. And a character being openly, and unapologetically racist (though written decades ago--chances are good that it wasn't as racist then, as it is now) probably was meant to be an accurate portrayal of a character who was more conservative, old-fashioned, a little boorish even--much like Tom Buchanan in Gatsby--though certainly Fante's characters are more 3 dimensional than he was. And let's face it--race relations remain compelling even to this day. We're interested in how we're the same and how we're different...fascinated even. Makes for good reading...when done well.