What do you think?
Rate this book
I Think You're Totally Wrong: A Quarrel
An impassioned, funny, probing, fiercely inconclusive, nearly-to-the-death debate about life and art—beers included.
Caleb Powell always wanted to become an artist, but he overcommitted to life (he's a stay-at-home dad to three young girls), whereas his former professor David Shields always wanted to become a human being, but he overcommitted to art (he has five books coming out in the next year and a half). Shields and Powell spend four days together at a cabin in the Cascade Mountains, playing chess, shooting hoops, hiking to lakes and an abandoned mine; they rewatch My Dinner with André and The Trip, relax in a hot tub, and talk about everything they can think of in the name of exploring and debating their central question (life and/or art?): marriage, family, sports, sex, happiness, drugs, death, betrayal—and, of course, writers and writing.
The relationship—the balance of power—between Shields and Powell is in constant flux, as two egos try to undermine each other, two personalities overlap and collapse. This book seeks to deconstruct the Q&A format, which has roots as deep as Plato and Socrates and as wide as Laurel and Hardy, Beckett's Didi and Gogo, and Car Talk 's Magliozzi brothers. I Think You're Totally Wrong also seeks to confound, as much as possible, the divisions between "reality" and "fiction," between "life" and "art." There are no teachers or students here, no interviewers or interviewees, no masters in the universe—only a chasm of uncertainty, in a dialogue that remains dazzlingly provocative and entertaining from start to finish.
James Franco's adaptation of I Think You're Totally Wrong into a film, with Shields and Powell striving mightily to play themselves and Franco in a supporting role, was released in 2015.
Caleb Powell always wanted to become an artist, but he overcommitted to life (he's a stay-at-home dad to three young girls), whereas his former professor David Shields always wanted to become a human being, but he overcommitted to art (he has five books coming out in the next year and a half). Shields and Powell spend four days together at a cabin in the Cascade Mountains, playing chess, shooting hoops, hiking to lakes and an abandoned mine; they rewatch My Dinner with André and The Trip, relax in a hot tub, and talk about everything they can think of in the name of exploring and debating their central question (life and/or art?): marriage, family, sports, sex, happiness, drugs, death, betrayal—and, of course, writers and writing.
The relationship—the balance of power—between Shields and Powell is in constant flux, as two egos try to undermine each other, two personalities overlap and collapse. This book seeks to deconstruct the Q&A format, which has roots as deep as Plato and Socrates and as wide as Laurel and Hardy, Beckett's Didi and Gogo, and Car Talk 's Magliozzi brothers. I Think You're Totally Wrong also seeks to confound, as much as possible, the divisions between "reality" and "fiction," between "life" and "art." There are no teachers or students here, no interviewers or interviewees, no masters in the universe—only a chasm of uncertainty, in a dialogue that remains dazzlingly provocative and entertaining from start to finish.
James Franco's adaptation of I Think You're Totally Wrong into a film, with Shields and Powell striving mightily to play themselves and Franco in a supporting role, was released in 2015.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published September 16, 2014
8 people are currently reading
251 people want to read
About the author
David Shields
83 books264 followersDavid Shields is the author of fourteen books, including Reality Hunger (Knopf, 2010), which was named one of the best books of 2010 by more than thirty publications. GQ called it "the most provocative, brain-rewiring book of 2010"; the New York Times called it "a mind-bending manifesto." His previous book, The Thing About Life Is That One Day You'll Be Dead (Knopf, 2008), was a New York Times bestseller. His other books include Black Planet: Facing Race During an NBA Season, a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award; Remote: Reflections on Life in the Shadow of Celebrity, winner of the PEN/Revson Award; and Dead Languages: A Novel, winner of the PEN Syndicated Fiction Award. His essays and stories have appeared in the New York Times Magazine, Harper's, Yale Review, Believer, Village Voice, Salon, Slate, McSweeney's, and Utne Reader; he's written reviews for the New York Times Book Review, Los Angeles Times Book Review, Boston Globe, and Philadelphia Inquirer. His work has been translated into fifteen languages.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
September 21, 2014
The difference between this and a total waste of time is maybe too small to be visible by the human eye.
February 23, 2015
This is an interesting discussion between two writers (one very successful, one not so much) in which they hope to battle to discover the true meaning of life and art (okay, that's an overstatement). It's a fast read with plenty of pseudo-insight, as well as a few good jokes (and even more bad ones). Ultimately, there are no real answers here, and you won't find much in the way of a quarrel. Still, it's an interesting and engaging read that should at least make you think a little about subjects like life and art. If nothing else, it will give you quite a few recommendations for books and essays you need to read.
December 3, 2014
This is not a four-star book, but I enjoyed it more than many books that deserve better. Probably helps to be a Washington native, UW grad, Mariners and Huskies football fan (the announcers on page 194, I know those guys!).
Somehow (thankfully, I feel) I avoided David Shields while I was getting my English degree there... and I'm familiar with only some of the writers talked about within this conversation. But as a dialectic between would-be peers of mine- two middle-class, literate white men -I found the discussion exceedingly valuable- and not because their opinions or insights were particularly startling or valuable.
No, if anything the level of discourse is surprisingly unchallenging, and the ideas obvious. Rather, it was reassuring to read articulate extemporizing which, nevertheless, often seemed, to me, easily refuted and woefully myopic. Removed from academia, ensconced in family and embroiled in my own burgeoning novel, witnessing their conversation made me feel a little less isolated, and reminded me that I'm of reasonable intelligence even outside my own skull.
(Both David and Caleb are sharp, but their "arguments" are mired in the poles of a worldview that's really just the standard, default muck we've all been swimming around in for 50+ years now.)
So no, you're probably not going to learn much of anything or experience much illumination here. The value of this book is how it captures what can be the significant differences of opinion (or, if you like, belief) between people who are in other ways nearly identical- and in how, in this age of "gotcha" politicking behind IP firewalls, it reconciles those differences into an easy civility.
I Think You're Totally Wrong is the sort of trifle that should be much more common.
Somehow (thankfully, I feel) I avoided David Shields while I was getting my English degree there... and I'm familiar with only some of the writers talked about within this conversation. But as a dialectic between would-be peers of mine- two middle-class, literate white men -I found the discussion exceedingly valuable- and not because their opinions or insights were particularly startling or valuable.
No, if anything the level of discourse is surprisingly unchallenging, and the ideas obvious. Rather, it was reassuring to read articulate extemporizing which, nevertheless, often seemed, to me, easily refuted and woefully myopic. Removed from academia, ensconced in family and embroiled in my own burgeoning novel, witnessing their conversation made me feel a little less isolated, and reminded me that I'm of reasonable intelligence even outside my own skull.
(Both David and Caleb are sharp, but their "arguments" are mired in the poles of a worldview that's really just the standard, default muck we've all been swimming around in for 50+ years now.)
So no, you're probably not going to learn much of anything or experience much illumination here. The value of this book is how it captures what can be the significant differences of opinion (or, if you like, belief) between people who are in other ways nearly identical- and in how, in this age of "gotcha" politicking behind IP firewalls, it reconciles those differences into an easy civility.
I Think You're Totally Wrong is the sort of trifle that should be much more common.
March 29, 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed and devoured this book. I've read some reviews about how pretentious and assumptive to simply put a conversation between two guys out as a book, but bottom line, it was fun to see the two guys interact and converse. The promised philosophical clash never really seems to develop though.
In a subversive way, I think Shields used the snippets of Caleb Powell's life to further what he does in his own work. The choices, particularly economic, that have to be made to pursue a life of art resonate with anyone who has artistic aspirations.
Like the correspondence with Paul Auster and J.M. Coetzee in Here and Now: Letters, rather than insight, I walked away craving a similar connection with another person. (On a side note, Paul Auster's non-fiction work and his ex-wife Lydia Davis's short work remind me a lot of Shields' autobiographical writing.)
In a subversive way, I think Shields used the snippets of Caleb Powell's life to further what he does in his own work. The choices, particularly economic, that have to be made to pursue a life of art resonate with anyone who has artistic aspirations.
Like the correspondence with Paul Auster and J.M. Coetzee in Here and Now: Letters, rather than insight, I walked away craving a similar connection with another person. (On a side note, Paul Auster's non-fiction work and his ex-wife Lydia Davis's short work remind me a lot of Shields' autobiographical writing.)
May 23, 2018
men need to stop talking!!!!!!!! goddamn!!!!!
January 27, 2015
The prolific writer David Shields and his former student Caleb Powell spend a weekend chewing the fat in a mountain cabin. Their edited recordings become the transcript of this book. Powell, a stay-at-home father, defends "choosing life over art" and Shields defends the opposite. It takes a certain arrogance to decide that your off-the-cuff banter deserves to be bound and sold for $25.95. I'm all for literary experiments fueled by arrogance, but this one rarely delivers on its audacity.
July 4, 2015
I haven't been this engaged in a book in a long time. It is very thought provoking and inspires introspection. I find myself wanting to take part in the discussion.
January 5, 2016
I picked up this book at the Bainbridge library mostly because it took place locally. I have never read anything by author David Shields, much less his former student Caleb Powell, and after a few pages I thought I might return the book unread. But I'm glad I persisted (and it was an amazingly quick read)...two smart guys, one semi-humble and the other bordering on obnoxious, discussing Art versus Life and lots of other stuff in a cabin in the Cascades. I love language and will remember some of the great phrases these two invented. If you liked the movies "My Dinner with Andre", or "Sideways", you will probably enjoy this book.
January 11, 2016
I bought the book because of an interesting pitch made by Brain Pickings. It started out slow, but, after setting the context, it just kept getting better and better! The book is a dialogue between two writers, the younger one having been a student of the older one. They discuss anything from writing, to love, marriage, life and more, diving into the depths of our fears, hopes and expectations.
I enjoyed the book thoroughly and couldn't stop reading until I finished it.
I enjoyed the book thoroughly and couldn't stop reading until I finished it.
May 14, 2022
Sort of the concept of "My Dinner with Andre" or Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon's "The Trip" road films, where they banter and argue back and forth about life, art, books, writing, philosophy, intellect, personal stories, etc. It's entertaining and amusing and there are a million literary references. Both are equally opinionated but it's quite civil. The problem for me is that they really never get into any debate more than a few sentences, they just randomly wander around stream of consciousness which reminds me of the intense dinner table conversations I used to have with my roommates back in NYC in the early 70's. And about as conclusive. Whereas "My Dinner with Andre" was a masterful trajectory with shape, and Coogan's films quirky and humorous, this was more like eavesdropping with a lot of interruptions, and often I wanted to jump in with my own two cents.
May 4, 2015
There is something voyeuristic about observing this wide-ranging discussion between Shields and his former student Powell. The basic idea is rather hackneyed: art vs. life, with the presumption that you have to choose between the two. Shields represents Art, and Powell, who became a stay at home dad and didn't manage to get the novel he has been working on published, represents Life.
My enjoyment of this book didn't come from their attempts to address the question of art and life which was never really examined to much depth even if it was obliquely in most of the conversations. More interesting were the random stories and digressions: everything from their Jewishness, baldness, drinking, George Bush (and whether he is evil) and stories of Powell's travels and experiences as an ESL teacher (including a particularly memorable one about a transvestite). It is like listening in on a conversation between two intelligent, interesting friends who mention everything from the Danish TV show The Killing to Jonathan Franzen and David Foster Wallace, with quotes from Shaw, Pessoa, Greene and Henry James throw into the mix as well as extended commentary on My Dinner with Andre, which they attempt to watch together.
If this sounds pretentious, it is anything but - which is part of the fun of it. I enjoyed the random digressions into Basketball and family life and amusing interjections from everyone from waiters to hikers. I do wish there was more on the nature of art - they do differ on this but Shields is the only one who truly captures a particular idea of Art: "Art can serve people if the writer showed how flawed he/she actually is"; and "But to me that's what art is: human conciousness". Whereas Powell says that he "wants to ask questions that ask substantive questions like 'Why do we kill' and 'Why do we inflict pain'? But doesn't forms of Art like creative non-fiction have avenues for him to do just that?
I think that Art does entail sacrifice - though Shields underlines how practical a sacrifice that can be when he admitted that his overwhelming need to focus on his writing led to a decision not to have a second child. Superficially, Powell chose to prioritise his family, but the greater sense I get is that he loved experiences and living life, but lacked the discipline and overwhelming need to be a writer that Shields exhibits. Shields admits it readily: when I finish a book I start another one it is just what I have to do.
It may be a cliche: but Art is a calling. Being a writer doesn't mean escaping the world (though as Woolf already pointed out a Room of One's Own and time to oneself is essential), it means harnessing every aspect of your experience - to "convey and articulate how strange it feels to be alive" in Shields memorable description of the writing of David Foster Wallace. This requires a degree of narcissism but also a great deal of drive. Which explains a lot why Powell isn't a published writer and neither am I.
My enjoyment of this book didn't come from their attempts to address the question of art and life which was never really examined to much depth even if it was obliquely in most of the conversations. More interesting were the random stories and digressions: everything from their Jewishness, baldness, drinking, George Bush (and whether he is evil) and stories of Powell's travels and experiences as an ESL teacher (including a particularly memorable one about a transvestite). It is like listening in on a conversation between two intelligent, interesting friends who mention everything from the Danish TV show The Killing to Jonathan Franzen and David Foster Wallace, with quotes from Shaw, Pessoa, Greene and Henry James throw into the mix as well as extended commentary on My Dinner with Andre, which they attempt to watch together.
If this sounds pretentious, it is anything but - which is part of the fun of it. I enjoyed the random digressions into Basketball and family life and amusing interjections from everyone from waiters to hikers. I do wish there was more on the nature of art - they do differ on this but Shields is the only one who truly captures a particular idea of Art: "Art can serve people if the writer showed how flawed he/she actually is"; and "But to me that's what art is: human conciousness". Whereas Powell says that he "wants to ask questions that ask substantive questions like 'Why do we kill' and 'Why do we inflict pain'? But doesn't forms of Art like creative non-fiction have avenues for him to do just that?
I think that Art does entail sacrifice - though Shields underlines how practical a sacrifice that can be when he admitted that his overwhelming need to focus on his writing led to a decision not to have a second child. Superficially, Powell chose to prioritise his family, but the greater sense I get is that he loved experiences and living life, but lacked the discipline and overwhelming need to be a writer that Shields exhibits. Shields admits it readily: when I finish a book I start another one it is just what I have to do.
It may be a cliche: but Art is a calling. Being a writer doesn't mean escaping the world (though as Woolf already pointed out a Room of One's Own and time to oneself is essential), it means harnessing every aspect of your experience - to "convey and articulate how strange it feels to be alive" in Shields memorable description of the writing of David Foster Wallace. This requires a degree of narcissism but also a great deal of drive. Which explains a lot why Powell isn't a published writer and neither am I.
February 9, 2015
CALEB: What we say goes. I mean, yeah, add on a thought to a conversation--fine. Or if I paraphrase a quote and when I transcribe, I look up the exact quote, that's okay, it's in the spirit. Or if we talk about something on the second day, but it makes sense to bump it to the first day, I'm down with that. But I don't want to fictionalize some conversation with two bicyclists we never met. It didn't happen. I don't want to cross that line.
DAVID: Fine, but I can --
CALEB: If it didn't happen, I don't want to say it happened.
DAVID: I do.
---------
The best thing I can say about this book, a limp imitator of interrogative artistic dialogues such as My Dinner With Andre and Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself (both of which are discussed within), as well as The Lifespan of a Fact (which is not), is that the two subjects have a good rapport together, and it reads quickly. But the whole thing is too self-conscious, too precious, and too forced. There's some meat on the bone, to be sure -- How does the artist commit himself to his art without sacrificing living life? What is the proper balance? -- but it ultimately feels too disposable to take its place with those aforementioned books (this is one of five books Shields has coming out over the next two years, the book jacket helpfully informs us).
And brace yourselves, this purportedly spontaneous weekend conversation, already manufactured for this book, will be manufactured yet again for a film adaptation directed by James Franco.
DAVID: Fine, but I can --
CALEB: If it didn't happen, I don't want to say it happened.
DAVID: I do.
---------
The best thing I can say about this book, a limp imitator of interrogative artistic dialogues such as My Dinner With Andre and Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself (both of which are discussed within), as well as The Lifespan of a Fact (which is not), is that the two subjects have a good rapport together, and it reads quickly. But the whole thing is too self-conscious, too precious, and too forced. There's some meat on the bone, to be sure -- How does the artist commit himself to his art without sacrificing living life? What is the proper balance? -- but it ultimately feels too disposable to take its place with those aforementioned books (this is one of five books Shields has coming out over the next two years, the book jacket helpfully informs us).
And brace yourselves, this purportedly spontaneous weekend conversation, already manufactured for this book, will be manufactured yet again for a film adaptation directed by James Franco.
March 2, 2015
3 and a half.
I'm a fan of David Shields. I like the way he thinks, and his book Reality Hunger was instrumental in defining my own literary aesthetic.
But this book was definitely a bit self-indulged. Anyway, I don't really write reviews on Goodreads. I leave notes to myself for later, if I ever want to revisit a book I've read.
So then: it was enjoyable; it was a quick read and some passages were interesting and provocative and very good. But I felt the thing could have been heavily edited, and the truly good parts included in another book with a, I don't know, bigger project.
The book works from the premise that whatever they happen to be discussing is interesting, and or, contributes to the life/art debate. It simply isn't true. A lot of it is filler. Still, again, despite all that, it's still enjoyable.
I'm a fan of David Shields. I like the way he thinks, and his book Reality Hunger was instrumental in defining my own literary aesthetic.
But this book was definitely a bit self-indulged. Anyway, I don't really write reviews on Goodreads. I leave notes to myself for later, if I ever want to revisit a book I've read.
So then: it was enjoyable; it was a quick read and some passages were interesting and provocative and very good. But I felt the thing could have been heavily edited, and the truly good parts included in another book with a, I don't know, bigger project.
The book works from the premise that whatever they happen to be discussing is interesting, and or, contributes to the life/art debate. It simply isn't true. A lot of it is filler. Still, again, despite all that, it's still enjoyable.
March 6, 2015
Would Naomi Klein waste time reading this? No! Reading interviews/conversations is sometimes a guilty pleasure of mine. And I love to disagree with David Shields. But I found myself agreeing with Shields against Powell more often than I'd have expected, and by the end I positively loathed Powell. I only took a perverse, wicked pleasure in watching these two middle-class Seattle white guys talk about racism, their wives, their salaries, etc. and remain so much in the dark about how freaking entitled they were. It was also over-produced and admittedly "edited" - if you're going to show it then show it! If these conversations really took place in September '11 why'd it take so long to come to publication? It's all sort of embarrassing. Not recommended.
July 26, 2018
I think was drew me to this is what drew me to David Sedaris, and they both fail for me the same way too. I am drawn to books where intellectuals discuss a wide range of topics. But I ultimately get annoyed with the characters/authors because I either vehemently disagree with them, or don't care about the topics they pick. I want these books to reflect the conversations I have with my friends or the things I think about but I usually either don't know anything about what they are talking about or think their opinions are either preachy or just completely wrong. I think one of the problems is that I keep picking up authors that are way older than me and usually privileged white men. I just don't dwell on the same literature or politics as they do and it either frustrates or bores me. Overall not a bad book, and at times I thought it was actually quite funny, I just don't think it was exactly for me.
February 20, 2022
HARD DNF.
The embodiment of "If I could give you 0 stars, I would, but since that's not possible, I'll give you a 1."
These men are talking heads of the worst sort- discussing the worst aspects of society with coldness and detachment that seems to minimize them. I really *strongly* hated it and couldn't bring myself to finish the book.
The embodiment of "If I could give you 0 stars, I would, but since that's not possible, I'll give you a 1."
These men are talking heads of the worst sort- discussing the worst aspects of society with coldness and detachment that seems to minimize them. I really *strongly* hated it and couldn't bring myself to finish the book.
April 4, 2020
I don’t think I was the target audience for this book. I tend to choose books based on their title/overall appearance, if I happen to be browsing the library. I hate putting a book down once I’ve started but this wasn’t a great read. Two white guys arguing about literature 🤷♀️
January 10, 2019
This was alright, though I am not sure a book was the best format for this. The best parts are when they're quoting other people.
April 29, 2019
It’s interesting and also completely pointless. Would have like it to be more edited.
April 16, 2022
FUN! I love eavesdropping on the conversations of smart, interesting people!
July 31, 2023
What's not to like?
July 31, 2023
I'm happy with this product.
February 23, 2024
Ugh it's like listening to two MFA bros intellectually jerk off for almost 300 pages 🙄🙄
Read
September 17, 2024Audio no rating decide for yourself.
June 18, 2025
I enjoyed this book. I dunno, I did. I really did. It’s two guys arguing/bickering/discussing a wide range of topics in a cabin in the woods.
September 3, 2016
What is a classic, professional arguement? As a passionate lady of discourse this text led me meditate on America's future-I wonder how many of us have been quietly reading and re-reading masters of oration as the flames of political insanity intensify around the globe . But this one is a killer -It led me to loan out my copy to a co-worker and fellow life long learner of inquiry and pass the ball of choice forward. I understand why it's circulating -who but the yearning would hunger for answers" but avid readers -audiences, like myself, who endless compare text theories with a director's end results An afternoon spent exploring these two philosophers who provided me with a sardonic witty discourse over a lifetime of experience and counter arguments led to a long soul spent journey of just why David ended his discussion with either life or art-
An insane ultimatum is how it struck me but an unfair judgement given I never personally met David or his partner in crime!-Yet both men stole my heart as deep down inside we know that Big Picture nightmare looms over our future-Our beloved uncle Sam is a metaphorical pressure cooker of who do we rob? Every penny counts in the endless race of our age old sport of a balanced budget -That daring act of improving the quality of life through finance is the game changer ! -
But still What is life ? A comic might suggest it's a magazine or cereal but all jokes aside , I implore you Buy a copy , put your feet up and relax as you mull over two sides of this powerful debate and wonder if either side strikes your political funnybone.
Personally I applaud both for taking up our gauntlet to express on behalf of the millions of voices who regardless of race, religion, age, gender or political identity are warriors of living life worth experiencing but too frightened to utter a word. -Still Who would sacrifice music, graphics, photography, dance or technological interactions and call their existence life ?-That is like sacrificing food , travel, vacations , or our no one does it better than us dramatic act ups-Thank you David for making our lives far more interesting and providing more to act up over.SAHNBCT 2018
An insane ultimatum is how it struck me but an unfair judgement given I never personally met David or his partner in crime!-Yet both men stole my heart as deep down inside we know that Big Picture nightmare looms over our future-Our beloved uncle Sam is a metaphorical pressure cooker of who do we rob? Every penny counts in the endless race of our age old sport of a balanced budget -That daring act of improving the quality of life through finance is the game changer ! -
But still What is life ? A comic might suggest it's a magazine or cereal but all jokes aside , I implore you Buy a copy , put your feet up and relax as you mull over two sides of this powerful debate and wonder if either side strikes your political funnybone.
Personally I applaud both for taking up our gauntlet to express on behalf of the millions of voices who regardless of race, religion, age, gender or political identity are warriors of living life worth experiencing but too frightened to utter a word. -Still Who would sacrifice music, graphics, photography, dance or technological interactions and call their existence life ?-That is like sacrificing food , travel, vacations , or our no one does it better than us dramatic act ups-Thank you David for making our lives far more interesting and providing more to act up over.SAHNBCT 2018
November 26, 2014
David Shields, a novelist and professor, and Caleb Powell, stay-at-home father and aspiring novelist, get together for a long weekend in order to talk. The result is I Think You're Totally Wrong: A Quarrel.
The two make no secret about wanting to create something like the movies My Dinner With Andre, Sideways, and The Trip. Those were all very dialogue-heavy films that depicted two men having wide-ranging conversations. They are good movies and very entertaining. Of course, they were scripted conversations with actors pretending to verbally spar with one another. Shields and Powell have an idea of the things they want to talk about and they brought a digital voice recorder.
The sheer arrogance of the exercise makes you wonder right off the bat if it's some kind of joke, if they're playing roles or it's some kind of elaborate egghead performance art. Let's assume it isn't, otherwise you can dismiss the whole thing immediately.
The conversation is awkwardly self-conscious, with the two men trying to one-up each other with literary allusions, quotations, experiences. Although they are both married men with families, they repeatedly fall back into their student-teacher relationship of twenty years ago. Powell, unable to elicit more than the merest praise and encouragement from Shields, resorts to boasting about his life experiences and criticizing Shields' life decisions. Shields slips into the professor mode often, even when they're listening to sports on the radio. "I love how he brings incredibly rococo analysis to bear upon the simplest plays."
Sometimes the banter is amusing, often it's too much information, especially when it's about their wives or children. At one point, Powell walks out of the room to use the bathroom, and Shields continues his soliloquy to the microphone.
My recommendation -- watch Sideways or The Trip.
The two make no secret about wanting to create something like the movies My Dinner With Andre, Sideways, and The Trip. Those were all very dialogue-heavy films that depicted two men having wide-ranging conversations. They are good movies and very entertaining. Of course, they were scripted conversations with actors pretending to verbally spar with one another. Shields and Powell have an idea of the things they want to talk about and they brought a digital voice recorder.
The sheer arrogance of the exercise makes you wonder right off the bat if it's some kind of joke, if they're playing roles or it's some kind of elaborate egghead performance art. Let's assume it isn't, otherwise you can dismiss the whole thing immediately.
The conversation is awkwardly self-conscious, with the two men trying to one-up each other with literary allusions, quotations, experiences. Although they are both married men with families, they repeatedly fall back into their student-teacher relationship of twenty years ago. Powell, unable to elicit more than the merest praise and encouragement from Shields, resorts to boasting about his life experiences and criticizing Shields' life decisions. Shields slips into the professor mode often, even when they're listening to sports on the radio. "I love how he brings incredibly rococo analysis to bear upon the simplest plays."
Sometimes the banter is amusing, often it's too much information, especially when it's about their wives or children. At one point, Powell walks out of the room to use the bathroom, and Shields continues his soliloquy to the microphone.
My recommendation -- watch Sideways or The Trip.
January 31, 2016
This conversation between two writers, one teacher and his former pupil, is really a discussion (when it doesn't disgress) about the age old-conflict between life and art. Which takes precedence, which has more value, how does one balance earning a living and doing what one loves?
Women have had these types of discussions for many more years than men, but the evolution of our society is changing family roles, and for an artist (where income is less secure often times), the home is the workplace. Now, men, too, have to engage in questions of work-life balance that women have struggled with for centuries.
In this case, the discussion takes place over a long weekend, hiking in the woods and enjoying the comforts of time away from work and family. It's teacher and pupil, writer vs. writer, in a wide-ranging discussion of not only what motivates and informs their craft, but in how to assign value to the balancing act between home life and work.
For readers, this is much like secretly listening in to two friends talk. Of course, one is the older more established professor (the teacher), one is the younger, more outwardly oriented pupil, now responsible for raising his three daughters while his wife provides the family's main income. They are often divided by tasks and focus, but not by goals and aspirations.
While the centerpiece of the wide-ranging discussion is the age-old struggle between work and life (which activity takes precedence and how to strike a balance), many other topics come to the fore over a long weekend as well. This is a very interesting format that could work well between many authors; as pioneers, Shields and Powell have opened the door to what many readers will hope are many more of these types of openly shared discussions.
Women have had these types of discussions for many more years than men, but the evolution of our society is changing family roles, and for an artist (where income is less secure often times), the home is the workplace. Now, men, too, have to engage in questions of work-life balance that women have struggled with for centuries.
In this case, the discussion takes place over a long weekend, hiking in the woods and enjoying the comforts of time away from work and family. It's teacher and pupil, writer vs. writer, in a wide-ranging discussion of not only what motivates and informs their craft, but in how to assign value to the balancing act between home life and work.
For readers, this is much like secretly listening in to two friends talk. Of course, one is the older more established professor (the teacher), one is the younger, more outwardly oriented pupil, now responsible for raising his three daughters while his wife provides the family's main income. They are often divided by tasks and focus, but not by goals and aspirations.
While the centerpiece of the wide-ranging discussion is the age-old struggle between work and life (which activity takes precedence and how to strike a balance), many other topics come to the fore over a long weekend as well. This is a very interesting format that could work well between many authors; as pioneers, Shields and Powell have opened the door to what many readers will hope are many more of these types of openly shared discussions.
April 20, 2015
I read this in a few places over the course of a couple of days. At home in the back yard, then later in the afternoon as Erik and I walked from our house to Japantown, on the bus back from Japantown, again this morning in the back yard, in the sauna at the YMCA, and finally just finished it lounging in bed. The abrupt start and stop helped the book to feel like an ongoing conversation, which I enjoyed. I liked mostly the premise of this book: an art project that two people decided to engage in. It seems that both Shields and Powell are giddy that they are doing this and that they get to do this. In high school my friend Cailtin and I decided to tape record ourselves to document the effects of drinking a pot of coffee. We then transcribed the piece and published it in our fanzine "Space Craft Convention". I recall it being funny at times, there were some real jems of insight, but it was also slightly tedious.
March 3, 2015
This book did bring up some good issues, but Caleb Powell was an overbearing, self-involved dick. He dominated and interrupted every conversation. I really would have liked to learn more about the great David Shields, but instead we hear all about Mr. Powell's blow jobs with transvestites and globe-trotting adventures. He is the type of person that feels superior to others for having traveled more.(a personal pet peeve). I do think Shields calls him out on this on more than one occasion, but the balance of conversation was just too off. It was almost like Mr. Powell's constant over sharing was compensating for his lack of fulfillment as the great writer he wants to become, but has alluded him. I was amazed how both men could remember quotes from books and movies, a talent I wish I had. The concept for the book was somewhat original.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews