by Matei Calinescu, translated from the Romanian by Adriana Calinescu and Breon Mitchell (New York Review Books)

When I first started reading The Life and Opinions of Zacharias Lichter by Matei Calinescu, translated from the Romanian by Adriana Calinescu and Breon Mitchell (published by New York Review Books), I had the sense that I had read this book before. Or not this book exactly, but a different novel, or novels, that employed a similar technique of letting an idiosyncratic character糖心传媒檚 bizarre糖心传媒攜et compelling and logical in their quirks糖心传媒攊deas run free in a way in which an overarching plot is tossed aside in favor of a series of semi-philosophical sketches.

From 糖心传媒淥n the Realm of Stupidity糖心传媒�:

No wonder then that Lichter sees modern civilization as a vast extension of the Realm of Stupidity. Intelligence is obsessed with that which is fundamental, original, structural, essential. One recognizes intelligent individuals by their fascination with the elementary and the simple. Their efforts within the spiritual order are integrative: they seek the basic principle, or糖心传媒攖o put it metaphorically糖心传媒攖he ideal key to all the mysteries of the world. Aspiring towards totality and uniqueness is not stupidity糖心传媒檚 ambitions. Its strength lies in its ability to placidly accept any theory, even an erroneous one, as long as it offers a viable starting point towards the practical results. A parasite plagiarizing the pure core of intelligence, sapping its vigor, stupidity forever fortifies and perfects itself, sprawling like a vast and dangerous stain on the consciousness of humanity. For stupidity is vain (the vanity of 糖心传媒渆fficiency糖心传媒�), sure of itself, economical, has wide-spreading technological tentacles and is shrewdly and ferociously aggressive. Stupidity wills itself to be 糖心传媒渦niversally human.糖心传媒� Since the domain of stupidity is progress itself, Zacharias Lichter naturally concludes that true intelligence evolves within a vicious circle, forever fantasizing escape yet forever falling back into the realization that all efforts at escape are futile.

I still can糖心传媒檛 quite put my finger on the other book(s) I糖心传媒檝e read like this. Cort谩zar糖心传媒檚 Cronopios and Famas comes to mind, but that糖心传媒檚 not focused on a single individual. There糖心传媒檚 something of Stefan Themerson here as well, maybe Tom Harris? Or part of Ergo by Jakov Lind? I feel like there糖心传媒檚 a voice just outside of my active memory that is just like this book . . . The best I can come up with right now is Mahu, or, The Material by Robert Pinget. Here糖心传媒檚 a bit from 糖心传媒淪tilts糖心传媒�:

Supposing I wore stilts? It would change everything. When you went out for your coffee in the morning you糖心传媒檇 put on your coat or something longer to hide your feet, and the pieces of wood would show underneath. The grocer糖心传媒檚 wife would say, 糖心传媒淭here goes spindleshanks for his morning drink, it must be nine o糖心传媒檆lock.糖心传媒� I糖心传媒檇 cross the road without waiting for the green light, the cars would stop at the sight of a man on stilts and you might get your newspaper for nothing, at first anyway.

Anyway, The Life and Opinions of Zacharias Lichter is a great bathroom book. Most of the chapters are 3-4 pages long, and require a burst of concentration to immerse oneself in the particulars of this prose style and really tease out the humor and linguistic calisthenics. Don糖心传媒檛 read this in one long sitting糖心传媒攊t糖心传媒檚 a book that糖心传媒檚 best enjoyed as little bites, almost like a short story collection, but with a singular mindset, the madness of which takes over the whole book and infuses it with an off-kilter joy accessible to the patient . . . and the clued-in.

What I糖心传媒檓 curious about is which books prepare you to like a book like this. If you are what you read, and the books you imprinted on are Twilight, Slaughterhouse-Five, and The Lime Works, is that enough? Or will this book seem utterly incomprehensible, or, maybe not incomprehensible, but a waste of time? This book nagged at me because my shitty memory wouldn糖心传媒檛 call forth all the books I糖心传媒檝e read in this general tradition. That糖心传媒檚 a totally different experience than for someone who has never seen writing like this in their life and struggles to understand how exactly this fits within the category of 糖心传媒渘ovel糖心传媒� that they糖心传媒檝e built up inside of their mind.

The opposite formulation of the 糖心传媒渘ot for everyone糖心传媒� statement is to clearly define who would be into a particular book: 糖心传媒淭his novel is for fans of Pinget, Themerson, and Jouet.糖心传媒� Which circumscribes a readership of approximately fourteen people.

On the other hand, if you name-check the authors everyone has heard of糖心传媒斕切拇綔this is for those readers interested in Cort谩zar, Kundera, and Rushdie糖心传媒澨切拇綌you糖心传媒檙e not only full of shit, but you糖心传媒檙e about as useful as an Amazon algorithm.

That糖心传媒檚 a lie. Amazon糖心传媒檚 algorithmic recommendations can be damn interesting. Like with this book, which, I糖心传媒檒l look up right now on Amazon and . . . uh. That糖心传媒檚 not what I expected. I should糖心传媒檝e done that search before starting this paragraph and finding out that, aside from other NYRB titles, the 糖心传媒淐ustomers Also Bought糖心传媒� listings include Jenny Erpenbeck, Mathias 脡nard, and L煤cio Cardoso糖心传媒攁ll really good authors!, none of which really relate to this book. (Unless you糖心传媒檙e looking for titles that fit into the category of 糖心传媒渓iterary,糖心传媒� which is almost as bad as the category I糖心传媒檓 going to discuss below.)

I used to think a lot about 糖心传媒渄iscoverability糖心传媒� and recommendation algorithms. If you find the tag 糖心传媒渇uture of reading糖心传媒� on this blog, you糖心传媒檒l hit upon a treasure trove of detailed breakdowns of 糖心传媒渘ew糖心传媒� book recommendation sites, like BookLamp, Small Demons, Bookish 1.0 (or 2.0? Does it even matter?), GoodReads, etc. I still spend at least one class period every semester going over all of these mostly defunct sites, digging into the rationale for why everyone wanted to create online recommendation sites (it糖心传媒檚 crucial to get the right book to people at the right time and we all live online, so that糖心传媒檚 where you can make the connections) and the variety of theoretical ways by which these sites created their recommendation algorithms (by starting with the book and matching elements in the text to preferences; by starting with groups of readers and assuming similiar readers like similar books).

Nowadays, I糖心传媒檓 not sure that I care all that much. I don糖心传媒檛 feel like these sites are a viable strategy for publishers to connect their books with potential readers because a) they don糖心传媒檛 exist anymore and b) no one cares. Aside from GoodReads users, I糖心传媒檓 not sure there糖心传媒檚 a significant subset of readers who use a particular algorithm-driven website to figure out what book to read next.

(A site I never use.)

Last week in my 糖心传媒淲orld Literature & Translation糖心传媒� class, I had a couple grad students give presentations on Adam Thirlwell糖心传媒檚 The Delighted States: A Book of Novels, Romances, & Their Unknown Translators, Containing Ten Languages, Set on Four Continents, & Accompanied by . . . Illustrations, & a Variety of Helpful Indexes, a book that I unabashedly love. Adam usually gets an email from me every spring about how much god damn fun it is talking about his book in class. He糖心传媒檚 in that relatively small group of authors who I would love to get wasted with and shoot the shit about books. To be honest, I think of The Delighted States and It糖心传媒檚 Long Subtitle less as a book and more as a textual eavesdropping in on the smartest guy you know drinking Guinness at a dive bar and getting way too into literary ideas. 糖心传媒淭he whole of literature can be explained through a tricycle.糖心传媒� (An hour of stories about Proust falling down, the three-wheel theory of literature, triangles and linguistics in translation, and how cool is Hrabal?) 糖心传媒淎nd then when the tricycle appears in [insert obscure work by Eastern European writers] you can see the whole of history of writing as play. You know?糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淔uck yes, Adam. Fuck. Yes.糖心传媒�

The joy I had reading this book for the first time糖心传媒攁nd reading various sections over and again糖心传媒攚asn糖心传媒檛 exactly the same as what my students experienced. Here were their general reactions: 1) this book is all over the place and hard to follow, 2) 糖心传媒淚糖心传媒檝e never read the authors Thirlwell mentions.糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淲hich ones, specifically?糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淔laubert, Proust, Borges, Hrabal, Gombrowicz, Laurence Sterne, Nabokov, Ulysses . . .糖心传媒� 糖心传媒�. . .糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淪o it was kind of ridiculous.糖心传媒� 糖心传媒�. . . 糖心传媒�, and 3) how does any of this relate to the books we糖心传媒檙e reading for class?¹

I糖心传媒檝e gone through a variety of emotions as I worked my way through these responses, but the main one I keep coming back to is the one that would get the most 糖心传媒渢humbs up糖心传媒� on Facebook: why would anyone admit, in a literature class, to not knowing some of the most influential writers of the past hundred-plus years?

Stepping back from my existential dismay, I can cycle through some of the more legitimate reasons: there糖心传媒檚 not much value in knowing about books that the masses don糖心传媒檛 talk about, no one has read much at nineteen, the Canon is thankfully now canons, and it糖心传媒檚 not like they糖心传媒檙e aware of classic films, TV shows, albums, or other art works either. These are kids!

At the end of every semester I take myself to task for all of my fuck-ups. I read the student evaluations and get neurotic thinking about the ways in which Open Letter stress bled into my teaching. I replay too many class conversations in which I wish I was just smarter. I obsess over my shortcomings as a hopefully decent (question mark?) publisher and reader who generally functions outside of academia and teaches from particular world experiences糖心传媒攖hose of bookselling, publishing, and reading, not deep academic research. From September to May, I actively try and teach students how to write for readers who aren糖心传媒檛 PhD holders or candidates, from May to September, I question myself and think I糖心传媒檓 just stupid. Then I remember that there are very few people in the world糖心传媒攊n academia and outside of it糖心传媒攚ho have read so broadly and voraciously in world literature. And I think that糖心传媒檚 valuable? At least for making connections and recommendations?

As an outsider, I need to focus more on the positives that I can bring to these classes, on how every session is another chance to turn young readers on to particular authors and literary traditions (and the field of nonprofit publishing as a whole). Instead of assuming that they糖心传媒檝e read Flaubert and Sterne and Hrabal in other classes I should use the contemporary books that we read as ways to hook them on those writers from the past who bent and expanded ideas of the novel. Authors whose works I assumed would be passed down generation to generation, but might not.²

All these anxieties lead me to one central question: how do young readers find out about world literature? And not just the most established authors糖心传媒擠ostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Cervantes, etc.糖心传媒攂ut the second, or third level of interesting international authors. Those like Bernhard, Sarraute, C茅line, even. Authors who PhD candidates might end up reading, but that the general public rarely comes in contact with.

If you study English, with rare exception, your literature classes tend to focus on writers who write in English. I can糖心传媒檛 remember reading many translated texts in my undergrad studies. At least not in class. I read Madame Bovary and The Counterfeiters and Death on the Installment Plan over summer break.

There糖心传媒檚 a similar situation if you糖心传媒檙e studying a given language. The vast majority of classes in the Modern Languages & Cultures department at the U of R are about a particular aspect of a particular culture. 糖心传媒淭he Invention of Spanish America: From Colonial Subjects to Global Citizens糖心传媒� or 糖心传媒淭he Films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder.糖心传媒� They look back to the established (or newly established) creators with a lot of academic clout and secondary materials. This is super valuable, and helps illuminate how to read, how to think, how to process. But, for someone interested in International Literature as a grand sweeping idea, each of these classes provides only a part of the picture.

I used to assume that the best opportunity for students to be introduced to world literature and all its various threads糖心传媒攍ike the Oulipo or Nouveau Roman糖心传媒攆rom all over the world糖心传媒攚hen else will you have the time to read a few books from Korea, India, Argentina, and the Czech Republic?糖心传媒攚ould be through the classroom. But I糖心传媒檓 not sure that糖心传媒檚 the case. For a reader to truly immerse themselves in the traditions and voices of the world, they need some other sources of recommendations. And not the online algorithms that feel both incomplete and tilted to a certain group of titles. Or literary listicles that might provide a path for looking into a particular topic or grouping of authors, but tend to be too thin to prove valuable.

This is where we tend to look toward booksellers. If a typical academic reads deeply on a focused group of authors or topics, booksellers read (or are at least aware of) a huge swath of what糖心传媒檚 being written. They have to in order to be successful at their jobs, even if your average book buyer doesn糖心传媒檛 care about personal recommendations and is content browsing in solitude and interacting with employees only when they need to be clerked.

There is a constraint on booksellers as well: for the most part they have to promote recently published books or ones about to come out. Going hard on a handsell of a book that came out fifteen years ago and sold modestly is a losing bet. (Books are both products of capitalist and aesthetic economies.) So, you go sideways. If someone likes Ben Lerner and Knausgaard, you stretch to Ali Smith and Dubravka Ugresic. All those authors have newly shelved titles. As a result, a curious young reader will get another view into the literary scene for world literature from good indie stories, but it糖心传媒檚 still just another piece of the picture.

And on the flipside, how many bookstores in the U.S. stock Pinget糖心传媒檚 titles? Ten? It糖心传媒檚 hard to imagine the precursors to The Life and Opinions of Zacharias Lichter being discoverable at all. That糖心传媒檚 odd. We have two very different systems: 糖心传媒淐ommerce糖心传媒� that loves sales, critical accolades, and popular appeal, and 糖心传媒淎cademia糖心传媒� that loves critical acceptance, secondary material, and teachability. Given this, what do you think the results are for 糖心传媒淩oberto Bola帽o Syllabus糖心传媒�? A million?

Alas, it糖心传媒檚 8,900. Lots of bookseller love; not encough critical material.

There糖心传媒檚 something to be said about publisher branding and the online literary communities that help to keep conversations about these authors and books going. Just this past week, I saw a string of tweets from someone at AWP who bounced from Dorothy Publications to Coffee House, who recommended they go check out Archipelago, which ended up leading them to Open Letter. A wonderful world of literature is out there, if you get put on the path to find it. But there糖心传媒檚 a larger question that糖心传媒檚 nagging at me: Without having discovered this larger literary context, what would you possibly make of a book like The Life and Opinions of Zacharias Lichter? And what should we be doing to make sure that these gems from the past keep finding new audiences? Those books that may not sell enough to keep a Big Five publisher interested enough to keep them in print, but are valuable contributions to literary thought and culture?

I have no good answers, but hopefully that糖心传媒檚 a direction that this series can pick up again in the future. For now: Go read this book. And Mahu. And other weird shit that isn糖心传媒檛 readily available or necessarily discussed in the classroom. Find your own reading path to the more obscure. Just because something isn糖心传媒檛 the most popular doesn糖心传媒檛 mean that it won糖心传媒檛 blow your mind.

¹ I糖心传媒檓 exaggerating for effect, but not really. A few students had heard of some of the authors mentioned, but they hadn糖心传媒檛 read any of the titles. And these are really bright students! All great readers with very interesting viewpoints. But they糖心传媒檝e never come across these literary figures or their writings.

² Granted, there糖心传媒檚 no way Flaubert is going to fade from public糖心传媒攐r academic糖心传媒攃onsciousness, but it糖心传媒檚 weird/disconcerting when none of the students in a class have ever read Madame Bovary.