Love both of your posts on this book. I’m not widely read in autofiction so appreciated these notes - I read the book totally ignorant of most of what she referenced, stylistically or otherwise. (I read Patricia Lockwood’s “No One Is Talking About This” at the same time because all the critics had lumped the books together, both being autofiction “about the Internet!” by women writers. I found Lockwood’s much better on account of its apparently earnest attempt to actually communicate something, and am not sure why the two books drew so much comparison.)
When I read Fake Accounts I tried to put what I found so unpleasant about it into my own words, and failed again and again not to just write something that felt like stating the obvious. The closest thing I found to a through-line was contempt, the contempt of the author for the audience looming over the text and echoed by the contempt of the protagonist for everyone around her. And, having no understanding of what work she was building on to contextualize my reading, that alone was too empty to build any actual response on.
Thank you for reading!! I’m actually not widely read in autofiction either, and sort of regret using the term so freely, because it goes against my policy of avoiding general statements. That’s why I tried to be more specific here and mention Lerner. Specifically his approach to autofiction (and any books that might be imitating him) is what I think Fake Accounts objects to. This was also helpful context — https://www.bookforum.com/print/2702/the-self-conscious-drama-of-morality-in-contemporary-fiction-24022
My experience of trying to write about it was exactly like yours… I had a whole essay comparing the book to Philip Roth that I worked and reworked. But I kept coming away from it feeling like I was saying more about myself than the book. It was really embarrassing and frustrating. But I realized that’s the response it wants to generate, that it’s part of the trolling.
I think contempt is the right word. Contempt for the other characters and the reader, but especially the reader who wants to interpret the book and write a critical essay about it. It even seems to have contempt for the idea of a “book” at all! It’s very strange, because it makes it more like a performance art piece. I do think it’s still readable as fiction, but the weird meta aspects of it overwhelm taking it seriously as fiction for me.
I agree with you about the Lockwood book. They at least have in common that they’re younger talented writers, and that they seem to be responding to post-2016 America. But they’re definitely very different. I think trying to pair them together thematically is only possible if you think Fake Accounts is just a straightforward story about a woman being on her phone too much, almost like another episode of Girls, instead of the weird exercise in contempt that it is. I’m wondering if the TV adaptation is going to interpret it that way …
I want to write about the Lockwood book eventually, but I find it intimidating!
The only author I’ve read from this is Roth, and from your early paragraphs I thought, Roth!” Good analysis.
Thanks Erin! You too can curse your life by inviting Fake Accounts into it.
Love both of your posts on this book. I’m not widely read in autofiction so appreciated these notes - I read the book totally ignorant of most of what she referenced, stylistically or otherwise. (I read Patricia Lockwood’s “No One Is Talking About This” at the same time because all the critics had lumped the books together, both being autofiction “about the Internet!” by women writers. I found Lockwood’s much better on account of its apparently earnest attempt to actually communicate something, and am not sure why the two books drew so much comparison.)
When I read Fake Accounts I tried to put what I found so unpleasant about it into my own words, and failed again and again not to just write something that felt like stating the obvious. The closest thing I found to a through-line was contempt, the contempt of the author for the audience looming over the text and echoed by the contempt of the protagonist for everyone around her. And, having no understanding of what work she was building on to contextualize my reading, that alone was too empty to build any actual response on.
Thank you for reading!! I’m actually not widely read in autofiction either, and sort of regret using the term so freely, because it goes against my policy of avoiding general statements. That’s why I tried to be more specific here and mention Lerner. Specifically his approach to autofiction (and any books that might be imitating him) is what I think Fake Accounts objects to. This was also helpful context — https://www.bookforum.com/print/2702/the-self-conscious-drama-of-morality-in-contemporary-fiction-24022
My experience of trying to write about it was exactly like yours… I had a whole essay comparing the book to Philip Roth that I worked and reworked. But I kept coming away from it feeling like I was saying more about myself than the book. It was really embarrassing and frustrating. But I realized that’s the response it wants to generate, that it’s part of the trolling.
I think contempt is the right word. Contempt for the other characters and the reader, but especially the reader who wants to interpret the book and write a critical essay about it. It even seems to have contempt for the idea of a “book” at all! It’s very strange, because it makes it more like a performance art piece. I do think it’s still readable as fiction, but the weird meta aspects of it overwhelm taking it seriously as fiction for me.
I agree with you about the Lockwood book. They at least have in common that they’re younger talented writers, and that they seem to be responding to post-2016 America. But they’re definitely very different. I think trying to pair them together thematically is only possible if you think Fake Accounts is just a straightforward story about a woman being on her phone too much, almost like another episode of Girls, instead of the weird exercise in contempt that it is. I’m wondering if the TV adaptation is going to interpret it that way …
I want to write about the Lockwood book eventually, but I find it intimidating!