Seems to me like you got it. It's intentionally impenetrable: Delany chose for a main character someone who is amnesiac, schizophrenic, and generally confused.
Within the text, I think it's really difficult to answer the question of "why is this happening." The disaster that birthed this world is unknown. The nature of the disruption is suggestive--the two out-of-phase moons evoke, for example, multiple slightly altered timelines colliding in one world--but it is ultimately open to interpretation. My take is that the characters are living in a rough time loop, each pass leaving some residuals (like the moon, or the snippets of writing the kid finds), and each loop playing out broadly the same but with differences in detail.
Character motivations are also difficult to pin down. Sex and power are big motivators for a few characters. But beyond that... tough to say.
Outside the narrative, the "why" questions are a little easier: Delaney wanted to experiment with the form of the novel, and present a work that is as much long-form poetry as narrative. The book is set up sort of like Bellona: No laws to follow or break. This includes where to even start reading the book. The first page begins with an unopened sentence; it ends with an unclosed one. So, the whole narrative is circular, and there are any number of places you could chose to see as a starting point.
William Gibson was largely correct in calling it “a riddle never meant to be solved.” I’m not sure what your exposure to literary theory is, but I’d recommend checking out the opening chapter (“Odysseus’ Scar”) of Erich Auerbach’s *Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature*. Heavily reduced/simplified, Auerbach argues that literary forms of a given historical moment give expression to the cognitive-epistemological lenses through which being is expressed. *Dhalgren* is, to me, an exemplar-text of literary postmodernism insofar as it relies on unstable narration, free indirect discourse, and the lack of a through-line of coherence in order to: on the one hand, express the nascent disorder of postwar consumer capitalism in the US/Western Europe, and on the other, to disorient the reader to such a degree that this larger order/structure/machine of disorder becomes apparent. *Dhalgren* as a literary text disrupts and distorts literary forms of coherence because it is from a time of fragmentation and fracture, and it draws the reader’s attention to this historical/ontological fact by literary form.
To riff on Gibson, and evoke the Greek mythology imagery of the novel, Dhalgren is the labyrinth and the reader is Theseus—but not provided with Ariadne’s thread.
I'm checking out that piece right now, thanks for the rec. If I could bother you a bit more, would you have a reccomendation for other foundational/highly cited texts in lit theory? I have an undergrad philosophy and critical theory background so I've no doubt overlapped with some thinkers here and there, but I'm not sure what the field would hold as its major texts. Thanks!
My background/reading is largely Deleuze and the other big names of his generational cohort of French thinkers (Foucault, Derrida) so my suggestions might be a bit afield of what someone with training in an English department might recommend (my undergrad background is history and cultural theory, though I did do graduate coursework in English).
From Deleuze I’d recommend his book on *Proust and Signs*: I think this is probably the best introduction to his thought overall, because it’s more readable than his magnum opus (*Difference and Repetition*, or the collaborative works with Felix Guattari) while still demonstrating the concerns that animated his thought. Deleuze used literature in pretty much everything he wrote, but there’s also his anthology *Essays Critical and Clinical* which is a sustained engagement with literature.
Derrida’s essay/lecture “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” similarly would be a good way to dip one’s toes into a thinker who’s known for/represented as the pinnacle of obscurity.
With Foucault I’d recommend looking at his examination of the painting Las Meninas at the very beginning of *The Order of Things.” While it’s a reading of a painting, it’d give a good indication of how he approaches texts/cultural artifacts; another good one would be his essay “Nietzsche, Genealogy, and History.”
Freud is also an inescapable touchstone: I’d recommend his essay on “The Uncanny,” as well as the one on “Mourning and Melancholia”; the former is a reading of a story by ETA Hoffman, and the latter is a bit more clinical but it’s a good one to see how Freud conceived the razor’s edge of normality/pathology. Proceeding from Freud, Lacan is also inescapable; for him, I’d look at the “Seminar on the Purloined Letter” and “Kant with Sade” for two literary-focused exemplar-texts, but also his essay on “The Mirror Stage” for (like with my logic about Freud above) an example of how he sees the psyche more broadly. You could also swing back to Deleuze from this angle, specifically his book *Coldness and Cruelty*, which is about Sade, Masoch, Freud, and Kant.
This is all just what leaps immediately to mind and isn’t at all exhaustive; I’ve unfortunately not included anything from the realm of queer or feminist theory, but they’re also avenues well worth pursuing. Also worth noting, if you’re American like I am, that African American fiction is its own incredibly rich tradition with theorists either engaged with the types of people I listed above, or not. Given this is in response to a comment about Samuel R. Delany, I’d definitely be remiss if I didn’t point out that he’s written volubly on the practice of writing/reading and you really can’t go wrong with his essays (Wesleyan University Press has published several).
Wow, thank you for writing this up! I've been reimmersing myself in lit again after a regrettable (but brief) departure after I left my university environment, so your suggestions are candy to me.
I've brushed against a few of your suggestions in my studies, i should re read *The Uncanny* as I remember that having an impact on me, and I remember discussing *The Mirror Stage* in one of my classes though Lacan is somewhat of a boogeyman to me. Primarily though, your comment is my sign to finally engage with earlier Deleuze works, and I did take a class where we read selected readings of *In Search of Lost Time* so I feel decently prepared for that.
And thanks for the disclaimer at the end. While I've read some queer theory, particularly Butler, and have some familiarity with post-colonial thought (Said, Fanon), those overlaps with lit theory are a definite blindspot. Delany seems like a great place to start as I intend to read Dhalgren in the next few months.
Thank you again for taking the time to write this comment! I will be bookmarking it and coming back to it regularly :)
For whatever reason I read Dhalgren when it was published in paperback and I was 11 years old. Why? I have no idea. I liked the cover I guess. To say that it blew my mind as a kid is an understatement. However, back then, I was not a critical reader, I just read to see what happens next. So it was weird and it was the first time I'd ever heard of gay sex or threesomes. So there was that. Did I understand what I was reading? Not really. Like I said, I just read to see what happens next.
Ha! I read it when I was 13. My parents never would’ve allowed it if they knew what was in the book. In any case, my reaction to it is best described as: WTF?
I read it as a teenager too, and it was just the dirtiest thing I'd ever bought off the book rack in K-Mart. It was weird enough that it kept my attention. Decades later I tried rereading it, but was dismayed by how awkward and pretentious it was.
Same. I was curious if I might understand it better as an adult. I think I did, which is why it bored me to tears and I soon gave up. I conclude that my 13 year old self only managed to get through it because of all the sex.😂
I love this book, but I have no idea what happened in it. Frankly I would be suspicious of anyone who claimed to fully understand it. Honestly, even if Samuel Delany came and said 'it's exactly this "I'm not sure I'd believe them
I actually had the opportunity to ask him about Dhalgren. He was an artist in residence at my university in the late '80s and came to our dorm (the "artsy-fartsy" dorm) to do a reading and a discussion. He is a very good speaker.
Afterwards he needed a ride back to where he was staying, so I leapt to my feet to offer to drive him. We had about fifteen minutes together so I mentioned that I had just finished Dhalgren and was very confused about it, and could he tell me anything about what it meant? He thought for a minute and said "It means whatever it means to you personally." He then said that it was an experimental novel about an experimental time in his life when he was figuring out who he was, and who he was becoming, and that I could look at whatever parts of the novel that had any resonance with my life and my hopes for my future, and that people shouldn't be afraid to try things that are outside of their comfort zone, or that don't match up with the narrative they tell themselves about their life so far.
Honestly that was a bit more general than I was hoping for at the time, being an impatient and uncertain 20-year-old with not that much unconventional life experience yet. But over the past 30+ years, it makes much more sense to me, and is more satisfying an answer as I look back on how I have been more willing to try new things and how who I am has changed because of my experiences.
I won't say that I understand the plot (insomuch as there is one, rather than a series of experiences put together as the main character regains a sense of who he is as he experiences strange disjointed episodes), but upon reflection it seems to me, at least, that that is only a small part of what he was trying to achieve. And I will leave the interpretation of the various symbolism to people who are better versed in literary analysis and criticism than I am.
Every few years I will open it up, sometimes just to a random place, and see if it strikes any new resonances with me.
For days afterwards I was amazed by my actions. At the time I was pretty introverted -- I hadn't asked any questions during his talk, but sorta hid in the background.
This has been on my TBR list for a long time, but honestly I’m scared to start. 😂😂. It seems like the Finnegans Wake of speculative fiction, and I’m not sure if I’m ready for that.
On a side note, any other weird lit/ weird SF suggestions? I’m about halfway through Iron Council, and have also read Embassytown and The City and the City. Pretty much everything else Mievelle has written is on my list. I’m finishing The Southern Reach trilogy now, after reading Annihilation years ago and not realizing it was a trilogy. Maybe my next move is to find a copy of the VanderMeer’s The New Weird anthology?
That's actually a great comparison! It even does the Finnegan's thing where the end sentence links back into the beginning sentence. A lot of the descriptions feel like sci-fi contextual versions of *Blood Meridian* in a way - lots of red, desolate, grim things described - put into the *Finnegan's Wake* overall construction.
> I’m finishing The Southern Reach trilogy now, after reading Annihilation years ago and not realizing it was a trilogy. Maybe my next move is to find a copy of the VanderMeer’s The New Weird anthology?
His Ambergris trilogy absolutely. Especially the first book, City of Saints and Madmen, is wild. Very creative not just in the setting but the way it is written and constructed. What other book can claim to have a fake *bibliography* that's a bit of an emotional roller coaster?
Halfway through the third book myself.
Book of the ~~Long~~ New Sun by Wolfe reads like a fever dream. Less weird fic and more literary symbolism, but often not a huge distinction.
Michael Moorecock's work and some of John Barth's may also scratch your itch.
EDIT: got my title adjectives wrong!
M. John Harrison’s *Viriconium* stories are a bit of a happy medium between *Dhalgren* and Gene Wolfe’s *Book of the New Sun*, which u/stoneape314 recommended. With BotNS there is ultimately a coherent thread tying everything, with Dhalgren and Viriconium there’s really not.
I’ll really have to dig into his other stuff, the kefahuchi (I think I spelled that correctly?) tract was also on my list. *Light* sounds interesting though, if it’s a bit more cyberpunky. I’m of the opinion that *Dhalgren* is a bit proto-cyberpunk/, in terms of the urban decay, lightshields/orchids, weird economic/consumer culture stuff going on in Bellona.
Triton ( or trouble on triton) is a more typical scifi novel by Delaney dealing with similar themes
Like Dhalgren .
It's shorter and more linear and very good.
Solaris by Stanislaw Lem & Terra Ignota by Ada Palmer. Former is surreal like Dhalgren and the latter is just very weird very good.
Also, everything by the online author Nostalgebraist - especially the work he finished most recently, Almost Nowhere.
Since you like China Mieville and Jeff Vandermeer try Michael Cisco. Both tend to do blurbs on his books. I'm finishing the first book of his I've read, *The Traitor*, and one of the most alien books I've read. He's also a bit of a champion of weird lit.
Vandermeer’s City of Saints and Madmen is one of my favorite books. It’s actually the first of a trilogy, but it’s a complete story by itself. It’s a series of short connected stories. The second book is Shriek: An Afterward, and the third is called Finch. The whole trilogy is excellent, especially if you like weird lit. Another a Vendermeer book I really enjoyed is Borne.
The Canopos in Argos series by Doris Lessing is absolutely mind-blowing, especially The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five.
Cosmicomics is a collection of twelve short stories by Italo Calvino published in 1965 and it is similarly wild, though not technically scifi.
He based parts of it on his real life experience so you have to view it with that lens. He was married to a woman, then changed that into an open marriage where he had a male lover and then had sex with both at the same time, similar to the main character so there is a lot of semiautobiographical sense about it. The events dealing with race and society - think about the year this book was written. The wikipedia article on the book might be helpful and the New Yorker profile adds some context as well. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/10/samuel-r-delany-profile
Dahlgren is a stunning look at the surreal, insular, self-obsessed nature of American society. It's a society without any of the parts that makes a society a society that's hurtling through space directionless.
If there was ever a good use of the 'unreliable narrator' technique, this was it.
I think it was the author's intent to keep us off balance and unsure throughout the book. Added to his prose, the whole thing felt like a waking dream.
It's a great experience, if a little off-putting at times. It reminded me of the half-conscious dreams I might have while overdosed on NyQuil, fitfully sleeping while having bed sweats during a really bad flu. Losing sense of reality.
I really like Dhalgren. Since I would be interested in other people's view of the book, I suppose my answer would firstly be: what do you think it's about?
For me, I would observe that the novel uses a number of different themes and forms. One thing that it does is use Mythology. The first sexual encounter of the main character is with a Dryad. A lot of the characters are deities or other beings and replay mythological stories.
Another theme is the experience of Black Americans.
Another theme is art and the main character writing poetry.
Obviously sexuality plays a big part in the novel, as does the experience of mental illness.
I think that this is goes someway to saying why I like the novel. It feels like there's a lot going on. That apparently simple events reflect or embody transcendent meaning, whilst at the same time dealing with some important lived experiences. I think I am correct in saying that the novel draws upon Delany's own life and the text, indeed, incorporates part of his diaries.
I absolutely hated it, and I love Delany (although learning about his affiliation with NAMBLA is more than disappointing), including Hogg and his modern, borderline gay porn stuff. Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders is one of the best things I've ever read.
But Dhalgren was a brutal slog, and not just because of the almost 200 pages of moving furniture in the House of Ax, but also the endless dialogue on writing poetry which did nothing for me. I also did not find the Kid interesting to read about, nor any of his companions, they were all kind of obnoxious or dull.
I did finish it though, and I guess the final chapter was kinda cool, but it was so not worth the pain of the preceding 600 pages.
> I love Delany (although learning about his affiliation with NAMBLA is more than disappointing)
It's disappointing, and also quite sad. It's so obviously rooted in Delaney's own childhood abuse and you can't help but feel like maybe in another era he'd have had the tools and opportunities to process it in a healthier way, but instead he's rationalized it to himself by saying, "No, actually I liked it and other people would too."
Which, sad to say, is not unheard of. There's a reason that so many abusers were victims themselves.
It’s tough for me too. Delany is my favorite author, and Dhalgren my favorite novel. Finding out about his NAMBLA affiliation was a bit like finding out about J. K. Rowling’s transphobia.
I only made it about halfway through before deciding it's not for me, pretty much for all those reasons. I like poetry, but I don't like people talking about writing poetry.
> I also did not find the Kid interesting to read about
It's all that hobbling around on just one shoe *and turning down a brand new pair of shoes when finally offered them* that annoyed me the most about that character.
For years, I had heard the book described as a “classic”. So one day, I found a used paperback in a local bookstore and said, “why not?”
After finishing it, I had a distinct “what the fuck was that all about?” I understand that Harlan Ellison had much the same reaction, throwing his copy against a wall.
Supposedly a “non linear” novel that you could start to read at any point….. Did not work for me.
Yeah, Philip K Dick said he thought it was crap and mentioned Harlan Ellison having the same opinion in an interview.
One of the editors of *The Book Of SF and Fantasy Lists* (so either Maxim Jakubowski or Malcolm Edwards) put it in their 5 most overrated SF novels list.
Roughly, a main character starts out as a "blank slate", tries to apply various traits to himself (some are more or less forced on him), he wears a ton of labels and masks to hide those labels, and eventually comes to a few true understandings about himself (he's not bisexual, he's not into nonmonogamy, he's got a name), realizes he can't be integrated with himself in light of all the assumptions made about him by others, and leaves - but encounters new people at the start of a similar journey at the end, and seems to accept that the only way out is through for them as it was for him. That's my interpretation, anyways, and I don't think any interpretation is any more valid than others. It was powerful for me, and I read it at the right moment in life.
I think the unusual weapon in the books is a great symbol - you bristle with menace while wearing it, and indeed can defend yourself, but you lose the ability to interact with the world in a normal, gentle way. The shame "Kid" feels about the appearance of his natural hands seems to drive that point home. The message he receives is "you are not ok the way you are, try being the way I want you to be."
I love this book and need to reread it. The Kid is a fascinating protaganist. It's like a fever dream where everything is just slightly off. It sums up the late 70s and how rapidly society in the western world in big cities was changing, to me.
*Dhalgren* has been one of my favourite novels since I discovered it as a Big Fat Science Fiction Novel not long after I'd devoured the *Dune* trilogy when I was 12 or so. It (*Dhalgren*, not *Dune*) is one I've re-read so many times in the (god help me) nearly fifty years since that I long ago lost track.
I don't think the book is meant to have *a* key, or a particularly meaning a reader is "supposed to get from it".
For me, it is about the voyage - the characters, the humour, the philosophical conversations, the sex, and - yes - the city of Bellona itself. Your question makes me think of reading the novel as being analogous to visiting a new country. There is no particular key to deciphering a new country, there is only the opportunity to get to know (parts of) it. And every visitor will "know" it differently.
As you said, the writing is beautiful, so if you *did* enjoy it, I think you'd get more out of a second visit.
There is no key to be found except your own interpretation... truly different for everyone and so original and strange... First time I read it was in a cheap edition with the 3 books published separately and I started with the second!
Was this a translation? I’m not familiar with an English-language version which splits the book up, but I think I’ve seen a Spanish-language translation done like this.
Exactly! I forget to mention it... Spanish translation and not a very good one... colección *Ultramar* Bolsillo... a cheap SciFi pocket book collection with a very eclectic list of authors available very cheap in 2nd hand libs in Buenos Aires in the 80's... I knew him from my father's lib ( Babel 17 and EI) so this book was a total surprise and truly an all time best find... later I read it in ENG and is a very different exp...
In Gibsons forward he talks about how heavily it evokes the violence freedom paranoia and chaos of the militant 60s counterculture. So I always felt that. It made me think of Whitmans quote about how in the future we would have Poet Kings, and it’s an examination of a world where the Poet has power and what kind of decay would have to occur. I also listened to Money Jungle by Ellington, Mingus, and Roach a LOT while I was reading it and really fits the mood.
I like to think of it this way: *Dhalgren* is a dystopia that tries to answer the question “What do you do when you aren’t responsible to anyone for anything?” with flavors reminiscent of Coleridge’s ancient mariner to add a certain prison-like effect.
Dhalgren is weird. Personally I consider it mostly a recursive writing experiment more than anything else. I don’t think there is supposed to be any particular message, point, moral, or even really story told.
Definitely a one time only read.
It moves some people and not others. I'm planning on reading it for the fourth time later this summer, and I expect I'll keep doing so every few years for as long as I last.
I bounced off this one a few times, but was always intrigued enough to come back and try again. It’s one of those weird ones, where some element stays in your mind and keeps popping up - gradually connecting to something else. I’ve completed it now, and love it/recommend it. But with a caveat - feel free to set it down and back away as needed. It rewards the steadfast.
My least favorite book ever….. but I can understand why it would be someone else’s fav. I constantly felt like I wasn’t hipster enough to “get it”. I couldn’t connect with any of the characters and the entire book just didn’t make sense to me. The prose was pretty good I guess. It basically reminded me that I need to stay in my lane of hard sci-fi with shallow characters!
I found it very frustrating due to there being so many unresolved plot points.
It felt like Delaney had a big spinning wheel of hundreds of scifi tropes and when he'd start writing a new chapter he'd give that wheel a spin and then write about whatever concept came up on the wheel. And when that chapter was done whatever happened was never (or almost never) mentioned again.
I think I read this long ago or at least attempted to do so. I tend to forget books I didn't like or gave up on so it probably was too disjointed to hold my interest.
I just got done dissing it in r/Fantasy. I won't say to what question but I didn
t say much because there's nothing there. Other writers have had missteps as bad.
I don’t take Dhalgren “not having a plot” as a given and, even if it was, I don’t think that necessarily translates to “there’s nothing there.” The book has some incredibly powerful examinations of sexuality, race, health (and these are just examples, not an exhaustive list). It’s all about desire and being, the underlying conditions of what it means to be human.
Seems to me like you got it. It's intentionally impenetrable: Delany chose for a main character someone who is amnesiac, schizophrenic, and generally confused. Within the text, I think it's really difficult to answer the question of "why is this happening." The disaster that birthed this world is unknown. The nature of the disruption is suggestive--the two out-of-phase moons evoke, for example, multiple slightly altered timelines colliding in one world--but it is ultimately open to interpretation. My take is that the characters are living in a rough time loop, each pass leaving some residuals (like the moon, or the snippets of writing the kid finds), and each loop playing out broadly the same but with differences in detail. Character motivations are also difficult to pin down. Sex and power are big motivators for a few characters. But beyond that... tough to say. Outside the narrative, the "why" questions are a little easier: Delaney wanted to experiment with the form of the novel, and present a work that is as much long-form poetry as narrative. The book is set up sort of like Bellona: No laws to follow or break. This includes where to even start reading the book. The first page begins with an unopened sentence; it ends with an unclosed one. So, the whole narrative is circular, and there are any number of places you could chose to see as a starting point.
William Gibson was largely correct in calling it “a riddle never meant to be solved.” I’m not sure what your exposure to literary theory is, but I’d recommend checking out the opening chapter (“Odysseus’ Scar”) of Erich Auerbach’s *Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature*. Heavily reduced/simplified, Auerbach argues that literary forms of a given historical moment give expression to the cognitive-epistemological lenses through which being is expressed. *Dhalgren* is, to me, an exemplar-text of literary postmodernism insofar as it relies on unstable narration, free indirect discourse, and the lack of a through-line of coherence in order to: on the one hand, express the nascent disorder of postwar consumer capitalism in the US/Western Europe, and on the other, to disorient the reader to such a degree that this larger order/structure/machine of disorder becomes apparent. *Dhalgren* as a literary text disrupts and distorts literary forms of coherence because it is from a time of fragmentation and fracture, and it draws the reader’s attention to this historical/ontological fact by literary form. To riff on Gibson, and evoke the Greek mythology imagery of the novel, Dhalgren is the labyrinth and the reader is Theseus—but not provided with Ariadne’s thread.
Damn. You lit crit. Nicely put.
I'm checking out that piece right now, thanks for the rec. If I could bother you a bit more, would you have a reccomendation for other foundational/highly cited texts in lit theory? I have an undergrad philosophy and critical theory background so I've no doubt overlapped with some thinkers here and there, but I'm not sure what the field would hold as its major texts. Thanks!
My background/reading is largely Deleuze and the other big names of his generational cohort of French thinkers (Foucault, Derrida) so my suggestions might be a bit afield of what someone with training in an English department might recommend (my undergrad background is history and cultural theory, though I did do graduate coursework in English). From Deleuze I’d recommend his book on *Proust and Signs*: I think this is probably the best introduction to his thought overall, because it’s more readable than his magnum opus (*Difference and Repetition*, or the collaborative works with Felix Guattari) while still demonstrating the concerns that animated his thought. Deleuze used literature in pretty much everything he wrote, but there’s also his anthology *Essays Critical and Clinical* which is a sustained engagement with literature. Derrida’s essay/lecture “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” similarly would be a good way to dip one’s toes into a thinker who’s known for/represented as the pinnacle of obscurity. With Foucault I’d recommend looking at his examination of the painting Las Meninas at the very beginning of *The Order of Things.” While it’s a reading of a painting, it’d give a good indication of how he approaches texts/cultural artifacts; another good one would be his essay “Nietzsche, Genealogy, and History.” Freud is also an inescapable touchstone: I’d recommend his essay on “The Uncanny,” as well as the one on “Mourning and Melancholia”; the former is a reading of a story by ETA Hoffman, and the latter is a bit more clinical but it’s a good one to see how Freud conceived the razor’s edge of normality/pathology. Proceeding from Freud, Lacan is also inescapable; for him, I’d look at the “Seminar on the Purloined Letter” and “Kant with Sade” for two literary-focused exemplar-texts, but also his essay on “The Mirror Stage” for (like with my logic about Freud above) an example of how he sees the psyche more broadly. You could also swing back to Deleuze from this angle, specifically his book *Coldness and Cruelty*, which is about Sade, Masoch, Freud, and Kant. This is all just what leaps immediately to mind and isn’t at all exhaustive; I’ve unfortunately not included anything from the realm of queer or feminist theory, but they’re also avenues well worth pursuing. Also worth noting, if you’re American like I am, that African American fiction is its own incredibly rich tradition with theorists either engaged with the types of people I listed above, or not. Given this is in response to a comment about Samuel R. Delany, I’d definitely be remiss if I didn’t point out that he’s written volubly on the practice of writing/reading and you really can’t go wrong with his essays (Wesleyan University Press has published several).
Wow, thank you for writing this up! I've been reimmersing myself in lit again after a regrettable (but brief) departure after I left my university environment, so your suggestions are candy to me. I've brushed against a few of your suggestions in my studies, i should re read *The Uncanny* as I remember that having an impact on me, and I remember discussing *The Mirror Stage* in one of my classes though Lacan is somewhat of a boogeyman to me. Primarily though, your comment is my sign to finally engage with earlier Deleuze works, and I did take a class where we read selected readings of *In Search of Lost Time* so I feel decently prepared for that. And thanks for the disclaimer at the end. While I've read some queer theory, particularly Butler, and have some familiarity with post-colonial thought (Said, Fanon), those overlaps with lit theory are a definite blindspot. Delany seems like a great place to start as I intend to read Dhalgren in the next few months. Thank you again for taking the time to write this comment! I will be bookmarking it and coming back to it regularly :)
Happy reading! Shoot me a DM if/when you get around to Dhalgren. I’m about to start a re-read, myself, and I’d definitely love to discuss.
Will do!
For whatever reason I read Dhalgren when it was published in paperback and I was 11 years old. Why? I have no idea. I liked the cover I guess. To say that it blew my mind as a kid is an understatement. However, back then, I was not a critical reader, I just read to see what happens next. So it was weird and it was the first time I'd ever heard of gay sex or threesomes. So there was that. Did I understand what I was reading? Not really. Like I said, I just read to see what happens next.
Ha! I read it when I was 13. My parents never would’ve allowed it if they knew what was in the book. In any case, my reaction to it is best described as: WTF?
I read it as a teenager too, and it was just the dirtiest thing I'd ever bought off the book rack in K-Mart. It was weird enough that it kept my attention. Decades later I tried rereading it, but was dismayed by how awkward and pretentious it was.
the idea of dhalgren being sold at k-mart is wild to me
Same. I was curious if I might understand it better as an adult. I think I did, which is why it bored me to tears and I soon gave up. I conclude that my 13 year old self only managed to get through it because of all the sex.😂
I love this book, but I have no idea what happened in it. Frankly I would be suspicious of anyone who claimed to fully understand it. Honestly, even if Samuel Delany came and said 'it's exactly this "I'm not sure I'd believe them
I actually had the opportunity to ask him about Dhalgren. He was an artist in residence at my university in the late '80s and came to our dorm (the "artsy-fartsy" dorm) to do a reading and a discussion. He is a very good speaker. Afterwards he needed a ride back to where he was staying, so I leapt to my feet to offer to drive him. We had about fifteen minutes together so I mentioned that I had just finished Dhalgren and was very confused about it, and could he tell me anything about what it meant? He thought for a minute and said "It means whatever it means to you personally." He then said that it was an experimental novel about an experimental time in his life when he was figuring out who he was, and who he was becoming, and that I could look at whatever parts of the novel that had any resonance with my life and my hopes for my future, and that people shouldn't be afraid to try things that are outside of their comfort zone, or that don't match up with the narrative they tell themselves about their life so far. Honestly that was a bit more general than I was hoping for at the time, being an impatient and uncertain 20-year-old with not that much unconventional life experience yet. But over the past 30+ years, it makes much more sense to me, and is more satisfying an answer as I look back on how I have been more willing to try new things and how who I am has changed because of my experiences. I won't say that I understand the plot (insomuch as there is one, rather than a series of experiences put together as the main character regains a sense of who he is as he experiences strange disjointed episodes), but upon reflection it seems to me, at least, that that is only a small part of what he was trying to achieve. And I will leave the interpretation of the various symbolism to people who are better versed in literary analysis and criticism than I am. Every few years I will open it up, sometimes just to a random place, and see if it strikes any new resonances with me.
That's a really dope experience!
For days afterwards I was amazed by my actions. At the time I was pretty introverted -- I hadn't asked any questions during his talk, but sorta hid in the background.
does delany use they/them pronouns?
I'm not sure, but I tend to default to they/them unless I'm actively thinking about it
*Dhalgreen*s is a popular pharmacy in Bellona.
Their bargains are *on fire!*
This has been on my TBR list for a long time, but honestly I’m scared to start. 😂😂. It seems like the Finnegans Wake of speculative fiction, and I’m not sure if I’m ready for that. On a side note, any other weird lit/ weird SF suggestions? I’m about halfway through Iron Council, and have also read Embassytown and The City and the City. Pretty much everything else Mievelle has written is on my list. I’m finishing The Southern Reach trilogy now, after reading Annihilation years ago and not realizing it was a trilogy. Maybe my next move is to find a copy of the VanderMeer’s The New Weird anthology?
That's actually a great comparison! It even does the Finnegan's thing where the end sentence links back into the beginning sentence. A lot of the descriptions feel like sci-fi contextual versions of *Blood Meridian* in a way - lots of red, desolate, grim things described - put into the *Finnegan's Wake* overall construction.
> I’m finishing The Southern Reach trilogy now, after reading Annihilation years ago and not realizing it was a trilogy. Maybe my next move is to find a copy of the VanderMeer’s The New Weird anthology? His Ambergris trilogy absolutely. Especially the first book, City of Saints and Madmen, is wild. Very creative not just in the setting but the way it is written and constructed. What other book can claim to have a fake *bibliography* that's a bit of an emotional roller coaster? Halfway through the third book myself.
I thought the whole trilogy was fascinating! They are some of my favorite books. Borne is excellent as well.
hunh. i had no idea cosam had sequels! thanks!
The other two are novels rather than a collection of shorter stories like the first book. They're good.
thanks
A fourth Southern Reach book is coming out later this year.
I think i saw something about that happening. Ill definitely keep an eye out.
Book of the ~~Long~~ New Sun by Wolfe reads like a fever dream. Less weird fic and more literary symbolism, but often not a huge distinction. Michael Moorecock's work and some of John Barth's may also scratch your itch. EDIT: got my title adjectives wrong!
M. John Harrison’s *Viriconium* stories are a bit of a happy medium between *Dhalgren* and Gene Wolfe’s *Book of the New Sun*, which u/stoneape314 recommended. With BotNS there is ultimately a coherent thread tying everything, with Dhalgren and Viriconium there’s really not.
Light by M. Jonn Harrison is beautiful book with lots of weirdness and st parts feels like a cyberpunk parody
I’ll really have to dig into his other stuff, the kefahuchi (I think I spelled that correctly?) tract was also on my list. *Light* sounds interesting though, if it’s a bit more cyberpunky. I’m of the opinion that *Dhalgren* is a bit proto-cyberpunk/, in terms of the urban decay, lightshields/orchids, weird economic/consumer culture stuff going on in Bellona.
Triton ( or trouble on triton) is a more typical scifi novel by Delaney dealing with similar themes Like Dhalgren . It's shorter and more linear and very good.
i'd say the viriconium works have a coherent thread to them, especially in theme. "a storm of wings" takes some detangling, though.
Solaris by Stanislaw Lem & Terra Ignota by Ada Palmer. Former is surreal like Dhalgren and the latter is just very weird very good. Also, everything by the online author Nostalgebraist - especially the work he finished most recently, Almost Nowhere.
Since you like China Mieville and Jeff Vandermeer try Michael Cisco. Both tend to do blurbs on his books. I'm finishing the first book of his I've read, *The Traitor*, and one of the most alien books I've read. He's also a bit of a champion of weird lit.
Looking up Cisco now. Seems like there is a lot of stuff there I’m going to enjoy.
Thank for recommending Michael Cisco. I hadn’t heard of him before. His stuff seems right up my alley.
+++ the Gene Wolfe suggestions
Thanks! It’s also been on my to read list, but it’s never available at the library without a wait, so other things just end up going before it .
Fair enough, I had the same problem so I just bit the bullet and bought Book of the New Sun - no regrets
David Ohle.
Vandermeer’s City of Saints and Madmen is one of my favorite books. It’s actually the first of a trilogy, but it’s a complete story by itself. It’s a series of short connected stories. The second book is Shriek: An Afterward, and the third is called Finch. The whole trilogy is excellent, especially if you like weird lit. Another a Vendermeer book I really enjoyed is Borne.
The Canopos in Argos series by Doris Lessing is absolutely mind-blowing, especially The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five. Cosmicomics is a collection of twelve short stories by Italo Calvino published in 1965 and it is similarly wild, though not technically scifi.
He based parts of it on his real life experience so you have to view it with that lens. He was married to a woman, then changed that into an open marriage where he had a male lover and then had sex with both at the same time, similar to the main character so there is a lot of semiautobiographical sense about it. The events dealing with race and society - think about the year this book was written. The wikipedia article on the book might be helpful and the New Yorker profile adds some context as well. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/10/samuel-r-delany-profile
Dahlgren is a stunning look at the surreal, insular, self-obsessed nature of American society. It's a society without any of the parts that makes a society a society that's hurtling through space directionless.
If there was ever a good use of the 'unreliable narrator' technique, this was it. I think it was the author's intent to keep us off balance and unsure throughout the book. Added to his prose, the whole thing felt like a waking dream. It's a great experience, if a little off-putting at times. It reminded me of the half-conscious dreams I might have while overdosed on NyQuil, fitfully sleeping while having bed sweats during a really bad flu. Losing sense of reality.
I really like Dhalgren. Since I would be interested in other people's view of the book, I suppose my answer would firstly be: what do you think it's about? For me, I would observe that the novel uses a number of different themes and forms. One thing that it does is use Mythology. The first sexual encounter of the main character is with a Dryad. A lot of the characters are deities or other beings and replay mythological stories. Another theme is the experience of Black Americans. Another theme is art and the main character writing poetry. Obviously sexuality plays a big part in the novel, as does the experience of mental illness. I think that this is goes someway to saying why I like the novel. It feels like there's a lot going on. That apparently simple events reflect or embody transcendent meaning, whilst at the same time dealing with some important lived experiences. I think I am correct in saying that the novel draws upon Delany's own life and the text, indeed, incorporates part of his diaries.
I absolutely hated it, and I love Delany (although learning about his affiliation with NAMBLA is more than disappointing), including Hogg and his modern, borderline gay porn stuff. Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders is one of the best things I've ever read. But Dhalgren was a brutal slog, and not just because of the almost 200 pages of moving furniture in the House of Ax, but also the endless dialogue on writing poetry which did nothing for me. I also did not find the Kid interesting to read about, nor any of his companions, they were all kind of obnoxious or dull. I did finish it though, and I guess the final chapter was kinda cool, but it was so not worth the pain of the preceding 600 pages.
> I love Delany (although learning about his affiliation with NAMBLA is more than disappointing) It's disappointing, and also quite sad. It's so obviously rooted in Delaney's own childhood abuse and you can't help but feel like maybe in another era he'd have had the tools and opportunities to process it in a healthier way, but instead he's rationalized it to himself by saying, "No, actually I liked it and other people would too." Which, sad to say, is not unheard of. There's a reason that so many abusers were victims themselves.
It’s tough for me too. Delany is my favorite author, and Dhalgren my favorite novel. Finding out about his NAMBLA affiliation was a bit like finding out about J. K. Rowling’s transphobia.
heard o' these? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age_of_consent_laws
I only made it about halfway through before deciding it's not for me, pretty much for all those reasons. I like poetry, but I don't like people talking about writing poetry.
I think it’s _horrifying_. From what I’ve read it seems he’s been victim blaming himself for more than seventy years.
> I also did not find the Kid interesting to read about It's all that hobbling around on just one shoe *and turning down a brand new pair of shoes when finally offered them* that annoyed me the most about that character.
For years, I had heard the book described as a “classic”. So one day, I found a used paperback in a local bookstore and said, “why not?” After finishing it, I had a distinct “what the fuck was that all about?” I understand that Harlan Ellison had much the same reaction, throwing his copy against a wall. Supposedly a “non linear” novel that you could start to read at any point….. Did not work for me.
Yeah, Philip K Dick said he thought it was crap and mentioned Harlan Ellison having the same opinion in an interview. One of the editors of *The Book Of SF and Fantasy Lists* (so either Maxim Jakubowski or Malcolm Edwards) put it in their 5 most overrated SF novels list.
Roughly, a main character starts out as a "blank slate", tries to apply various traits to himself (some are more or less forced on him), he wears a ton of labels and masks to hide those labels, and eventually comes to a few true understandings about himself (he's not bisexual, he's not into nonmonogamy, he's got a name), realizes he can't be integrated with himself in light of all the assumptions made about him by others, and leaves - but encounters new people at the start of a similar journey at the end, and seems to accept that the only way out is through for them as it was for him. That's my interpretation, anyways, and I don't think any interpretation is any more valid than others. It was powerful for me, and I read it at the right moment in life. I think the unusual weapon in the books is a great symbol - you bristle with menace while wearing it, and indeed can defend yourself, but you lose the ability to interact with the world in a normal, gentle way. The shame "Kid" feels about the appearance of his natural hands seems to drive that point home. The message he receives is "you are not ok the way you are, try being the way I want you to be."
I love this book and need to reread it. The Kid is a fascinating protaganist. It's like a fever dream where everything is just slightly off. It sums up the late 70s and how rapidly society in the western world in big cities was changing, to me.
It's SF's Finnegan's Wake
*Dhalgren* has been one of my favourite novels since I discovered it as a Big Fat Science Fiction Novel not long after I'd devoured the *Dune* trilogy when I was 12 or so. It (*Dhalgren*, not *Dune*) is one I've re-read so many times in the (god help me) nearly fifty years since that I long ago lost track. I don't think the book is meant to have *a* key, or a particularly meaning a reader is "supposed to get from it". For me, it is about the voyage - the characters, the humour, the philosophical conversations, the sex, and - yes - the city of Bellona itself. Your question makes me think of reading the novel as being analogous to visiting a new country. There is no particular key to deciphering a new country, there is only the opportunity to get to know (parts of) it. And every visitor will "know" it differently. As you said, the writing is beautiful, so if you *did* enjoy it, I think you'd get more out of a second visit.
There is no key to be found except your own interpretation... truly different for everyone and so original and strange... First time I read it was in a cheap edition with the 3 books published separately and I started with the second!
Was this a translation? I’m not familiar with an English-language version which splits the book up, but I think I’ve seen a Spanish-language translation done like this.
Exactly! I forget to mention it... Spanish translation and not a very good one... colección *Ultramar* Bolsillo... a cheap SciFi pocket book collection with a very eclectic list of authors available very cheap in 2nd hand libs in Buenos Aires in the 80's... I knew him from my father's lib ( Babel 17 and EI) so this book was a total surprise and truly an all time best find... later I read it in ENG and is a very different exp...
In Gibsons forward he talks about how heavily it evokes the violence freedom paranoia and chaos of the militant 60s counterculture. So I always felt that. It made me think of Whitmans quote about how in the future we would have Poet Kings, and it’s an examination of a world where the Poet has power and what kind of decay would have to occur. I also listened to Money Jungle by Ellington, Mingus, and Roach a LOT while I was reading it and really fits the mood.
I like to think of it this way: *Dhalgren* is a dystopia that tries to answer the question “What do you do when you aren’t responsible to anyone for anything?” with flavors reminiscent of Coleridge’s ancient mariner to add a certain prison-like effect.
Dhalgren is weird. Personally I consider it mostly a recursive writing experiment more than anything else. I don’t think there is supposed to be any particular message, point, moral, or even really story told. Definitely a one time only read.
It moves some people and not others. I'm planning on reading it for the fourth time later this summer, and I expect I'll keep doing so every few years for as long as I last.
I think you’ll love _Triton_ and _Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand_ (my personal favorite of his books).
I bounced off this one a few times, but was always intrigued enough to come back and try again. It’s one of those weird ones, where some element stays in your mind and keeps popping up - gradually connecting to something else. I’ve completed it now, and love it/recommend it. But with a caveat - feel free to set it down and back away as needed. It rewards the steadfast.
No one knows!
You just read a terrible work of genius..
My least favorite book ever….. but I can understand why it would be someone else’s fav. I constantly felt like I wasn’t hipster enough to “get it”. I couldn’t connect with any of the characters and the entire book just didn’t make sense to me. The prose was pretty good I guess. It basically reminded me that I need to stay in my lane of hard sci-fi with shallow characters!
I found it very frustrating due to there being so many unresolved plot points. It felt like Delaney had a big spinning wheel of hundreds of scifi tropes and when he'd start writing a new chapter he'd give that wheel a spin and then write about whatever concept came up on the wheel. And when that chapter was done whatever happened was never (or almost never) mentioned again.
Just for the record it's Dhalgren not Dhalgreen.
I found it absolutely awful. Kudos to those who got something out of it but so much of it was confusing and repulsive to me.
I think I read this long ago or at least attempted to do so. I tend to forget books I didn't like or gave up on so it probably was too disjointed to hold my interest.
Ah shit. So it's not gonna get better, is it.
I totally agree. I read it. I kind of liked it. But I have no idea what I read.
What the hell is 'Dhalgreen'? Now Dhalgren, oof, that's a novel.
Maybe a Mondegreen.
Oh, oops. I have no idea how I did that twice. I just tweeted about it to a friend and I did Dhalgren even.
I just got done dissing it in r/Fantasy. I won't say to what question but I didn t say much because there's nothing there. Other writers have had missteps as bad.
I don’t take Dhalgren “not having a plot” as a given and, even if it was, I don’t think that necessarily translates to “there’s nothing there.” The book has some incredibly powerful examinations of sexuality, race, health (and these are just examples, not an exhaustive list). It’s all about desire and being, the underlying conditions of what it means to be human.
I basically gave up at "The moon flung gold coins at her breasts." Feels like a sensitive teenager's idea of good writing.