"He acknowledges something of this in his essay "Retrospection": "I am not observant of persons, so if I imagine someone whose skin is as smooth and pale as a grocery mushroom, it is the mushroom that did it." What he's saying is that it is language, not character, nor even the urgency of plot or hope, that moves him, that it is words and sentences, as opposed to experiences, from which his fictions tend to grow."
Whole thing here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-david-ulin-20120129,0,1797168.story
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks, Bill—I'm going to check it out. Begun to listen to THE TUNNEL read by Gass (published by the Dalkey Archives).
I think what you say quite nicely summarizes both the scope and limitations of Gass' writing. He's quite the master of language, but I find his fiction lacking ... something. Looking for the core of the famous Gardner-Gass controversy, I found instead this by our very own Gary Percesepe:
http://www.fictionaut.com/stories/gary-percesepe/whats-eating-william-gass
...from when The Tunnel had just been published. 1996 to 2009 to 2012. A fascinating essay, actually.
Read some of the excerpts of Gass' new book, and it's quite marvelous, thanks again. The man's an unlikely sage, an angry baby face, a literary exorcist—not pleasant, but inspiring like the devil.