Free Topic

After reading "The Indian Uprising" by Donald Barthelme, I was left with a loss of words and was very confused. However, his style was very interesting. It was indeed difficult to understand due to his stream of consciousness style, but I was intrigued by it. Some critics have branded his style as meaningless academic postmodernism, implying something negative. But what's so wrong with this style?  Whether or not Barthelme intended there to be any significance to this story is beside the point. Stories are written for entertainment. Even if the story does in fact have no point to it is in itself, insignificant. All that matters when reading a story is whether or not you can find enjoyment in it. I was able to find this enjoyment and could therefore appreciate what Barthelme was depicting in his story. 

 

People argue whether or not Barthelme is a madman or a genius. In my opinion, he is a little bit of both. In order to write something in that style requires both a hint of insanity and brilliance. Barthelme was able to write an entire story from an obscured and uncertain point of view while still keeping you drawn to what's happening. Even though I was unsure of what exactly was happening in the story, I kept reading it. I really like how he writes and I, myself had a lot of fun writing like Barthelme in our last blog topic. While many people will still categorize his writing as meaningless garbage, I will always have an appreciation for the way he writes.