Have you all read any of Peter Sotos' work? Is it any good?
>>7843772
>Peter Sotos
Literally, who?
Please go, Peter. Please go.
>>7843779
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sotos
>>7843781
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sotos
I say again, literally who?
Please go, Peter. Please go.
>>7843854
So it is you, Peter? Thank you for admitting it.
Now please go.
>>7843772
deserves to be in the edgelord cannon
its a /mu/ meme
ignore it
>>7843772
It's everything you'd expect from someone hanging out with Moynihan, Boyd Rice, Parfrey, etc. He digs deep into the gutters, but utlimately comes off as a "mondo cane" kind of person, shock for shock's sake.
He's actually a talented writer and I would argue that his prose is better than any of the established authors working today. Does his work have any literary merit? Hardly. It serves its purpose: it's shocking, disgusting, but that is more or less all there is to it. Read his afterword to Ian Brady's book, it's probably the best and most honest thing he wrote.
I like Whitehouse a lot and I've been told Peter Sotos was/is a bug chaser.
I've read Apocalypse Culture and I'm pretty sure Sotos contributed to that, though I honestly don't recall his essay.
>>7843772
Is that the pedo guy
>>7843772
I've read "Proxy" (which contains several older books), "Selfish, Little", and "Mine". I really enjoy his style, and if read critically, he's a pretty good psychologist, albeit with definite weaknesses.
>>7844250
>I like Whitehouse a lot and I've been told Peter Sotos was/is a bug chaser.
The thing about that is that his "persona" is probably a ruse? William Bennett on his label's forums got lured into blasting Sotos after the latter started shit talking his former bandmates in one of his books. Bennett said of Sotos:
"Sotos? What an unbelievable fantasist - his fiction is always full of it.
It's not a question of not mentioning the most real truth of desperately buying time, like Dworkin and the cakes she didn't talk about; and it's not even that of being a geeky heterosexual conservative in denial - it's not even understanding the difference between hangdog vanity and being a fucking liar. It's prurience dressed up as empathy; it's not being able to help yourself: it's numbered books and loose change."
Philip Best in the Whitehouse song "Language Recovery" directed the following at Sotos:
"Could this be you? A sexual conservative who lost their instinct for self-censorship, a morbid trickster with bad timing and no refusal skills, parading the elegant symptoms of past molestation and everyday neglect, constantly intrigued by moral anarchy and economic pain."
The suggestion seems to be, by two people who've known him since the early 80s, that he's certainly not any of the voices he takes on in his books, even when he makes use of some of his own experiences. I think that difference makes his work much more interesting.
>>7844234
>his prose is better than any of the established authors working today
Would you please argue this? I'd like to hear why you think that.
>>7845646
When at his best, his prose is blunt and harsh, without being crass or tasteless like a lot of writers today; rather the bluntness achieves the kind of emotional impact that the works are aiming for. In his best passages there's a flow and a rhythm that's aesthetic aurally while being extremely ugly content-wise; this juxtaposition, again, adds to that impact, and without this his work would be like a lot authors with harsh content where the content doesn't resonate because the writing is bad. He also has a kind of awkward, jarring syntax that I think adds to these other elements.
