Jonathan Safran Foer Lectures on Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Unfortunately, my computer could not connect at the Foer event. I was jealous of everyone else, happily tweeting away. Because of this, I feel like I didn’t really get the live-blogging experience. Instead, I wrote my tweets in word and added them later. Either way, Andrea and I bought Foer’s book afterwards and told him about the tweeting. Maybe he’s read it since then…

I definitely enjoyed the lecture and Foer’s humor, although I was most interested when Foer talked about writing and art.

When Foer said that he didn’t have a moral, ideas, or a certain voice that he was trying to convey when he wrote the book, I thought that was weird. I guess I have the idea in my head that most writers know exactly what they want to say or have a general idea of what sort of theme they want to share when writing. I mean, why just sit down and write a book?

However, then Foer said, “Through the process of writing, I come to these things. After I wrote the book, I realized things about myself. Writing has been the most powerful corrective tool. Writing is a vehicle for expression, discovery, urges that can’t seem to be relieved in other ways in life, or for communication.”

It seems like Foer just wrote and got out what he felt, which in turn showed him who he was. Foer also talked about how his book was like a boat that had gone on a long journey. Throughout the journey, the boards and what made up the boat were all replaced, just as his story has changed.

My question is, when does art become art? Did Foer sit down and write, and from there, the story contained symbolism and meaning that made the book a work of art? Or, through this process of “replacing the boards” has his writing become art?

This question was brought to my attention in my post-tonal theory class. We were talking about a Debussy piece that was absolutely gorgeous (it’s called La Cathedrale Engloutie). Was the music written out of inspiration and on a creative whim, and because of that, contained symbolism and meaning? Or, was the symbolism planned? Carefully articulated? When did it become art? Foer seemed to allude that he had written the story, and the symbolism had sort of just happened, but he didn’t take it out. This question of art still baffles me.

“I find writing can be excruciating,” said Foer. I really enjoyed this. I completely agree. I like already having things written, that’s nice. But the process of writing is complicated, with a lot of editing. Also, once I have written, I find myself never really completely satisfied with it. Something can always be changed to make better.

Along those excruciating lines, however, Foer said that “relationships can be like that; it’s much easier to be unattached in the world, but at the end of the day, I don’t think it ever is.” Relationships can be excruciating and complicated. Although, without those conflicts, you are, at the end of the day, alone (besides friends and family of course). It seems like it’s so much easier to be independent, detached, and “your own person” as they say, but is it really? It’s definitely easier to go home to someone rather than alone, even if you are having a fight with a loved one.

At the end of the lecture, I was satisfied. Foer got me thinking a lot about my life and things that have happened. I think art is supposed to make you do that. Art is put forth in a way that everyone can connect to it somehow, sometimes in very different ways. It pulls on every emotion and thought.

As Foer said, “We are almost taught that art is inappropriately life-like.” It’s because of this sometimes uncomfortable relation and connection to art in our own ways that it is so beautiful.