Hotel Theory

Hey guys, sorry I have really been slacking on this, but we're back. Unfortunately, I have extremely limited internet access, and way more limited free time these days. Anyhow, on to the book. There are so many things to talk about, I am really loving it so much, although its a lot more difficult to get into than his other stuff... but I get the feeling that its inaccessibility is intentional. He is using the two columns, which I don't quite know what to call, to represent literally the concept that he is proposing in the "hotel theory" column. I am about halfway through the book, and I am beginning to feel a little bit bored with that column, but the entire thing still interests me... I like the idea of visiting the theoretical column and the narrative column like you would exist in a hotel room, according to mr. koestenbaum. I feel like I need to read it through once, and then go through it again and really try to pay attention to the way the two columns interact. I'm sure they were put in a certain order so that certain concepts he brings up are read at a specific point in the narrative. Its really funny the way he seems to have put himself into the narrative, spying on the goings on at Hotel Women from across the street at Hotel Theory.

Ahhhh, too many things to remember to say. I am curious how other people have approached the business of reading the two columns at once. I have sort of been reading a chunk of one, and then the other, switching off, and trying to staying pretty much on the same page. I won't go more than the next page ahead of the other, and usually there is a good place to stop in the column I am reading so that I can go catch up with the other one. I think WK has successfully accomplished this... I am never lost when I go back and forth.... the narrative is memorable and simple enough, and the "theory" is broken up enough into tiny chunks, I don't really ever feel confused or lost. That's a pretty big accomplishment. I also feel that if I were to read either of them straight through, I might get bored, so I am wondering if anyone is going about it that way. The Lana Turner/Liberace story has a lot of flavor of his novel that I loved, Moira Orfei in Aigues-Mortes. Its just so preposterous and silly and the language is over the top, the way the characters' dialogue is sort of melodramatic at points. You get the feeling that he is serious about what he is doing, but not serious at all. Its a lot of fun.

Ok, I don't think I can write anymore about this right now, but I look forward to getting this conversation going, because there are a lot of aspects of the book that I am really interested it. Any thoughts on the legitimacy of the "hotel theory"? He seems to be half-joking, yet dead serious. Great.