Karl Ove Knausgaard in Conversation with Sheila Heti 

Being humble/modest isn't the same as being objective.

Just like Trump!

you should read her! shes good

"The flame alphabet" by Ben Marcus, "The Argonauts" by Maggie Nelson, "Sketches from a hunter's album" by Turgenev.

jaye see are you talking about wanderers? Karls work is very different than that series

yeah then he became a nazi sympathizer so...

P. K. Check out her novel, "How Should a Person Be?"

Elena Ferrante. Italian virtuoso.

sheila heti lol

@@saintjerome23 Lol not even close

Sounds like you’re projecting, she did a fantastic job interviewing and was more prepared and smart than any other interviewer I’ve seen with him (with the exception of Zadie Smith).

@@rjmoney9 Both observations could be true, of course, since conscientious preparation and interview competence are perfectly compatible with awe, adulation, and even sexual attraction. As to which, if either, of us is projecting, that's a moot point. Your 'sounds like' may qualify as projection.

@@vanishinglyyy I've read Sheila's books and once had the pleasure of corresponding with her by email on a topic of mutual interest: she's delightful. I wouldn't claim to understand her or any other person, male or female. As Huxley pointed out, people are hermetically sealed 'island universes'--when a person dies, a universe dies: most of us find it full-time work trying to understand ourselves. It should go without saying that only Sheila herself could confirm which of our perceptions is closer to the mark; she's the final authority on the matter. Karl Ove did seem to respond to her, though, which suggests a receptivity on his part to signals you missed. While there's no point arguing over something neither of us is in a position to settle, the claims made in your last sentence are silly and certainly funded by no evidence: a) The sexes are equally prone to being smitten, and it's a perfectly respectable state to be in. So much for sexism and disrespect. b) If you're going to claim someone has implied something, the onus is on you to identify both the premises of the implication and the conclusion that supposedly follows from it. Masquerading substitute premises and conclusions of your own as your interlocutor's is an orthodox evasive move by bad faith actors, but I've never understood why since it's also transparent. It doesn't persuade anyone. c) As my wife and I have been interacting daily for over forty years and raised two daughters, I can claim some familiarity with the behaviour of at least some women. I also have a sister, female relatives, female colleagues, female friends, and, you know, a mother.

@@markkennedy5479 "who me? a man who knows some women!?"