“Lincoln in the Bardo” is one of the best books I’ve ever read. It has tons of characters doing rambling monologues, but it also has a distinct story line that is fascinating and original. The audiobook is excellent as well. I loved reading and then listening to that book so much that I eagerly bought his book of short stories “Tenth of December” to which I had a similar reaction as you - didn’t quite get into them at first and found them all-over-the-place. However, it’s been over a year since I read it and I can still vividly remember many of the stories because they have some very original plots. Two of my sisters and my mom read it as well for our short-lived book club and what’s interesting is that we all had some very different understandings of the stories. For instance, half of us thought a character was killed in one of the stories and the other half interpreted the “killing” as only in the main character’s mind.

His story settings are frequently near-future dystopic & a bit intentionally disorienting. Just relax, read closely, and you’ll pick it all up. The point is the truth & humanness of the characters despite the foreignness of the setups. His writing is wonderful & frequently euphorically hilarious.

Personally, I love George Saunders.

He's a surrealist. His work is intended to have a bizarre, dreamlike, disorienting quality. it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but as with all surrealists in any field of art (not just writing) the key to appreciating it is to not try to get the hang of it--the key is to just fall into it and allow yourself to feel whatever you're going to feel as you read it.

The point of surrealist art is feeling, not meaning.

He never really clicked for me, but I do kind of like his approach to writing. Essentially I think there are really only two approaches you can take when writing something (anything, really): are you writing for yourself, or for your audience? The latter approach is generally going to be more successful, but the former is, I think, often more interesting. And I think Saunders embraces the former category.

IIRC Saunders began as a technical writer, so he presumably has both the skill and the practice to write very simply and clearly. So when he's not being clear, that's a deliberate choice, and it's worth considering why he might make that decision. Personally, I prefer that kind of ambiguity in short fiction, because it gives the text a kind of... longevity and complexity that generally wouldn't otherwise be possible with short-form fiction.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm having one of my bad days, and my pain medication can make me a bit... rambly and sometimes somewhat, slightly, incoherent.

I read his book "Pastoralia" in high school. I remember it was odd but pretty good. I don't have much else to say because I lost retention of most stuff I read back then, but that's a long story itself. lol

I really really enjoyed his ‘The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil’ and also read Lincoln in the Bardo, which was odd and hard for me but it was ok.

Honestly I love his short fiction. He has some bangers

[deleted]

Saunders is the guy who makes me go, "why even try writing?" I love his work.

Edit: Auto correct on Saunders.