
Bellona has its own time zone: BMT (Bizarro Mean Time)
to your reading list. (Full disclosure: Delany is a contributing editor for Femspec, an academic journal I work with).
It took me several months to finish this book, and not merely because I started it amid a bevy of life changes. Referring to Samuel Delany’s Dhalgren as difficult would be cliched. Gregory Frost compared it to Gravity’s Rainbow and Ulysses. A longtime Gene Wolfe aficionado, I was not deterred by these warnings. As it turns out, Wolfe and Delany share much in both theme and literary allusions. I will not belabor this point, but the short of it is that both authors ponder the divide between the subjective and the objective. They have also both read their Ovid. Of course, they have little in common politically.
One reason I took my time reading Dhalgren was that it has a trait in common with modern literary fiction: nothing much happens. There is action, more than in a DeLillo novel at least, but the plot is autophagic. There is no linear progression. Dhalgren is a character-driven novel. Its setting is one of these characters; the text is another.
The blurb on my paperback copy tells me that this story takes place “at the end of time,” and alludes to it being post-apocalyptic. I wonder if the copywriter read the same book. Even a liberal interpretation of this explanation is unsatisfactory.
Essentially, Dhalgren is a metatextual story told partially from the point-of-view of one nameless partial-amnesiac. Identity, perception, and text are unstable — according to post-structural theory. Here time and space are likewise fractured. If you would like an objective explanation for this, you will have to supply it yourself. The novel makes no claims. I hesitate to call it science fiction as little science occupies its exposition. The work is more reminiscent of Borges and Barthelme than Asimov and Heinlein.
I want to leave you, my reader, with more than the typical Dhalgren review. I could describe the various metatextual intricacies and allusions, but these are literary gymnastics. I could discuss Kid’s diatribes on the relationship between signifier and signified. This is elementary postmodern philosophy. What resonated with me was the protagonist, Kid. His struggles with his poetry and his other insecurities spoke to me in a way I would be uncomfortable explaining. This alone warranted my reading.
My recommendation: there are sections of Dhalgren so dense with fifty-dollar words that it sent me, a cultivator of words weird and wonderful, to the dictionary once a page. If that sounds like a book you would enjoy, then you should add this speculative fiction classic to



About