Just a quick post today. My son, Josh, is coming up around noon for Father's day and will be here for a couple of days. I won't be posting or reading blogs during that time. We've got some fun things to do that don't involve the computer. In the meantime, though, I'll leave you with a brief commentary on famous books that suck.
1. Moby Dick, by Herman Melville. Often referred to as the first modern novel, there are indeed some good things in this book. The writing isn't bad and the characters are well drawn. There are some justifiably famous lines, "From Hell's heart I stab at thee." However, the book is very long, with numerous asides that are info dumps on whaling and have nothing to do with the basic storyline. It took me nearly two years to read it and I still shudder a bit at the thought.
2. William Hope Hodgson wrote a very fine book called The House on the Borderland. I loved it's surreal prose and imagery, and the feeling of real dislocation within it. So naturally I tried Hodgson's The Night Land. Big mistake. The book is agonizingly slow and repetitive and is written with a biblical tone that is interesting at first but soon grows old. There is some fine imagery in it, and it showcases Hodgson's twisted but brilliant imagination, but the basic story is not very interesting in the first place. (It's about reincarnated lovers.) And the repetive elements are enough to drive a reader mad themselves. I thought if I was going to have to read one more time about how they: walked 8 hours and ate some tablets and slept for six hours, that I was going to scream. The books is about 200,000 words long, and I understand there is a 20,000 word version called The Dream of X. I sure wish I'd read that one first.
3. Requiem for a Dream, by Hubert Selby Jr. I've mentioned my dislike of this book before, and unlike with my first two picks I can't find anything positive to say about it. All I can say is, I wanted all the characters (except the main junkie's mom) to die as quickly as possible so I'd be put out of their misery. The writing is absolutely bland, with paragraphs that run on for whole pages and at the same time combine dialogue from several speakers without using any quotation marks or tags to let you know who is speaking. If you must experience something of this work, watch the movie, which is not my favorite in the world but is a thousand times better than the book.
And now, for two items that definitely do NOT suck. I just finished reading Heroes of the Fallen by David J. West, and I found it to be very fine. I'll be doing a review of the book as a blog post sometime soon. I also read "Love's Clothing," by Rachel V. Olivier, which is a short story in the March 2010 issue of Aoife's Kiss. Good stuff. Very inventive. With a great setting and backstory. I recommend both works.
-----
-----
Showing posts with label Hubert Selby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hubert Selby. Show all posts
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Who are you Trying to Impress?
This is the first of a short series of posts concerning the question “Who are You Trying to Impress,” which I’m addressing primarily to writers, although I could see that it might be applicable to other fields of endeavor. I consider this a very important question for writers to consider, because it gets at the heart of why we do what we do.
As far as I can figure, writers write to impress one of four different audiences. These are:
1. Critics.
2. Peers (other writers).
3. Oneself.
4. Readers.
Although the choice you personally make is up to you, there are some points I’d like to make about these choices.
1. Critics, as a group, are notoriously fickle. Although some critics are fine writers themselves, many are more concerned about the theory of writing than the practice. This is not bad in and of itself, but to me many critics focus more on style than substance, and style constantly fluctuates. What’s “in” today is “out” tomorrow.
Writers who target their work at critics strive to stand out from the crowd, and this often translates into breaking “rules” for the sake of breaking them. Such writers try tactics such as leaving out quotation marks from around dialogue, or shoving the dialogue from multiple speakers into the same paragraph. They often use experimental prose, writing in future tense, for example, or all in multiple phrase sentences, or in sentence fragments. They seem, at least, to express the idea that truly fine writing must be difficult to understand.
There’s nothing specifically wrong in writing to impress the critics, but most regular readers find such strategies distracting and irritating. And, naturally, some authors do a far better job of pulling off both style and substance than do others. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t need to leave quotation marks out of his dialogue. It’s an affection, nothing more. But McCarthy still tells powerful stories about wonderful characters. Hubert Selby, Jr, the author of Requiem for a Dream, doesn’t need to cram the dialogue from multiple speakers into the same paragraph, but this could be forgiven if his characters weren’t so lame and his prose so dishwater dull.
If writers who chooses this path get lucky, they can win a lot of awards and occasionally even make huge amounts of money. If they gamble wrong they’ll likely be largely forgotten, although one thing that can save them is the movies. I firmly believe, for example, that the movie Requiem for a Dream rescued the much weaker book.
Next post, we’ll consider writing to impress peers, which I believe is more common than writing for the critics. Stay tuned.
P.S., some of you may have noted that I’ve changed my profile picture. Lana and I took some “in character” pics on Tuesday and I thought I might as well use one for the blog.
-----
-----
As far as I can figure, writers write to impress one of four different audiences. These are:
1. Critics.
2. Peers (other writers).
3. Oneself.
4. Readers.
Although the choice you personally make is up to you, there are some points I’d like to make about these choices.
1. Critics, as a group, are notoriously fickle. Although some critics are fine writers themselves, many are more concerned about the theory of writing than the practice. This is not bad in and of itself, but to me many critics focus more on style than substance, and style constantly fluctuates. What’s “in” today is “out” tomorrow.
Writers who target their work at critics strive to stand out from the crowd, and this often translates into breaking “rules” for the sake of breaking them. Such writers try tactics such as leaving out quotation marks from around dialogue, or shoving the dialogue from multiple speakers into the same paragraph. They often use experimental prose, writing in future tense, for example, or all in multiple phrase sentences, or in sentence fragments. They seem, at least, to express the idea that truly fine writing must be difficult to understand.
There’s nothing specifically wrong in writing to impress the critics, but most regular readers find such strategies distracting and irritating. And, naturally, some authors do a far better job of pulling off both style and substance than do others. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t need to leave quotation marks out of his dialogue. It’s an affection, nothing more. But McCarthy still tells powerful stories about wonderful characters. Hubert Selby, Jr, the author of Requiem for a Dream, doesn’t need to cram the dialogue from multiple speakers into the same paragraph, but this could be forgiven if his characters weren’t so lame and his prose so dishwater dull.
If writers who chooses this path get lucky, they can win a lot of awards and occasionally even make huge amounts of money. If they gamble wrong they’ll likely be largely forgotten, although one thing that can save them is the movies. I firmly believe, for example, that the movie Requiem for a Dream rescued the much weaker book.
Next post, we’ll consider writing to impress peers, which I believe is more common than writing for the critics. Stay tuned.
P.S., some of you may have noted that I’ve changed my profile picture. Lana and I took some “in character” pics on Tuesday and I thought I might as well use one for the blog.
-----
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)