Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
That's what I said when I referenced HP, yeah.
But why shouldn't they aim for excellence? I mean, if it means anything, I say this as someone who puts Neil Gaiman and Sanderson at "serviceable narrator with some admittedly very neat ideas and good dialogue" (whereas lots of people apparently think Gaiman's writing is godly), and for whom serviceable writing is usually distracting, based on what gets published.
Who are your favorite writers, based on technical skill, evocative, nuanced language, etc?
Because it's a whole lot of time and effort, while most writers have whole lives outside of their writing. Purely practical reasons.
Also because it takes a lot of time and practice to develop the skill to write excellently unless you're a very gifted writer.
If you're working a 9-5 and have a girlfriend and a social life or whatever, like many writers, you simply don't have the time to go over and write everything to "excellent" standards. It's uncommon for a writer to be able to churn out books like many more prolific authors do, after all.
Consider it like anime, I guess. There's a bunch of anime that you might watch because the art's really really good, and then there's a bunch of anime that you might watch because it tells a compelling story and the art's merely passable. The latter could be served very well by having really great art, yes, but doesn't it still stand on its own with passable art anyway?
I'm not generally that concerned with the art quality of anime, so I don't know if I can run with that comparison. :P
And, see, I get that, but I would still sooner be directed to those very gifted writers, whatever their life circumstances might have been. I don't know any of these writers personally (except professors), and I'm not inclined to say, "well, yeah, I mean, you have a life, so I'll excuse these unnecessary adverbs and bad similes;" I'm still going to evaluate everything against everything else, and I'd rather use my time on those gifted writers, and then turning to their influences. For what it's worth, my complaint doesn't generally extend to ideas or characterization -- I'm usually fine with that; I mostly mean I'm bummed out that there aren't more writers who can put images in my head with their words as skillfully as McCarthy, and I get that that's a stupidly high standard.
But it's the same thing. It's the vehicle by which the content is delivered to the reader. Technical writing <-> art/animation.
Well, personally, I don't mind sticking around with a writer who settles for serviceable technical writing if their writing is strong in other areas- thematics, characterization, plot, etc.
The technical writing is indeed important, but it's only slightly more important than any other element of a story- in that I can deal with it not being above-average, but unlike, say, plot, a story is generally completely unreadable if the technical writing is bad.
Yeah, but they're still different media, and I still react to them differently. That can't be helped, and I generally like (newer) animation a lot by default; to me, it's already equivalent to excellent writing except when something goes very wrong.
I don't, either, but that doesn't mean I won't be disappointed if that time wasn't already spent reading something that accomplishes these things better. It's like, I'm a little miffed that I didn't bring The Brothers Karamazov with me to school and am instead filling time (aside from time spent on class reading) with stuff like American Gods. Then again, I have the Bible with me, and I should probably read that if I want a greater context for a lot of the writing I've considered excellent up to this point.
Again, I can deal with it not being above-average. I'd just rather be able to read the things that are, and that already do everything else with excellence, as well.
Then you will be very tightly restricting yourself, since that applies to very few works.
This seems a little like you are saying "I am disappointed with eating good food because I am not eating excellent food", honestly.
^^ In that case, it shouldn't take terribly long to find these (and leave me enough of my life left to re-read them on occasion) while then reading new things (and enjoying them, since I still enjoy things that aren't excellent) while keeping a critical eye on what worked and what didn't, to inform future edification.
^ I don't have much of a choice concerning what foods I can eat (and my standards are also much less discriminatory here, as with anime). It's much easier to appreciate good food (one meal doesn't take as much of my time as a good book, either).
But there's such a thing as being overly critical, which is what you appear to be doing here.
I guess that's true, but I don't think it can really be helped. I can't just deny my own standards.
Normally I am all for encouraging people to raise their standards, buuuut... today is one of those days where you've gone too far in the opposite direction, really.
Guess so. @_@
I guess this doesn't terribly surprise me; my standards for most things are pretty high anyway.
That is definitely a failure on the part of the translator, or rather an issue of taking French grammar rules very literally. You see, French uses several different forms of the past and present tense, one of which is all but exclusive to storytelling and formal narrative; a free-flowing story or ballad may alternate between this tense, the regular past tense, and a modified form of the present tense depending upon what is being described. While this does occur in conversation in English—"So I was running, see, but then I had to stop, and I saw this guy I knew..."—it does not generally appear in written form. In older French works, particularly ballads and romances that were meant to be recited or otherwise performed, this does not apply. The "telling" and the repetition come from the same place: A balladeer would set the scene and the mood, and then emphasise aspects of the situation through repetition of lines. Not to mention that all of this would have sounded completely different in Old French. Given that I have read a little of the Song of Roland in Old French and sounded it out... probably hella manly.
All that being said, that doesn't diminish the fact that it has all of the morals and mores of an early mediaeval ballad, which are pretty alienating to the modern reader. So I will give you that.
That's pretty interesting; I didn't know that about French. Though, interestingly enough, your comment that it would have sounded manlier in Old French sort of ties in with my complaint that the book was overly masculine (granted, this is to be expected of a work from this era).
Yeah. It was mostly tough to read in that I vehemently disagreed with the narration due to its being blatant propaganda, but being an early medieval ballad, it's probably worth it to at least be familiar with this thing, even if you never read it (in which case you don't miss very much).
I believe that most writers attempt at greatness, it is not always achieved.
That said, the thing is that really good technical writing is only achieved with a level of craft, experimentation, and a true and genuine love for language and the form. And I feel that most writers are like me; while the love for language is certainly there, ideas, emotion, and resonance are a far bigger priority.
What I've been saying this whole time, though, is that I want to read the people who achieve all of those things (lord knows I respond to ideas, emotion, and resonance in fiction), because I know those writers exist, and so if a writer doesn't hit on all of these things, it distracts me, and I just happen to have a far easier time noticing poor style.
I can't help but feel that this article matches up with the reasons the modern stuff I've had to read for class has been so disappointing. Interestingly enough, it (along with a review of The Road by Keely from Goodreads (he linked this article in his review)) also highlights the failings of someone who, at least up to this point, I thought was a masterful author, as opposed to one who might have just stricken gold (might have).
I get the feeling that person secretly hates fiction.
I don't get that feeling at all, after seeing them commend multiple fiction writers over the course of the article.
They don't hate fiction, Myrmidon. They just hate the readers!
No, but seriously, that article basically reads as one giant snob-fest.
is what I took from it. They express sadness over the way that readers are expected to read things by the current literary elite; they defend readers who don't "get" the current crop.
They "defend" them in the most condescending way possible.
Perhaps, but I was amused by that, and, more importantly, I find myself agreeing with the meat of the article; the modern selections are exposed as really bad, once given the scrutiny that "literature" deserves.
Just about everything, modern or not, is really bad when given scrutiny.
It helps, when you're casting your eyes back, to ignore all the chaff that no longer exists. Much easier to pretend that everything's worse today when you can ignore all the worse stuff back then.
Also stuff like this tends to be a bunch of ad hoc rationalizations for gut reactions.
And it's not even INTERESTING ad hoc rationalizations of gut reactions.
what
I'll give you ninety percent of everything, but I can't imagine myself fully conceding this point.
The question is whether the current literary circle that promotes the Gutensons and Proulxs is putting out anything on par with the older greats. Maybe Myers is missing an answer for this point, but that might point to the current difficulty of finding these greats, which would be highly unfortunate considering that the Internet exists now.
I don't think that applies here, though. The reasoning behind the criticisms in the essay is pretty sound and widely applicable; avoid repetition, use only meaningful words, don't hide behind your own imprecise fluff, etc.
Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labors left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labors of men that as a result of the labors unfinished of Testew and Cunnard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labors of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation wastes and pines wastes and pines and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicillin and succedanea in a word I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell fades away I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per head since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per head approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labors lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labors lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and then the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull fading fading fading and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labors abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mêlée, final vociferations)
Or you could tell me what your point is.
Oh, we're talking about literary canon. And you're praising it? Okay.
First of all, this discussion, being based upon an essay deriding modern exemplars of "literature," as determined by modern criticism, was always about that supposed upper tier (for what it's worth, I don't entirely agree with this supposed divide between literature and other works). And I'll readily praise some of the canon, having enjoyed works by Dostoevsky, Milton, and Melville without even requiring a full understanding of them, and as such, I want to see what's going on in modern works held within the same designation that's supposed to be comparable to that some.