What do you mean by "loose canon plot builder"?Originally Posted by JCamilo
Again I can only read Borges in translation, and in translation the aesthetic quality of his prose leaves something to be desired.
What do you mean by "loose canon plot builder"?
Again I can only read Borges in translation, and in translation the aesthetic quality of his prose leaves something to be desired.
Check out my blog it has basically nothing to do with literature.
http://slingsandarrowsandtheproudman.blogspot.com/
In spanish Borges has a beautiful prose.
"Antes de Nietzsche la inmortalidad personal era una mera equivocación de las esperanzas, un proyecto confuso"
"Equiparar mujeres a flores es otra eternidad o trivialidad; he aquí algunos ejemplos"
It has an oral quality of pauses and stylistic precision with analogies and personifications which have a very poetic rendition. He does use some weird orders and unusual words, but he probably spoke like that and asking him to degrade the "quality" of his vocabulary to sound less difficult is a weird kind of critic. I'd argue that it's part of what gives him a certain rhythm in each phrase.
My blog about literature (in spanish): http://otrasbentilaciones.wordpress.com/
Perhaps I will be able to read Spanish one day.
Check out my blog it has basically nothing to do with literature.
http://slingsandarrowsandtheproudman.blogspot.com/
Shakespeare plots are not so well developed, mostly he created a sittuation and then he didnt need to worry about it because his dialogues would carry the play ahead. It is not one of his strengths (but it didnt need to be, there wont be ever a perfect writer or anything near to that, because every form has its limitations and strengths and this leads to the writers showing it as well).
eh agree to disagree
Check out my blog it has basically nothing to do with literature.
http://slingsandarrowsandtheproudman.blogspot.com/
To this day... I still don't know if I'll have the balls to tackle "Mason & Dixon"... I'm guessing I'll probably learn more while trying to fight a massive migraine headache for the next few months.
"We look at the world, at governments, across the spectrum, some with more freedom, some with less. And we observe that the more repressive the State is, the closer life under it resembles Death. If dying is deliverance into a condition of total non-freedom, then the State tends, in the limit, to Death. The only way to address the problem of the State is with counter-Death, also known as Chemistry." -- Thomas Pynchon, Against the Day
Good Writers: Almost all of John Steinbeck's books are painfully mundane with some interesting stuff thrown into the mix. He's still a great writer and my favorite.
Kurt Vonnegut seems to be a real try-hard. He tends to soapbox frequently throughout his novels (namely Breakfast of Champions). Additionally, his writing style is very juvenile. I don't have a problem with swearing or colloquial language in narrative, but Vonnegut seems to employ it too much. At the end of the day, he seems to be a much better storyteller than a writer.
A Bad Writer: Chuck Palahniuk's writing style is atrocious. It seems to be exponentially worse than the problems that I listed with Vonnegut's style. Additionally, he doesn't seem to tackle relatively unexplored or unpopular issues, excluding Fight Club to some extent. That said, his characters and plots are very original and they appeal to me personally. That's really the only reason I read his books.
Come to think of it, Palahinuk isn't even that bad of a writer, when compared to others. I think I just tend to underrate him because his fanboys tend to claim that he is some sort of literary god.
Ayn Rand doesn't trust the readers enough to get the message.
I think this is the reason why I don't like Faulkner. Before I could never exactly explain why. His writing is overdone. It comes across like someone who's trying too hard. Maybe better editing would've helped? His popularity baffles me too.
All good books have one thing in common- they are truer than if they had really happened. (Hemingway)
Ha you and me both. Still taking on Gravity's Rainbow, it takes some careful reading. I tend to drift, not from boredom but Pynchon digresses so much that I start digressing in my head from any idea that interests me. Mason and Dixon IS mocking me from the shelf though.
I honestly had more fun with Gravity than I did with "Against the Day", to be honest. Just because the former did a huge number on my mind throughout, and still gave me a reason to keep reading. AtD didn't feel as prophetic, but two out of the novel's various clusters still kept me reading.
Which is why I now love airships.
"We look at the world, at governments, across the spectrum, some with more freedom, some with less. And we observe that the more repressive the State is, the closer life under it resembles Death. If dying is deliverance into a condition of total non-freedom, then the State tends, in the limit, to Death. The only way to address the problem of the State is with counter-Death, also known as Chemistry." -- Thomas Pynchon, Against the Day
"... For no other reason than they found God" Re-reading this old thread, I found that comment unintentionally funny.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote