You are viewing walkitout

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A Purple Straw Hat
In the chapter about narrators. "We cannot imagine a Gatsby narrated by anyone but Nick Carraway, a Moby Dick without the voice of Ishmael, or a The Fellowship of the Ring told by Frodo."

What you mean, we, Thomas C. Foster?

I'm feeling like everything he says Cannot Be is where hot experimentation is occurring in genre and fan fiction. But, hey, like that's a surprise, right?

There's a horrendous word-o near the end of this chapter. He describes all the bait-and-switching in narration of Orhan Pamuk's Snow. "The definition doesn't really account for the changes a writer of Pamuk's ability can bring." Pretty sure that this is a bell-ringing metaphor, and it should have been "ring". But I suppose it could have been some sort of modern slang, "bring it", type of thing. It's just possible Foster is punning, but I suspect he intended the former, and copy-editing and so forth converted it to the latter, for many of the same reasons that lead to "reigning it in" linguistic mashups (that is, the embedded imagery is not familiar to the reader).

ETA: The chapter on character description? Development? is _terrible_. I don't know I could point to a particular flawed sentence or paragraph; I disagree with almost the entire (comparatively short) chapter. Most of the rest of the book thus far has been a lot of stuff that's kind of obvious, and a few real clunkers (all this You Cannot crap). But the chapter on characters made out of words is just horrifyingly bad.

ETAYA: It's as if, in the middle of the book, it just is diving downhill. The chapter about anti-heroes being somehow new just seems _wrong_ to me. If he's willing to include Rabbit as an example of 20th century anti-hero (while focusing on Much Worse Protagonists), how can he pretend away anti-heroes of the past like Moll Flanders? Of course anyone who has read her cannot help but adore her, but any summary or adaptation of her rapidly exposes her as immoral, criminal and just unremittingly awful. This whole anti-hero thing isn't that new at all, and presenting it as if it is just seems like ... weird. Wrong. Ignorant.

I usually sample books in the middle. I think I hit a good section that got me to buy it (he produces _incredibly_ readable prose; I think these chapters are adaptations of well-honed, perfected lectures by a really great professor), and now that I'm reading the whole thing, I'm a little shocked by what's in here.

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
ethelmay
Sep. 7th, 2013 04:32 am (UTC)
Heck, Tom Jones is an anti-hero. And having just read Gatsby, I don't think Nick Carraway is all that. If he'd said Catcher in the Rye, where the whole point is really Holden's voice, there might have been something to it. (Now that I think about it, that's somewhat the case with Ishmael, too, but mostly in the first chapter or so. Surely Ishmael drops out of sight later on, for the most part, or am I misremembering? I must reread Moby-Dick.)

I doubt the "bring" (which I agree is wrong, and may be an error introduced by someone else) is related to slang. More likely the typical academic usage of "bring to bear on" or "bring to" meaning "contribute." Pamuk's ability to BLAH BLAH BLAH brings to the novel a sense of FOO, that kind of thing.
walkitout
Sep. 7th, 2013 01:14 pm (UTC)
Agree about Nick
He actually talks about Tom Jones, but doesn't perceive Tom Jones as Bad Enough to be a Real anti-hero. Tom doesn't get up to nearly the awfulness that Moll engages in, but he's certainly no better behaved than, say, Rabbit, who Foster mentions.

I don't think you are misremembering Moby-Dick, altho certainly lots of people do.

I _hope_ the author intended "changes" ... "ring", because that is such a lovely and appropriate metaphor. I haven't read any Pamuk, but I have to say nothing I'm reading in this book or your sentence is particularly inspiring.

I'm afraid I'm a little too much of a Tell the Damn Story reader to really be all that impressed by some of this stuff.
ethelmay
Sep. 7th, 2013 06:29 pm (UTC)
Re: Agree about Nick
B. likes Pamuk a lot. I think he's certainly worth reading, though possibly not your cup of tea.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )