walkitout (walkitout) wrote,

The complaining continues: _How to Read Novels Like a Professor_

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.
Tags: not-a-book-review

  • French Canadians

    A post by my cousin on FB prompted me to take another shot at figuring out the ancestry of her mother (her father and my mother are siblings; for a…

  • Finding a marriage record

    One of my husband's relatives is slowly working through an application process that involves some minor genealogical research. The task that she was…

  • Nell Painter asks a really great question

    At the NYT, Nell Irvin Painter asks a great question, and provides her answer to it, along with some historical background and a proposal for a good…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.