Saturday, November 27, 2010
Stories by English Authors: France
Ugh. C. Too much religious piety. And it started off so well with thugs and a murder. I won't be continuing the series on to :Germany.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Oops
I think I must have read Peter Straub's Film Noir in an issue of The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror because I don't see it in The Story and Its Writer as I was just looking through it.
D Grades
Continuing in the analysis of why I give certain grades to books I read. This installment will concentrate on 'D' grades.
'D' is for 'D'amn I wasted my time. For the most part. You know, I think it's very hard for any story or novel to earn a 'D' or 'F' from me. Both grades basically mean the author failed at the very basics of storytelling. I think, as giving 'A' grades is, that failing grades are a good deal visceral. No, I take that back. 'F' grades are not visceral because I can usually pinpoint a reason why they fail outright. 'D' grades are different.
Well, I guess 'D' is for 'D'ifferent, then. A story I would give a 'D' grade to is John Barth's On with the Story. One reason is because I pretty much universally hate John Barth's writing. But there is a reason. It's a deeply personal reason, though, which is why it wouldn't get the grade of 'F.' Remember, I try to separate my emotions from my reasoning. The reason for Barth's failing is that he uses meta-fiction, but uses it in such a patronizing and atagonizing way that I feel insulted everytime his authorial voice interjects.
You see, Barth likes to tell readers how beneath his ability of thinking the readers must be. I mean that, literally. He will intereject to say things like, "I know you probably aren't following the story so I'll explain things again...." Except the characters are just talking on an airplane so what's so fucking complicated? If you wanted to make a statement about the world in general and were afraid your readers wouldn't get it through metaphor, why didn't you write an essay? Don't fucking give me an essay in the middle of the story.
I hate John Barth.
But the narration and story itself aren't unreadable. It's just so frustratingly condescending that I can barely force myself through it.
The opposite can be true, too, though. A novel could (and none come to mind) be so beautifully written but so confusingly subtle or disorganized that it becomes unreadable between the beautiful parts. This is a visceral reaction because I want to like it but just plain can't. Maybe The Sound and the Fury. I know, that's like blasphemy to say I hate that book, but nonetheless, I do. The idea is brilliant but I just...don't...have the patience for it. However, I love As I Lay Dying, which is equally as strange and disjointed but Addie's chapter in the middle just plain brings everything together in a way I don't remember Sound ever being able to do.
So 'F' grades are a colder "This just didn't work" than 'D' grades. 'D' grades are for that novel, the title of I can't remember, where these alien vampire things lived in a cave in, like, France or Germany or somewhere and all I really remember is the final shotgun scene because the writing was just so awful. It was like a fourth grader wrote it.
Let me explain something where I will sound condescending but tough luck. I can spot an amateur (read, a skilled writer) from a mile and many editors away. I make a distinction between skilled and talented and even gifted writers. I won't go into complete detail in this post but will someday. But just know that I really believe in a difference between writers who are good at employing a technique and writers who don't need techniques because they have style. In the novel above, the author kept trying to employ techniques like exposition in dialogue and suspenseful narration and descriptive setting. And what it came out sounding like was that kind of "Pow! Zing! Bam!" kind of writing and it wasn't done masterfully, like he was imitating a comic book. It was done because he thought those techniques were cool and how real writers write and he'd be a real writer the more he used them.
Well, no, not if it's obvious. I was, cruelly, laughing out loud and some of the awful writing. My visceral reaction was pity. In grad school, there weren't enough poetry, fiction, or non-fiction workshops for any student to concentrate in one area so we all crossed paths into different genres. I remember being so angry at some of my fellow students who were poets forced into fiction workshop. I wasn't angry they were in my genre but more that they were trying to write how they thought fiction sounded instead of just writing poetry in prose form. I was angry at myself for this very same thing when I was in non-fiction classes because I convinced myself non-fiction had to sound different than fiction. What came out in both instances was forced and unnatural-sounding writing because it wasn't the voice of the author on the page. Obviously. It was, instead, bad imitation.
I think that may be what earns most 'D' books/stories their grades. For the most part something about them is bad imitation. Barth's stories so badly want to imitate an essay but do it so poorly he comes off condescending. The vampire novel wanted to sound like a "serious" author but came off sounding like a child. I wanted to sound like a "true" story but came off sounding like I was lying to myself. And I was. And the vampire novelist was, and John Barth was. Lying to themselves, that is.
I guess, then, 'D' is for 'D'eception.
'D' is for 'D'amn I wasted my time. For the most part. You know, I think it's very hard for any story or novel to earn a 'D' or 'F' from me. Both grades basically mean the author failed at the very basics of storytelling. I think, as giving 'A' grades is, that failing grades are a good deal visceral. No, I take that back. 'F' grades are not visceral because I can usually pinpoint a reason why they fail outright. 'D' grades are different.
Well, I guess 'D' is for 'D'ifferent, then. A story I would give a 'D' grade to is John Barth's On with the Story. One reason is because I pretty much universally hate John Barth's writing. But there is a reason. It's a deeply personal reason, though, which is why it wouldn't get the grade of 'F.' Remember, I try to separate my emotions from my reasoning. The reason for Barth's failing is that he uses meta-fiction, but uses it in such a patronizing and atagonizing way that I feel insulted everytime his authorial voice interjects.
You see, Barth likes to tell readers how beneath his ability of thinking the readers must be. I mean that, literally. He will intereject to say things like, "I know you probably aren't following the story so I'll explain things again...." Except the characters are just talking on an airplane so what's so fucking complicated? If you wanted to make a statement about the world in general and were afraid your readers wouldn't get it through metaphor, why didn't you write an essay? Don't fucking give me an essay in the middle of the story.
I hate John Barth.
But the narration and story itself aren't unreadable. It's just so frustratingly condescending that I can barely force myself through it.
The opposite can be true, too, though. A novel could (and none come to mind) be so beautifully written but so confusingly subtle or disorganized that it becomes unreadable between the beautiful parts. This is a visceral reaction because I want to like it but just plain can't. Maybe The Sound and the Fury. I know, that's like blasphemy to say I hate that book, but nonetheless, I do. The idea is brilliant but I just...don't...have the patience for it. However, I love As I Lay Dying, which is equally as strange and disjointed but Addie's chapter in the middle just plain brings everything together in a way I don't remember Sound ever being able to do.
So 'F' grades are a colder "This just didn't work" than 'D' grades. 'D' grades are for that novel, the title of I can't remember, where these alien vampire things lived in a cave in, like, France or Germany or somewhere and all I really remember is the final shotgun scene because the writing was just so awful. It was like a fourth grader wrote it.
Let me explain something where I will sound condescending but tough luck. I can spot an amateur (read, a skilled writer) from a mile and many editors away. I make a distinction between skilled and talented and even gifted writers. I won't go into complete detail in this post but will someday. But just know that I really believe in a difference between writers who are good at employing a technique and writers who don't need techniques because they have style. In the novel above, the author kept trying to employ techniques like exposition in dialogue and suspenseful narration and descriptive setting. And what it came out sounding like was that kind of "Pow! Zing! Bam!" kind of writing and it wasn't done masterfully, like he was imitating a comic book. It was done because he thought those techniques were cool and how real writers write and he'd be a real writer the more he used them.
Well, no, not if it's obvious. I was, cruelly, laughing out loud and some of the awful writing. My visceral reaction was pity. In grad school, there weren't enough poetry, fiction, or non-fiction workshops for any student to concentrate in one area so we all crossed paths into different genres. I remember being so angry at some of my fellow students who were poets forced into fiction workshop. I wasn't angry they were in my genre but more that they were trying to write how they thought fiction sounded instead of just writing poetry in prose form. I was angry at myself for this very same thing when I was in non-fiction classes because I convinced myself non-fiction had to sound different than fiction. What came out in both instances was forced and unnatural-sounding writing because it wasn't the voice of the author on the page. Obviously. It was, instead, bad imitation.
I think that may be what earns most 'D' books/stories their grades. For the most part something about them is bad imitation. Barth's stories so badly want to imitate an essay but do it so poorly he comes off condescending. The vampire novel wanted to sound like a "serious" author but came off sounding like a child. I wanted to sound like a "true" story but came off sounding like I was lying to myself. And I was. And the vampire novelist was, and John Barth was. Lying to themselves, that is.
I guess, then, 'D' is for 'D'eception.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Death in Venice
I wanted to get a taste for Thomas Mann before I read The Magic Mountain so I downloaded this book on the Kindle (Mountain isn't available on the Kindle). The version I got only included the first story, the title story, but that's okay as I paid less than a dollar.
So, the praise: There are some fantastic passages in this story. It's dark and involves obsession and is poetically written.
The criticism: Too much philosophy. I found myself glazing over during huge chunks of the story. The ending was too abrupt. Sometimes paragraphs went on for pages. It's hard to concentrate when you lose your place over and over.
Grade: C.
So, the praise: There are some fantastic passages in this story. It's dark and involves obsession and is poetically written.
The criticism: Too much philosophy. I found myself glazing over during huge chunks of the story. The ending was too abrupt. Sometimes paragraphs went on for pages. It's hard to concentrate when you lose your place over and over.
Grade: C.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Souvenirs of a Blown World
Once again, a book with much potential that falls a little flat. What this book was able to do that a book I read earlier this year wasn't able to do, One More Day Everywhere, was it told me a story by telling stories.
One of my biggest pet peeves in the world is having something over-explained to me. I think people in general indicate when they aren't following along, and so when they don't indicate confusion, stopping to over-explain only ends in frustration and even feeling insulted. One More Day Everywhere spent too much time telling me how I should feel about the whatever story it just told instead of letting the story speak for itself.
This book, Souvenirs of a Blown World is anecdotes from McDonald's life that tell a story about the 1960s. What he cleverly did (he passed away in 2008) was he just told each story from his own perspective and with nice detail and then ended the chapter. And it moved smoothly.
What I didn't get a sense of, and so why this book still only receives a "C" grade, is of some kind of chronology or big picture or structure. It seems random, which I'm sure it's not but still it seems. I feel like this is a bunch of essays thrown together because they have a common theme or common author. I'm going to leave it at that, because I don't feel like overanalyzing.
One extremely clever thing McDonald did, though, was to use phrases, sentences, quotes, etc. from previous chapters as epigraphs introducing the theme of the next chapter and it was usually a brilliant tie-in. Why this excites me: in grad school I used epigraphs at the beginning of my stories and my workshop class would tell me how tired that kind of technique is. Authors don't do that anymore, nor do they put thoughts in italics nor do they use quotation marks for speech (that was actually said in one of my undergraduate classes). And I'm like, who cares what other authors are doing now? This is what I like. But you know, most of them were only interested in copying what was going on now, not actually expressing themselves in a way that...expressed....themselves.
Anyway, high "C."
One of my biggest pet peeves in the world is having something over-explained to me. I think people in general indicate when they aren't following along, and so when they don't indicate confusion, stopping to over-explain only ends in frustration and even feeling insulted. One More Day Everywhere spent too much time telling me how I should feel about the whatever story it just told instead of letting the story speak for itself.
This book, Souvenirs of a Blown World is anecdotes from McDonald's life that tell a story about the 1960s. What he cleverly did (he passed away in 2008) was he just told each story from his own perspective and with nice detail and then ended the chapter. And it moved smoothly.
What I didn't get a sense of, and so why this book still only receives a "C" grade, is of some kind of chronology or big picture or structure. It seems random, which I'm sure it's not but still it seems. I feel like this is a bunch of essays thrown together because they have a common theme or common author. I'm going to leave it at that, because I don't feel like overanalyzing.
One extremely clever thing McDonald did, though, was to use phrases, sentences, quotes, etc. from previous chapters as epigraphs introducing the theme of the next chapter and it was usually a brilliant tie-in. Why this excites me: in grad school I used epigraphs at the beginning of my stories and my workshop class would tell me how tired that kind of technique is. Authors don't do that anymore, nor do they put thoughts in italics nor do they use quotation marks for speech (that was actually said in one of my undergraduate classes). And I'm like, who cares what other authors are doing now? This is what I like. But you know, most of them were only interested in copying what was going on now, not actually expressing themselves in a way that...expressed....themselves.
Anyway, high "C."
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Princess Bride
I just got done reading the abridged version of The Princess Bride and it was very very good. I want to say 'A'. I want to. Here's why I want to:
The abridger, William Goldman is hilarious and I'm fine with his asides. I don't need fifty pages on what the Queen packed when she was going to visit the other city.
The author, Simon Morgenstern, is equally hilarious. And fine with being anachronistic. So am I. I love that Westley was wearing blue jeans in medieval France. Love.
The characters are interesting. As you may or may not know, this is the most important aspect of any story for me. I wonder if it's why I have such a hard time getting into poems.
Anyway, why won't I give this an 'A' but am instead giving it a really high 'B+'?
I don't know. I enjoyed it immensely. I read it in one day. I ususally can only accomplish this if I am truly engaged with the novel. I was. So what's eating me?
I don't think I'll reread it. The novels I give an 'A' grade are ones I will return to, time and again. For this purpose, Stephen King's The Drawing of the Three, which is the second book of The Dark Tower Series, only receives a high 'B'. It's not my favorite and I don't reread it. I think the one thing, and I'll talk about this eventually on this blog, the one thing that earns any novel an 'A' has to be visceral and extremely personal. I would recommend this book to others, especially those who enjoy adventure books, but now that I'm done, I'm done. I don't want to go back and find the little details I feel like I overlooked the first time.
Goldman would of course give this book a 'A'. He responds to it on such an emotional level (boy does he) and I think that's beautiful, and if he had explained to me why he thought I should read it I would, just based on his explanation, and I don't think I would regret it even if I didn't enjoy it because I knew it brought someone else such pleasure. I don't regret it. I just won't be revisiting it.
I will however, forever revisit its greatest line:
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
The abridger, William Goldman is hilarious and I'm fine with his asides. I don't need fifty pages on what the Queen packed when she was going to visit the other city.
The author, Simon Morgenstern, is equally hilarious. And fine with being anachronistic. So am I. I love that Westley was wearing blue jeans in medieval France. Love.
The characters are interesting. As you may or may not know, this is the most important aspect of any story for me. I wonder if it's why I have such a hard time getting into poems.
Anyway, why won't I give this an 'A' but am instead giving it a really high 'B+'?
I don't know. I enjoyed it immensely. I read it in one day. I ususally can only accomplish this if I am truly engaged with the novel. I was. So what's eating me?
I don't think I'll reread it. The novels I give an 'A' grade are ones I will return to, time and again. For this purpose, Stephen King's The Drawing of the Three, which is the second book of The Dark Tower Series, only receives a high 'B'. It's not my favorite and I don't reread it. I think the one thing, and I'll talk about this eventually on this blog, the one thing that earns any novel an 'A' has to be visceral and extremely personal. I would recommend this book to others, especially those who enjoy adventure books, but now that I'm done, I'm done. I don't want to go back and find the little details I feel like I overlooked the first time.
Goldman would of course give this book a 'A'. He responds to it on such an emotional level (boy does he) and I think that's beautiful, and if he had explained to me why he thought I should read it I would, just based on his explanation, and I don't think I would regret it even if I didn't enjoy it because I knew it brought someone else such pleasure. I don't regret it. I just won't be revisiting it.
I will however, forever revisit its greatest line:
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Methods of Authors
A better book than the previous 'on writing' book. I really wanted to enjoy this book but it was poorly organized. What methods classic authors used when writing their masterpieces is fascinating and don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading the stories, but it jumped from person #1 in paragraph #1 to person #2 in paragraph #2, ad nauseum. Maybe I was spoiled by Once Again to Zelda which is beautifully organized so each chapter focuses on a particular writer. I was expecting that here, too. Or at least expecting that the authors would be organized by some sort of theme (ones who write in the morning, ones who can only write locked in their bedrooms, ones who write on napkins at 3:00 a.m.). I'd give this one a C. And I wanted it to at least be a B.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Grades - Beginning with 'F'
This is an explanation of why I give certian grades to the books I read. I give them grades on the classic academic scale, A - F. For the most part, the grades are purely visceral, as they should be for anyone building a bookshelf. We can't help what we like, what we respond to. But I do think a good number of us have some idea of why we like certain books and can explain why we would recommend them to others.
There are books I would recommend to everyone because I love them, unconditionally. There are books I would recommend to serious readers, because they seem to be representative of a certain genre, time period, or philosophy. There are books I would recommend only if it sounds like another person might enjoy it more than I did. Then there are books I wouldn't recommend at all. Those are split into the two failing categories (though in my day, a 'D' grade was passing at BGSU - I know this personally).
In the words of Heidi Klum, "Let's...start the show."
'F' Grades -
'F' is for 'Fucking Unreadable." There have been many books in my life I've abandoned because they were boring. In the past few years I have begun to force myself to try my damnedest to get through those books in which I can at least see value for other readers. Usually, if I can see that value, I propel myself through them as though I'm swimming against a raging river and feel an incredible sense of accomplishment when I make it to shore. What I end up giving those books is normally a 'C' because I can see the value of these books for others to read. It won't always be an uphill battle for every reader to get through Fahrenheit 451. Christ, was it ever for me.
'F' is for Film Noir by Peter Straub. About three years ago, I took a few months to read The Story and Its Writer: Fifth Edition. It contains about 120 short stories if I'm remembering correctly, and Straub's story is one of them. It's structure is based on the idea of an old film reel that has worn through in places. Sounds intriguing, right? You know, it could have been a really excellent idea. And Straub co-wrote one of my other favorie King novels, The Talisman. Damn I love that book...even before The Dark Tower that's the book that inspired my art. Had Film Noir been a little easier to follow I think it would have been brilliant. It could have been done - many authors write linear stories with giant gaps in time/narrative. Sometimes you don't need to know what went on in between, you know? But Film Noir is just a bunch of scenes that are loosely strung together and too confusing to follow. I hated it. I eventually stopped reading.
Novels or stories that outright fail in my opinion are those I think very, very few readers could enjoy. I count among my strengths the ability to follow a story and, more importantly, the ability to make leaps of logic. This is a talent, let me tell you. I don't have many talents but that's one of 'em (along with reading upside down, writing upside down, writing backward, being able to write legibly with my left hand, and writing in general). Anyway, if I can't even follow your story and I come to the point where I am no longer willing to try...you fail. Outright.
I would, however, give Brave New World a 'D'. Maybe even a 'C'. Here's the reasoning: I couldn't get through it but it was obviously because of my extreme bias against dystopian fiction. I despise dystopian fiction. The book itself is readable. I can see how it made it into print and even why others enjoy it. But it was threatening to suck my life away by being the kind of book I truly hate. I ran screaming from 1984 for the same reason. I'm just not a scientific elitist / government conspiracy type of gal (even when it turns out okay in the end).
'F' is also for The Grapes of 'F'ucking Wrath (copyright me). Except, not. I'd give it a 'D'. The theme and story are wonderful. But the narration...the narration, man! Keep 'f'ucking dialect out of narration. I felt like I was decoding the entire novel. You know what, no. 'F'. I can't read it. I got a migraine reading it (I am not lying at all). It just took forever to reread entire paragraphs where Tom Joad was puttin' a 'apostrophe' on the end of every effin' word and they were goin' and movin' and shakin' and let me tell you, it was worse than that. Oh...especially when there would be actual dialogue like: 'Momma said we was goin', Daddy,' a grinnin' Tom said (not an actual line). 'F'.
It's great when an author has an ear for dialogue and language. But if using authentic speech patterns makes it so difficult for even advanced readers to decipher your narrative, it's not worth said authenticity. Use it sparingly instead so it will actually make an impact. You can't show off when no one is looking.
So, an 'F' book isn't one that is simply boring or one that I, personally, don't care for. It's one I don't think anyone could care for. It would be too frustrating or too confusing for any reader. I can only think of two or three in my life I'd give this grade to, anyway.
There are books I would recommend to everyone because I love them, unconditionally. There are books I would recommend to serious readers, because they seem to be representative of a certain genre, time period, or philosophy. There are books I would recommend only if it sounds like another person might enjoy it more than I did. Then there are books I wouldn't recommend at all. Those are split into the two failing categories (though in my day, a 'D' grade was passing at BGSU - I know this personally).
In the words of Heidi Klum, "Let's...start the show."
'F' Grades -
'F' is for 'Fucking Unreadable." There have been many books in my life I've abandoned because they were boring. In the past few years I have begun to force myself to try my damnedest to get through those books in which I can at least see value for other readers. Usually, if I can see that value, I propel myself through them as though I'm swimming against a raging river and feel an incredible sense of accomplishment when I make it to shore. What I end up giving those books is normally a 'C' because I can see the value of these books for others to read. It won't always be an uphill battle for every reader to get through Fahrenheit 451. Christ, was it ever for me.
'F' is for Film Noir by Peter Straub. About three years ago, I took a few months to read The Story and Its Writer: Fifth Edition. It contains about 120 short stories if I'm remembering correctly, and Straub's story is one of them. It's structure is based on the idea of an old film reel that has worn through in places. Sounds intriguing, right? You know, it could have been a really excellent idea. And Straub co-wrote one of my other favorie King novels, The Talisman. Damn I love that book...even before The Dark Tower that's the book that inspired my art. Had Film Noir been a little easier to follow I think it would have been brilliant. It could have been done - many authors write linear stories with giant gaps in time/narrative. Sometimes you don't need to know what went on in between, you know? But Film Noir is just a bunch of scenes that are loosely strung together and too confusing to follow. I hated it. I eventually stopped reading.
Novels or stories that outright fail in my opinion are those I think very, very few readers could enjoy. I count among my strengths the ability to follow a story and, more importantly, the ability to make leaps of logic. This is a talent, let me tell you. I don't have many talents but that's one of 'em (along with reading upside down, writing upside down, writing backward, being able to write legibly with my left hand, and writing in general). Anyway, if I can't even follow your story and I come to the point where I am no longer willing to try...you fail. Outright.
I would, however, give Brave New World a 'D'. Maybe even a 'C'. Here's the reasoning: I couldn't get through it but it was obviously because of my extreme bias against dystopian fiction. I despise dystopian fiction. The book itself is readable. I can see how it made it into print and even why others enjoy it. But it was threatening to suck my life away by being the kind of book I truly hate. I ran screaming from 1984 for the same reason. I'm just not a scientific elitist / government conspiracy type of gal (even when it turns out okay in the end).
'F' is also for The Grapes of 'F'ucking Wrath (copyright me). Except, not. I'd give it a 'D'. The theme and story are wonderful. But the narration...the narration, man! Keep 'f'ucking dialect out of narration. I felt like I was decoding the entire novel. You know what, no. 'F'. I can't read it. I got a migraine reading it (I am not lying at all). It just took forever to reread entire paragraphs where Tom Joad was puttin' a 'apostrophe' on the end of every effin' word and they were goin' and movin' and shakin' and let me tell you, it was worse than that. Oh...especially when there would be actual dialogue like: 'Momma said we was goin', Daddy,' a grinnin' Tom said (not an actual line). 'F'.
It's great when an author has an ear for dialogue and language. But if using authentic speech patterns makes it so difficult for even advanced readers to decipher your narrative, it's not worth said authenticity. Use it sparingly instead so it will actually make an impact. You can't show off when no one is looking.
So, an 'F' book isn't one that is simply boring or one that I, personally, don't care for. It's one I don't think anyone could care for. It would be too frustrating or too confusing for any reader. I can only think of two or three in my life I'd give this grade to, anyway.
The Writing Engine
Grade: D+. No, wait, C--.
That's a grade I received on one of my philosophy essays once. The professor had written D+ at the end, then crossed it out and wrote C-- (with two minus signs). He talked with his hands and had that hilarious trait where he backpedalled everything he said, so I could totally see him saying, "You get a D+. No, wait, no, make that a C. A C--."
This book, The Writing Engine by Luc Reid, was going to get a D+. Why? Because it isn't really a book, but instead a giant schill for his website. I won't advertise it here. I had a really hard time reading it, because I think it skips too much. Not skipping around, like jumping from one topic to the next, but like he didn't really care enough to go in-depth into each article, instead wrote a summary, then posted a link to the real article at his site. Well, I could have gone to your site for free, thanks.
In the beginning, I thougt he was funny, and having downloaded the sample I immediately wanted this book because he mentioned Inigo Montoya. Who wouldn't want to read more from someone who quotes The Princess Bride?
And he is funny. But it's not enough. From the book I don't think I got enough of a look at the exercises he would prescribe (and to which he subscribes) to feel like I learned something from him. I felt increasingly frustrated each time I saw the link to the website (on almost every page...of the Kindle). It felt more like a lecture series where you've only attended the introductory seminar - like I read his syllabus. I'll give him this...it's readable. That goes a long way in my book (the figurative one). I didn't feel like I was DRAGGING myself through it or anything. Grade D books are ones I had to force myself to complete, and F books are ones where I couldn't even crawl to the finish line.
Soon I'll post an explanation of the various grades and why I give what I give.
That's a grade I received on one of my philosophy essays once. The professor had written D+ at the end, then crossed it out and wrote C-- (with two minus signs). He talked with his hands and had that hilarious trait where he backpedalled everything he said, so I could totally see him saying, "You get a D+. No, wait, no, make that a C. A C--."
This book, The Writing Engine by Luc Reid, was going to get a D+. Why? Because it isn't really a book, but instead a giant schill for his website. I won't advertise it here. I had a really hard time reading it, because I think it skips too much. Not skipping around, like jumping from one topic to the next, but like he didn't really care enough to go in-depth into each article, instead wrote a summary, then posted a link to the real article at his site. Well, I could have gone to your site for free, thanks.
In the beginning, I thougt he was funny, and having downloaded the sample I immediately wanted this book because he mentioned Inigo Montoya. Who wouldn't want to read more from someone who quotes The Princess Bride?
And he is funny. But it's not enough. From the book I don't think I got enough of a look at the exercises he would prescribe (and to which he subscribes) to feel like I learned something from him. I felt increasingly frustrated each time I saw the link to the website (on almost every page...of the Kindle). It felt more like a lecture series where you've only attended the introductory seminar - like I read his syllabus. I'll give him this...it's readable. That goes a long way in my book (the figurative one). I didn't feel like I was DRAGGING myself through it or anything. Grade D books are ones I had to force myself to complete, and F books are ones where I couldn't even crawl to the finish line.
Soon I'll post an explanation of the various grades and why I give what I give.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Good Point, Good Point
As I'm reading The Writing Engine, I can't help but be a bit disappointed. This is mainly because my personal favorite kind of "on writing" book is one where the author just tells about himself and what led to his writing habits/philosophy. The Writing Engine is more of a series of short blurbs linking to essays on the author's website. And each one of them backtracks like crazy with "but that doesn't mean this always works" or "this technique only works half the time." Well, yeah, obviously. There are no golden rules. Got it. Please just talk and talk thoroughly in the book, the one that I purchased, with money, that promised to be a book and not a series of links to the real article.
But there is one good point that I found out about today. It's about "Broken Ideas" and it's where something that irks you is on your mind and so you can't concentrate on anything else because even when you sit down to write, that other thought is still your brain's focus. I was a little stumped on where to go in my next scene so I thought I'd take a little break and surf the web for a few seconds. Well, stupid me, I read a little news flash that totally upset me (stupidly) and when I went back to reread the scene and see where to go with it, I wasn't really reading my writing but instead was thinking about the news. I'll have to reread that section of The Writing Engine to see how to solve this problem.
But there is one good point that I found out about today. It's about "Broken Ideas" and it's where something that irks you is on your mind and so you can't concentrate on anything else because even when you sit down to write, that other thought is still your brain's focus. I was a little stumped on where to go in my next scene so I thought I'd take a little break and surf the web for a few seconds. Well, stupid me, I read a little news flash that totally upset me (stupidly) and when I went back to reread the scene and see where to go with it, I wasn't really reading my writing but instead was thinking about the news. I'll have to reread that section of The Writing Engine to see how to solve this problem.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
I'm Back
Yeah, I'm not too good sometimes with the goals and the not procrastinating. I have been reading and writing but I often get so immersed in other things I just can't bring myself at the end of it all to update a website sometimes. I'm trying, though. Slowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)