Storm Front by Jim Butcher. No, I never got around to checking out the Dresden Files.
About as pulpy as I'm willing to go without putting a book down, but for all that, an easy and entertaining read. I don't see myself making my way through the entire series unless later books improve drastically, but I might read another book or three.
They're never like fine literature or anything, but around book 3 or 4 he mentions getting a new editor, and you can really really notice. Well, that and his writing generally gets less derpy over time.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I think he writes brilliant dialogue. He does things that annoy me, like use ellipses for commas. He sometimes gets long winded. I enjoy the TV show, so even if I don't end up reading these books, I will not be out of the loop entirely.
Well what was it you disliked about the first book? I've read just about everything he's written, but I'm sure I and others here can tell you if things will improve from your point of view.
Let me preface this by saying I'm a lit snob. I don't, for the most part, do genre fiction.
Let's start with what I like. The characters. George R.R. Martin knows how to craft interesting characters and put them in interesting scenes. The more they talk, the better.
Now, what I dislike: the way he uses language outside of dialogue. There's nothing interesting about how he uses sentences, or manipulates words. Bran's chapters, for example, tended to bore me the most because it was all very insular. Here are Bran's thoughts. Here are Bran's dreams. Here is what Bran wishes he could do. Here is what he can't.
I get the sense that he spends very little time editing his books, and it shows. There are sections which are just plain sloppy, or, worse, completely ridiculous (the ending in particular comes to mind).
However, there's something comic bookish to the momentum of his stories, where you get addicted to the movement of the narrative, the rhythm of the plot. I often find, after something ends and I'm disappointed, that I enjoy that momentum more than anything else.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Also, what's completely ridiculous about the ending?
shryke on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Any recommendations for non-fiction? Read A Brief History of Time, God Is Not Great and Lost City of Z recently but need some more. Have got Carl Sagin's Cosmos if that is recommended?
I would say:
Predictably Irrational by Daniel Ariely Quirkology by Richard Wiseman Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Right now, this very moment, I am reading:
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert M. Price and I cannot recommend it highly enough. I love the polemics of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (in that, very specific order) but there's nothing for demonstrating that you shouldn't take a religion seriously than higher criticism of its holy text.
For that matter, if you like God Is Not Great then you might very much like Letter to a Christian Nation or The End of Faith. Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is an amazing book too.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
latest favorite Non Fiction was Devil in the White City by erik larson.
Mom's read his other stuff and loves him to pieces. Mom also highly recommends pretty much anything by Simon Winchester.
I recommend avoiding anything by David McCullough. Unless it's about a subject in american History that you are completely unfamiliar with. But if you have any knowledge at all, he will just annoy you. Or worse.
latest favorite Non Fiction was Devil in the White City by erik larson.
Mom's read his other stuff and loves him to pieces. Mom also highly recommends pretty much anything by Simon Winchester.
I recommend avoiding anything by David McCullough. Unless it's about a subject in american History that you are completely unfamiliar with. But if you have any knowledge at all, he will just annoy you. Or worse.
Devil in the White City was extra-credit summer reading for my high-school. I didn't read it. I hear it's good, though!
latest favorite Non Fiction was Devil in the White City by erik larson.
Mom's read his other stuff and loves him to pieces. Mom also highly recommends pretty much anything by Simon Winchester.
I recommend avoiding anything by David McCullough. Unless it's about a subject in american History that you are completely unfamiliar with. But if you have any knowledge at all, he will just annoy you. Or worse.
Devil in the White City was extra-credit summer reading for my high-school. I didn't read it. I hear it's good, though!
It is god damn amazing and sickening at the same time!
Any recommendations for non-fiction? Read A Brief History of Time, God Is Not Great and Lost City of Z recently but need some more. Have got Carl Sagin's Cosmos if that is recommended?
my two recommendations: 1491: Charles Mann (a fairly good, if incomplete and very condensed, summary of the prehistory of the Americas) Across Atlantic Ice: Bradley and Stanford (reading this right now; a recently published book on the theory that the first peoples to enter the Americas during the late Pleistocene were from Europe, not from Asia/Siberia as has been the standard model for some time now. It's pretty interesting stuff, and reading it will give you a great picture of what is happening in the world of North American archaeology)
and yes, Cosmos (and every book by Sagan that I've read) is great in my opinion. Read it!
I think he writes brilliant dialogue. He does things that annoy me, like use ellipses for commas. He sometimes gets long winded. I enjoy the TV show, so even if I don't end up reading these books, I will not be out of the loop entirely.
Well what was it you disliked about the first book? I've read just about everything he's written, but I'm sure I and others here can tell you if things will improve from your point of view.
Let me preface this by saying I'm a lit snob. I don't, for the most part, do genre fiction.
Let's start with what I like. The characters. George R.R. Martin knows how to craft interesting characters and put them in interesting scenes. The more they talk, the better.
Now, what I dislike: the way he uses language outside of dialogue. There's nothing interesting about how he uses sentences, or manipulates words. Bran's chapters, for example, tended to bore me the most because it was all very insular. Here are Bran's thoughts. Here are Bran's dreams. Here is what Bran wishes he could do. Here is what he can't.
I get the sense that he spends very little time editing his books, and it shows. There are sections which are just plain sloppy, or, worse, completely ridiculous (the ending in particular comes to mind).
However, there's something comic bookish to the momentum of his stories, where you get addicted to the movement of the narrative, the rhythm of the plot. I often find, after something ends and I'm disappointed, that I enjoy that momentum more than anything else.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Also, what's completely ridiculous about the ending?
Yeaaah, complaining that GRRM doesn't edit himself / needs a new editor is second only to complaints that GRRM spends too long editing his books why can't we haaave them yeeeet. Often these complaints are by the same person, often in the same paragraph. It's gotten kind of silly.
Also you're kinda missing the point on Bran's chapters. Why in the world do you think that the viewpoint of a young boy is written very simply?
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I'll never understand people who obsess over language usage. It always seems to me like bitching about your Christmas present because the person who wrapped it did an amateur job. It's really neat and gives a great first impression when the paper fits perfectly around the package and you can't see any creases and there's a gorgeous bow on top, but in the end, you aren't going to remember how the fucking thing was wrapped. You're going to remember what was inside.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I gotta say, I'm pretty much there for the language primarily.
Fuck off and die.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Of the random books on my shelf, I selected Machine Man by Max Barry (the guy who wrote Jennifer Government). Autistic man is crushed in hilarious lab accident, becomes robot. With a premise like that how could it be bad!?
I'll never understand people who obsess over language usage. It always seems to me like bitching about your Christmas present because the person who wrapped it did an amateur job. It's really neat and gives a great first impression when the paper fits perfectly around the package and you can't see any creases and there's a gorgeous bow on top, but in the end, you aren't going to remember how the fucking thing was wrapped. You're going to remember what was inside.
This is pretty weak analogy.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I'll never understand people who obsess over language usage. It always seems to me like bitching about your Christmas present because the person who wrapped it did an amateur job. It's really neat and gives a great first impression when the paper fits perfectly around the package and you can't see any creases and there's a gorgeous bow on top, but in the end, you aren't going to remember how the fucking thing was wrapped. You're going to remember what was inside.
Language usage is not "wrapping" any more than the color of paint in a painting. If subject matter is all that matters, then a crayon drawing of Hitler beats the Mona Lisa every time.
Language matters in songwriting, it matters in poetry, it matters in rhetoric and conversation - how could it not matter in storytelling? It's what stories are made of!
I've got nothing against a workmanlike novel, with a good plot but maybe nothing particularly original in the way the writer puts a sentence together. But you can't have a good novel with poor language. It's building a table with no legs.
...Actually I've got a coffee table with no legs, so maybe we should stay with the painting metaphors
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I think it's going to be hard for me to engage with Vanguard's views on literature, given that I think pretty much all novels have a genre and that 'literature' is a concept so subjective as to be almost meaningless.
But I suppose I would say that GRRM is an excellent writer, and that just because he's not doing anything noticeably clever in his prose doesn't mean he isn't actually doing clever things. He is an absolute master of POV and characterisation, and as much as I love beautiful innovative prose stylistics, the work that I think does that well rarely has impressive characterisation. And ASOIAF contains a lot of misdirection, and you can't misdirect without seeming natural.
I'd try the next book, Vanguard, and I think you have to keep an open mind, sorry to say. For example, there is absolutely no way he doesn't edit these. The tight narrative and ultra-careful plotting demand careful revision. I'd love to see an example of the sloppiness you mention.
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I think it's going to be hard for me to engage with Vanguard's views on literature, given that I think pretty much all novels have a genre and that 'literature' is a concept so subjective as to be almost meaningless.
But I suppose I would say that GRRM is an excellent writer, and that just because he's not doing anything noticeably clever in his prose doesn't mean he isn't actually doing clever things. He is an absolute master of POV and characterisation, and as much as I love beautiful innovative prose stylistics, the work that I think does that well rarely has impressive characterisation. And ASOIAF contains a lot of misdirection, and you can't misdirect without seeming natural.
I'd try the next book, Vanguard, and I think you have to keep an open mind, sorry to say. For example, there is absolutely no way he doesn't edit these. The tight narrative and ultra-careful plotting demand careful revision. I'd love to see an example of the sloppiness you mention.
I dunno. I'm a fan of the series and of the genre, but "tight narrative and ultra-careful plotting" are probably the last five words I would use to describe the latest installment. "Jordanesque wheel spinning" might be the first three. The story is suffering from a serious case of plot bloat.
Language usage is not "wrapping" any more than the color of paint in a painting. If subject matter is all that matters, then a crayon drawing of Hitler beats the Mona Lisa every time.
Language matters in songwriting, it matters in poetry, it matters in rhetoric and conversation - how could it not matter in storytelling? It's what stories are made of!
Visual art and music and even poetry are far more aesthetically-focused mediums than fiction. Yes, I probably came on a bit too strong with that analogy in service to my point. I do enjoy clever wordsmithing, and do grow frustrated with clunky prose.
But I see fiction's greatest strength as being its ability to transparently deliver a story. Focusing on language over story is missing the whole point of the medium, in my opinion.
When we get into aesthetics, other mediums can do so much more with less time investment and less effort on the part of the consumer. What they can't do, or at least not as well, is story. Fiction offers unique tools in that area. The ability to give the reader a character's thoughts and feelings. The ability to weave incredibly long and complex tales. The ability to straight-up explain difficult concepts critical to a story, if it becomes necessary.
And there's this: I've seen a lot of cool things done with language. A clever turn of phrase which serves many purposes in few words is a gorgeous thing. But it's not a life-changing thing. I've never had my whole point-of-view on something transformed because of the way it was phrased. I have had such powerful experiences through Story. You know that feeling when a story is coming to its climax and you almost aren't even reading the individual words anymore--and a character's ultimate decision touches something to your core, something which grows more powerful the more you think about what happened? The language doesn't even matter anymore because the story has set its hooks so deep that you see what's happening a few paragraphs before it happens, and it's even more powerful for it, because now it's in you, coming alive in your mind, not in the words on the page.
That's what I read fiction for. Skillful use of language helps get you there, especially in the early parts of a story, but it's not the point, and obsessing over it gets under my skin.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It's perfectly possible to enjoy language for the sake of expression without "obsessing" over it. That whole "language doesn't even matter" line is one of the silliest things you could say in a book thread. Language is the route to your imagination.
Significant portion of the books getting published are written in sub par language, which is a very real problem. If you can read constant repetitions all the way through a text and it doesn't bother you, good for you. Doesn't mean it's not a valid complaint.
When we get into aesthetics, other mediums can do so much more with less time investment and less effort on the part of the consumer.
Not for me, not for countless others. My mind's shortest path toward aesthetic enjoyment is through written words. I believe that's hardly unique. One of the nicest feelings when reading is to re-read a line for the beauty of it, not for the information it carries towards story etc.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
When I read Infinite Jest I was interested in the story but his writing style and prose was what kept me going. Crying of Lot 49 wasn't really even about the story. Blood Meridian's story would feel entirely different if someone else was writing it. The language is the foundation of the novel.
I recently read Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. The first chapter is written from the perspective of a character not introduced until later. The voice this character had was very distinct and the prose was beautiful. Then I got to the regular part of the book where he was setting up plot and the style changed and it was totally bland and the entire time I was reading it I yearned to read that first chapter again. It took Mieville 200 pages before the story was able to carry the novel. I'm not interested in relying on just the story. It's only one half of the work, to me.
Anyway, good prose has changed my life. When I read Infinite Jest his prose floored me and completely changed how I view fiction. Now if a book doesn't grab me with its prose the story has to be something extraordinary otherwise I'll just get bored.
Not for me, not for countless others. My mind's shortest path toward aesthetic enjoyment is through written words. I believe that's hardly unique. One of the nicest feelings when reading is to re-read a line for the beauty of it, not for the information it carries towards story etc.
Poetry seems the best medium for this, to me, and not fiction. If you love language more than story, it seems to me that's the medium you should be pursuing to get your fix.
Anyway, I'm certainly not opposed to having aesthetic beauty in the written word, even in fiction. In fact, I enjoy it myself--as long as it doesn't impede the communication of the story.
I don't recall ever saying "language doesn't matter". I guess you could take that implication out of my Christmas present analogy, which is why I admitted I was coming on a bit too strong with that. Language, for me, is maybe 10-20% of the experience, if I have to assign some arbitrary number to it.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I can't think of a single story I've ever read that couldn't have been rendered inert by poor writing. I've never thought, "Good story, poor writing - thumbs up!"
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
Not for me, not for countless others. My mind's shortest path toward aesthetic enjoyment is through written words. I believe that's hardly unique. One of the nicest feelings when reading is to re-read a line for the beauty of it, not for the information it carries towards story etc.
Poetry seems the best medium for this, to me, and not fiction. If you love language more than story, it seems to me that's the medium you should be pursuing to get your fix.
I don't enjoy poetry. Not even poetry from authors whose fiction I love. Possession is maybe the only exception. While poetry may be more literary than fiction, I don't see anything wrong with looking for language enjoyment across presentation styles.
Anyway, I'm certainly not opposed to having aesthetic beauty in the written word, even in fiction. In fact, I enjoy it myself--as long as it doesn't impede the communication of the story.
But it won't impede. It would facilitate. That's the whole point. If a book wants mainly to tell a strong story(because many of the best books I've read couldn't give a flying fuck for a story), good language use will almost always help, while sloppy language will at best frustrate.
I don't recall ever saying "language doesn't matter". I guess you could take that implication out of my Christmas present analogy, which is why I admitted I was coming on a bit too strong with that. Language, for me, is maybe 10-20% of the experience, if I have to assign some arbitrary number to it.
The language doesn't even matter anymore because the story has set its hooks so deep that you see what's happening a few paragraphs before it happens, and it's even more powerful for it, because now it's in you
A story can not set hooks into me to such a point unless the expression already is above a certain level. It's good, we enjoy books in a different way and that's perfectly fine. However, I find it unfair to criticize people complaining of specific writing by diminishing the part prose plays in fiction as all I'm trying to say is it's not at all unique to read fiction in large part for the words, nor is it that unique to write for a similar reason.
I really can't quite get my head around the idea that the language with which you tell a story is of little importance. What else is there to the story except the language used to get from the page into your brain? It's like saying bricks aren't important when you build a house.
There may be thousands of combinations of words you can use to write one chapter of a novel and still communicate the same progression of story and character. The story itself isn't built out of the specific words you use--it's built from the concepts you hold in your mind. Does that make sense? Those are the bricks and girders and foundation. Those are what a novel is made out of. The language is how it is communicated, presented to the reader.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
To both Orem and Vanguard, I want to say there's more to good writing than clever, beautiful prose.
Let's take something like the Dresden Files, which a lot of people think is pretty trashy. There's nothing beautiful going on there, nothing obviously clever either. But he maintains a breakneck pace that reminds me of the best Hollywood action movies, riffs on noir and pop culture in a way that resonates with modern dorks like us, and keeps you turning pages.
That's hard! That's really difficult! It takes skill!
I'm not one for analogies, but think of directors such as John Woo or Kathryn Bigelow. They're not cerebral at all, and beyond a few tics such as sudden flights of doves, they're not pretty. But if you compare them to Paul WS Anderson or Uwe Boll, you can clearly see the skill with which they direct action movies.
Don't get me wrong - beautiful, intelligent prose is wonderful. Italo Calvino is a genius. William Gibson could make me enjoy a shopping list. Hemingway can make me forget all his flaws. But that's not the only kind of skillful language use there is.
I don't recall ever saying "language doesn't matter". I guess you could take that implication out of my Christmas present analogy, which is why I admitted I was coming on a bit too strong with that. Language, for me, is maybe 10-20% of the experience, if I have to assign some arbitrary number to it.
The language doesn't even matter anymore because the story has set its hooks so deep that you see what's happening a few paragraphs before it happens, and it's even more powerful for it, because now it's in you
Look at the context--I was describing my feelings when I reach the climax of a particularly powerful story. I wasn't saying language doesn't matter in general. Language is a tool, and if the writer does his job well enough with that tool among many others, the tools cease to exist and the story is alive in the mind of the reader.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
There may be thousands of combinations of words you can use to write one chapter of a novel and still communicate the same progression of story and character. The story itself isn't built out of the specific words you use--it's built from the concepts you hold in your mind. Does that make sense? Those are the bricks and girders and foundation. Those are what a novel is made out of. The language is how it is communicated, presented to the reader.
Well, I would disagree that the heart of every novel is the story. Sometimes, the story is insubstantial and it's the characters who are the heart of it. Or an idea. Or anything, really.
And I would argue that the story is absolutely made up of the specific words the writer chooses. Do the specific words chosen by the writer convince me of this story and character progression contained in your shapter one? Or draw me in? Or interest me? Or amuse me? Or surprise me? If not, while they may have delivered the same payload of story and character progression as the same stuff written by a better prose stylist, but I won't care and may stop reading.
I feel like you're being too simplistic about what novels are. They're more than just a delivery system for a payload of story TNT.
I can't think of a single story I've ever read that couldn't have been rendered inert by poor writing. I've never thought, "Good story, poor writing - thumbs up!"
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
You're telling me you've never read a book or series that made you think "There is absolutely no reason I should be enjoying this as much as I am"? I can think of three or four series off the top of my head that I will re-read occasionally despite the fact that everything about the writing is subpar.
When I say "story", I don't mean "plot", just to be clear. I mean a combination of plot, character, idea, setting, etc.
What I'm looking for is transparency. I want an author's prose to be a window so perfectly polished--but not too glossy!--that I can barely even see it's there. And on the other side is all the substance of the story. Skill with language can aid in achieving this transparency; preoccupation with skill in language can paint pretty, but empty landscapes all over the window to where I can barely see the story at all. I'd rather have mud and dust on the window, but the story underneath it still visible, than have the whole thing covered with a gorgeous painting.
Look, different people enjoy different things. I shouldn't bash people over the head and say "GOD DAMN IT LIKE WHAT I LIKE!" and I apologize if that's what I'm doing. My intention is more to explain what I enjoy and the thought process which goes into that, when I take a step back and analyze why I enjoy what I do.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I can't think of a single story I've ever read that couldn't have been rendered inert by poor writing. I've never thought, "Good story, poor writing - thumbs up!"
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
You're telling me you've never read a book or series that made you think "There is absolutely no reason I should be enjoying this as much as I am"? I can think of three or four series off the top of my head that I will re-read occasionally despite the fact that everything about the writing is subpar.
I can't think of a single instance, no. Poor writing just jerks me right out of the story. After a while the experience becomes genuinely frustrating and I stop reading. I was more tolerant when I was younger, but that was mostly ignorance, I think. Or maybe tastes just change. I've gone back to read things that I remember enjoying as a teenager and found them to be pretty terrible on reconsideration. That's not a fun experience.
I can't think of a single story I've ever read that couldn't have been rendered inert by poor writing. I've never thought, "Good story, poor writing - thumbs up!"
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
You're telling me you've never read a book or series that made you think "There is absolutely no reason I should be enjoying this as much as I am"? I can think of three or four series off the top of my head that I will re-read occasionally despite the fact that everything about the writing is subpar.
I can't think of a single instance, no. Poor writing just jerks me right out of the story. After a while the experience becomes genuinely frustrating and I stop reading. I was more tolerant when I was younger, but that was mostly ignorance, I think. Or maybe tastes just change. I've gone back to read things that I remember enjoying as a teenager and found them to be pretty terrible on reconsideration. That's not a fun experience.
What do you mean when you say "poor writing"? For me, "writing" in the context of fiction is a term which describes the whole shebang--not just the prose, but all the underlying structure I'm going on about as well. Characterization, plot, setting, and so on.
I've been ripped out of stories more often by magnificently crafted prose which was just too ostentatious or packed with so much meaning that I had to work hard deciphering it, than I have by plain, workman-like prose with clumsy repetitions or what-have-you. (Or ugly sentence structure, like the one I just wrote.)
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I can't think of a single story I've ever read that couldn't have been rendered inert by poor writing. I've never thought, "Good story, poor writing - thumbs up!"
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
I lump Harry Potter into that category, at least the first couple books. I simply could not enjoy the books, so gave up on them. I've noticed this is true for me for a lot of YA books, as well, even award winners and very popular stories.
But the introduction to at least the first few Harry Potter books actually repelled me, rather than hook me. I knew there was supposed to be a good story there, as I had friends who got into them, and I've enjoyed the movies for the most part. I actually would LIKE to read Harry Potter, but I can't get into it because I don't enjoy the writing.
The opposite is also sometimes true for me, in that I can enjoy a story that is kind of weird but has very good writing. Nabokov's Pale Fire, for example. Different strokes 'n all that. I know plenty of people would find something like Pale Fire repellant, because they're reading for a gripping story, and they are not looking for an author who may describe an action with long, detailed paragraphs, diverging into backstory or breaking the 4th wall. They just want to get on with it. That doesn't make them simple; it simply means they don't enjoy literature for the sake of literature.
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited February 2012
I think you're being unfairly dismissive and reductive of my position. I should have noted the vast majority of what I read is poetry, so I know where to get my fix. Do not read into this and say that I'm confusing the expectations of poetry with the gifts of a novel. I'm not. I can point you to any number of novels where the writer weighs the language used just as heavily as any of the other elements of fiction (plot, setting, character, etc). One prominent example that comes to mind is A Clockwork Orange. That novel would not be the same if Burgess had written it with the transparency you enjoy, OremLK. I'm not, however, trying to shit on transparency. I will say that transparency is never a concern for me though. This doesn't mean I want or prefer difficulty in any way either; if I can find something interesting happening within the language, it will keep me motivated.
I did not find anything in A Game of Thrones aside from the dialogue that did this. To argue that people like different things, while denigrating me for doing exactly that, is pretty hypocritical.
I think you're being unfairly dismissive and reductive of my position. I should have noted the vast majority of what I read is poetry, so I know where to get my fix. Do not read into this and say that I'm confusing the expectations of poetry with the gifts of a novel. I'm not. I can point you to any number of novels where the writer weighs the language used just as heavily as any of the other elements of fiction (plot, setting, character, etc). One prominent example that comes to mind is A Clockwork Orange. That novel would not be the same if Burgess had written it with the transparency you enjoy, OremLK. I'm not, however, trying to shit on transparency. I will say that transparency is never a concern for me though. This doesn't mean I want or prefer difficulty in any way either; if I can find something interesting happening within the language, it will keep me motivated.
I did not find anything in A Game of Thrones aside from the dialogue that did this. To argue that people like different things, while denigrating me for doing exactly that, is pretty hypocritical.
Sorry if it came across like I was denigrating you personally--it was more that your comment triggered me to run off on a whole tangent than that I was sitting there thinking "oh gosh Vanguard is such an idiot".
With that said, to go back to Game of Thrones, I think you need to look at what Martin is doing with character and viewpoint moreso than his prose to gain an appreciation for his skill as a writer. There are very few writers working today who can paint a distinct character as quickly or clearly as he can, let alone dozens of them.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That's precisely why I would consider reading the next book. I like the characters, I like his dialogue. It's the stuff in between that is absolutely miserable for me to slog through. My biggest apprehension is that this is story about 7000 pages long in total, assuming 1k pages per book x7 books. That's a lot of pages for something I'm not absolutely riveted by.
When I say "story", I don't mean "plot", just to be clear. I mean a combination of plot, character, idea, setting, etc.
What I'm looking for is transparency. I want an author's prose to be a window so perfectly polished--but not too glossy!--that I can barely even see it's there. And on the other side is all the substance of the story. Skill with language can aid in achieving this transparency; preoccupation with skill in language can paint pretty, but empty landscapes all over the window to where I can barely see the story at all. I'd rather have mud and dust on the window, but the story underneath it still visible, than have the whole thing covered with a gorgeous painting.
Look, different people enjoy different things. I shouldn't bash people over the head and say "GOD DAMN IT LIKE WHAT I LIKE!" and I apologize if that's what I'm doing. My intention is more to explain what I enjoy and the thought process which goes into that, when I take a step back and analyze why I enjoy what I do.
I think you're articulating your position well, and it's not necessarily disagreeable, but I think you are making an error of reasoning.
You cannot neatly, or even significantly, separate language from concept. The language an author uses is not just a vessel that transfers content in the form of ideas or concepts. It doesn't matter whether you want it to be just that. Language performs a host of other functions, especially in such a focused and deliberate context - we might ignore those other functions to some extent or another when having a casual conversation in person, for example, but when we consider the language used by an author who has crafted, shaped and tailored the words he's using, over time, we must absolutely (and automatically) deal with those functions.
Language's most obvious function is denotative. It denotes things. It transfers information as proposition content - what people are saying, what they're doing, what's happening, what things look like, etc. Obviously this is pretty handy, and I think it occupies the largest proportion of our conscious interaction with a text.
But language also connotes, and evokes, and invokes. Every word and phrase is connected to a lifetime of linguistic and personal experience. Every word and phrase will conjure up sensations and impressions and even full-on concepts that are not the same as the denotative content. These are often difficult to isolate or articulate, but they are there, and they are often more powerful than the denotative content.
These functions are also much more difficult to master. Many authors will mute or ignore a great deal of language's non-denotative baggage. The problem is that an author who doesn't want to use language that way, or doesn't care about that use, often isn't in control of those functions. The evocative aspect of his writing can become flat, or it can evoke things that he doesn't mean to evoke, etc. But a really good writer uses those other functions to do all sorts of interesting things - reinforce the denotative, create tension with it, create a parallel set of thoughts or themes that bubble under the surface, create dramatic irony by evoking feelings in the reader that foreshadow narrative events, etc. The more in control the author is, on this level, the better they are with the craft of prose, they more they can do with their writing - it becomes denser, and richer, when they want it to be, and it becomes light and quick and easy when they don't want it to be.
It's entirely possible for an excellent author to write prose that isn't thick and heavy with meaning, and have that prose still be excellent. Bad writing and prose, from my perspective, is simply writing that doesn't have much control over its language and what it's doing beyond conveying raw fact - because language cannot help but do so.
Of course, the very worst writing is the kind that can't control its denotative content, either, on which I'm sure we'd all agree. What I just wrote might well be completely, abstractly incoherent!
Just got Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall. It's quite a tome. Don't know if I'll finish it before it's due back to the library.
I can't think of a single story I've ever read that couldn't have been rendered inert by poor writing. I've never thought, "Good story, poor writing - thumbs up!"
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
What do you consider poor writing?
I can certainly think of books where the writing is good enough but nothing special, but where everything else is well done enough to make them very enjoyable.
That's precisely why I would consider reading the next book. I like the characters, I like his dialogue. It's the stuff in between that is absolutely miserable for me to slog through. My biggest apprehension is that this is story about 7000 pages long in total, assuming 1k pages per book x7 books. That's a lot of pages for something I'm not absolutely riveted by.
It really sounds more like your issue is the writing isn't the style you want. Especially from your first post.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Christopher pike had some really really badly written books when i was growing up. However, a few of them had some story/plot/character ideas that kind of stuck with me even to today and i consider going back to read them once in a while. I refrain.
Anyways, almost done book 4 of WoT.
As for GRRM, the books are well written, but it took me actually forcing myself through them all to get caught up with the series. Book 4 and 5 I literally had to push my way through. There were certain happenings that just made me want to quit.
Posts
They're never like fine literature or anything, but around book 3 or 4 he mentions getting a new editor, and you can really really notice. Well, that and his writing generally gets less derpy over time.
Also, what's completely ridiculous about the ending?
I would say:
Predictably Irrational by Daniel Ariely
Quirkology by Richard Wiseman
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Right now, this very moment, I am reading:
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert M. Price and I cannot recommend it highly enough. I love the polemics of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (in that, very specific order) but there's nothing for demonstrating that you shouldn't take a religion seriously than higher criticism of its holy text.
For that matter, if you like God Is Not Great then you might very much like Letter to a Christian Nation or The End of Faith. Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is an amazing book too.
Mom's read his other stuff and loves him to pieces. Mom also highly recommends pretty much anything by Simon Winchester.
I recommend avoiding anything by David McCullough. Unless it's about a subject in american History that you are completely unfamiliar with. But if you have any knowledge at all, he will just annoy you. Or worse.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Devil in the White City was extra-credit summer reading for my high-school. I didn't read it. I hear it's good, though!
It is god damn amazing and sickening at the same time!
my two recommendations:
1491: Charles Mann (a fairly good, if incomplete and very condensed, summary of the prehistory of the Americas)
Across Atlantic Ice: Bradley and Stanford (reading this right now; a recently published book on the theory that the first peoples to enter the Americas during the late Pleistocene were from Europe, not from Asia/Siberia as has been the standard model for some time now. It's pretty interesting stuff, and reading it will give you a great picture of what is happening in the world of North American archaeology)
and yes, Cosmos (and every book by Sagan that I've read) is great in my opinion. Read it!
Yeaaah, complaining that GRRM doesn't edit himself / needs a new editor is second only to complaints that GRRM spends too long editing his books why can't we haaave them yeeeet. Often these complaints are by the same person, often in the same paragraph. It's gotten kind of silly.
Also you're kinda missing the point on Bran's chapters. Why in the world do you think that the viewpoint of a young boy is written very simply?
This is pretty weak analogy.
Language usage is not "wrapping" any more than the color of paint in a painting. If subject matter is all that matters, then a crayon drawing of Hitler beats the Mona Lisa every time.
Language matters in songwriting, it matters in poetry, it matters in rhetoric and conversation - how could it not matter in storytelling? It's what stories are made of!
...Actually I've got a coffee table with no legs, so maybe we should stay with the painting metaphors
But I suppose I would say that GRRM is an excellent writer, and that just because he's not doing anything noticeably clever in his prose doesn't mean he isn't actually doing clever things. He is an absolute master of POV and characterisation, and as much as I love beautiful innovative prose stylistics, the work that I think does that well rarely has impressive characterisation. And ASOIAF contains a lot of misdirection, and you can't misdirect without seeming natural.
I'd try the next book, Vanguard, and I think you have to keep an open mind, sorry to say. For example, there is absolutely no way he doesn't edit these. The tight narrative and ultra-careful plotting demand careful revision. I'd love to see an example of the sloppiness you mention.
I dunno. I'm a fan of the series and of the genre, but "tight narrative and ultra-careful plotting" are probably the last five words I would use to describe the latest installment. "Jordanesque wheel spinning" might be the first three. The story is suffering from a serious case of plot bloat.
Visual art and music and even poetry are far more aesthetically-focused mediums than fiction. Yes, I probably came on a bit too strong with that analogy in service to my point. I do enjoy clever wordsmithing, and do grow frustrated with clunky prose.
But I see fiction's greatest strength as being its ability to transparently deliver a story. Focusing on language over story is missing the whole point of the medium, in my opinion.
When we get into aesthetics, other mediums can do so much more with less time investment and less effort on the part of the consumer. What they can't do, or at least not as well, is story. Fiction offers unique tools in that area. The ability to give the reader a character's thoughts and feelings. The ability to weave incredibly long and complex tales. The ability to straight-up explain difficult concepts critical to a story, if it becomes necessary.
And there's this: I've seen a lot of cool things done with language. A clever turn of phrase which serves many purposes in few words is a gorgeous thing. But it's not a life-changing thing. I've never had my whole point-of-view on something transformed because of the way it was phrased. I have had such powerful experiences through Story. You know that feeling when a story is coming to its climax and you almost aren't even reading the individual words anymore--and a character's ultimate decision touches something to your core, something which grows more powerful the more you think about what happened? The language doesn't even matter anymore because the story has set its hooks so deep that you see what's happening a few paragraphs before it happens, and it's even more powerful for it, because now it's in you, coming alive in your mind, not in the words on the page.
That's what I read fiction for. Skillful use of language helps get you there, especially in the early parts of a story, but it's not the point, and obsessing over it gets under my skin.
Significant portion of the books getting published are written in sub par language, which is a very real problem. If you can read constant repetitions all the way through a text and it doesn't bother you, good for you. Doesn't mean it's not a valid complaint.
Not for me, not for countless others. My mind's shortest path toward aesthetic enjoyment is through written words. I believe that's hardly unique. One of the nicest feelings when reading is to re-read a line for the beauty of it, not for the information it carries towards story etc.
I recently read Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. The first chapter is written from the perspective of a character not introduced until later. The voice this character had was very distinct and the prose was beautiful. Then I got to the regular part of the book where he was setting up plot and the style changed and it was totally bland and the entire time I was reading it I yearned to read that first chapter again. It took Mieville 200 pages before the story was able to carry the novel. I'm not interested in relying on just the story. It's only one half of the work, to me.
Anyway, good prose has changed my life. When I read Infinite Jest his prose floored me and completely changed how I view fiction. Now if a book doesn't grab me with its prose the story has to be something extraordinary otherwise I'll just get bored.
Poetry seems the best medium for this, to me, and not fiction. If you love language more than story, it seems to me that's the medium you should be pursuing to get your fix.
Anyway, I'm certainly not opposed to having aesthetic beauty in the written word, even in fiction. In fact, I enjoy it myself--as long as it doesn't impede the communication of the story.
I don't recall ever saying "language doesn't matter". I guess you could take that implication out of my Christmas present analogy, which is why I admitted I was coming on a bit too strong with that. Language, for me, is maybe 10-20% of the experience, if I have to assign some arbitrary number to it.
I mean, do you have examples of that? Books that you consider good yet poorly written?
I don't enjoy poetry. Not even poetry from authors whose fiction I love. Possession is maybe the only exception. While poetry may be more literary than fiction, I don't see anything wrong with looking for language enjoyment across presentation styles.
But it won't impede. It would facilitate. That's the whole point. If a book wants mainly to tell a strong story(because many of the best books I've read couldn't give a flying fuck for a story), good language use will almost always help, while sloppy language will at best frustrate.
A story can not set hooks into me to such a point unless the expression already is above a certain level. It's good, we enjoy books in a different way and that's perfectly fine. However, I find it unfair to criticize people complaining of specific writing by diminishing the part prose plays in fiction as all I'm trying to say is it's not at all unique to read fiction in large part for the words, nor is it that unique to write for a similar reason.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Let's take something like the Dresden Files, which a lot of people think is pretty trashy. There's nothing beautiful going on there, nothing obviously clever either. But he maintains a breakneck pace that reminds me of the best Hollywood action movies, riffs on noir and pop culture in a way that resonates with modern dorks like us, and keeps you turning pages.
That's hard! That's really difficult! It takes skill!
I'm not one for analogies, but think of directors such as John Woo or Kathryn Bigelow. They're not cerebral at all, and beyond a few tics such as sudden flights of doves, they're not pretty. But if you compare them to Paul WS Anderson or Uwe Boll, you can clearly see the skill with which they direct action movies.
Don't get me wrong - beautiful, intelligent prose is wonderful. Italo Calvino is a genius. William Gibson could make me enjoy a shopping list. Hemingway can make me forget all his flaws. But that's not the only kind of skillful language use there is.
Look at the context--I was describing my feelings when I reach the climax of a particularly powerful story. I wasn't saying language doesn't matter in general. Language is a tool, and if the writer does his job well enough with that tool among many others, the tools cease to exist and the story is alive in the mind of the reader.
Well, I would disagree that the heart of every novel is the story. Sometimes, the story is insubstantial and it's the characters who are the heart of it. Or an idea. Or anything, really.
And I would argue that the story is absolutely made up of the specific words the writer chooses. Do the specific words chosen by the writer convince me of this story and character progression contained in your shapter one? Or draw me in? Or interest me? Or amuse me? Or surprise me? If not, while they may have delivered the same payload of story and character progression as the same stuff written by a better prose stylist, but I won't care and may stop reading.
I feel like you're being too simplistic about what novels are. They're more than just a delivery system for a payload of story TNT.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
What I'm looking for is transparency. I want an author's prose to be a window so perfectly polished--but not too glossy!--that I can barely even see it's there. And on the other side is all the substance of the story. Skill with language can aid in achieving this transparency; preoccupation with skill in language can paint pretty, but empty landscapes all over the window to where I can barely see the story at all. I'd rather have mud and dust on the window, but the story underneath it still visible, than have the whole thing covered with a gorgeous painting.
Look, different people enjoy different things. I shouldn't bash people over the head and say "GOD DAMN IT LIKE WHAT I LIKE!" and I apologize if that's what I'm doing. My intention is more to explain what I enjoy and the thought process which goes into that, when I take a step back and analyze why I enjoy what I do.
I can't think of a single instance, no. Poor writing just jerks me right out of the story. After a while the experience becomes genuinely frustrating and I stop reading. I was more tolerant when I was younger, but that was mostly ignorance, I think. Or maybe tastes just change. I've gone back to read things that I remember enjoying as a teenager and found them to be pretty terrible on reconsideration. That's not a fun experience.
What do you mean when you say "poor writing"? For me, "writing" in the context of fiction is a term which describes the whole shebang--not just the prose, but all the underlying structure I'm going on about as well. Characterization, plot, setting, and so on.
I've been ripped out of stories more often by magnificently crafted prose which was just too ostentatious or packed with so much meaning that I had to work hard deciphering it, than I have by plain, workman-like prose with clumsy repetitions or what-have-you. (Or ugly sentence structure, like the one I just wrote.)
I lump Harry Potter into that category, at least the first couple books. I simply could not enjoy the books, so gave up on them. I've noticed this is true for me for a lot of YA books, as well, even award winners and very popular stories.
But the introduction to at least the first few Harry Potter books actually repelled me, rather than hook me. I knew there was supposed to be a good story there, as I had friends who got into them, and I've enjoyed the movies for the most part. I actually would LIKE to read Harry Potter, but I can't get into it because I don't enjoy the writing.
The opposite is also sometimes true for me, in that I can enjoy a story that is kind of weird but has very good writing. Nabokov's Pale Fire, for example. Different strokes 'n all that. I know plenty of people would find something like Pale Fire repellant, because they're reading for a gripping story, and they are not looking for an author who may describe an action with long, detailed paragraphs, diverging into backstory or breaking the 4th wall. They just want to get on with it. That doesn't make them simple; it simply means they don't enjoy literature for the sake of literature.
I did not find anything in A Game of Thrones aside from the dialogue that did this. To argue that people like different things, while denigrating me for doing exactly that, is pretty hypocritical.
Sorry if it came across like I was denigrating you personally--it was more that your comment triggered me to run off on a whole tangent than that I was sitting there thinking "oh gosh Vanguard is such an idiot".
With that said, to go back to Game of Thrones, I think you need to look at what Martin is doing with character and viewpoint moreso than his prose to gain an appreciation for his skill as a writer. There are very few writers working today who can paint a distinct character as quickly or clearly as he can, let alone dozens of them.
I think you're articulating your position well, and it's not necessarily disagreeable, but I think you are making an error of reasoning.
You cannot neatly, or even significantly, separate language from concept. The language an author uses is not just a vessel that transfers content in the form of ideas or concepts. It doesn't matter whether you want it to be just that. Language performs a host of other functions, especially in such a focused and deliberate context - we might ignore those other functions to some extent or another when having a casual conversation in person, for example, but when we consider the language used by an author who has crafted, shaped and tailored the words he's using, over time, we must absolutely (and automatically) deal with those functions.
Language's most obvious function is denotative. It denotes things. It transfers information as proposition content - what people are saying, what they're doing, what's happening, what things look like, etc. Obviously this is pretty handy, and I think it occupies the largest proportion of our conscious interaction with a text.
But language also connotes, and evokes, and invokes. Every word and phrase is connected to a lifetime of linguistic and personal experience. Every word and phrase will conjure up sensations and impressions and even full-on concepts that are not the same as the denotative content. These are often difficult to isolate or articulate, but they are there, and they are often more powerful than the denotative content.
These functions are also much more difficult to master. Many authors will mute or ignore a great deal of language's non-denotative baggage. The problem is that an author who doesn't want to use language that way, or doesn't care about that use, often isn't in control of those functions. The evocative aspect of his writing can become flat, or it can evoke things that he doesn't mean to evoke, etc. But a really good writer uses those other functions to do all sorts of interesting things - reinforce the denotative, create tension with it, create a parallel set of thoughts or themes that bubble under the surface, create dramatic irony by evoking feelings in the reader that foreshadow narrative events, etc. The more in control the author is, on this level, the better they are with the craft of prose, they more they can do with their writing - it becomes denser, and richer, when they want it to be, and it becomes light and quick and easy when they don't want it to be.
It's entirely possible for an excellent author to write prose that isn't thick and heavy with meaning, and have that prose still be excellent. Bad writing and prose, from my perspective, is simply writing that doesn't have much control over its language and what it's doing beyond conveying raw fact - because language cannot help but do so.
Of course, the very worst writing is the kind that can't control its denotative content, either, on which I'm sure we'd all agree. What I just wrote might well be completely, abstractly incoherent!
What do you consider poor writing?
I can certainly think of books where the writing is good enough but nothing special, but where everything else is well done enough to make them very enjoyable.
It really sounds more like your issue is the writing isn't the style you want. Especially from your first post.
Anyways, almost done book 4 of WoT.
As for GRRM, the books are well written, but it took me actually forcing myself through them all to get caught up with the series. Book 4 and 5 I literally had to push my way through. There were certain happenings that just made me want to quit.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad