On Writing actually makes me think he's a simpleton. I remember he gives advice about not using complicated words. Okay, yeah. But then he talks about exceptions and then quotes Blood Meridian (or another McCarthy book, I forget) and then says something like, "I don't even know what half these words mean, but McCarthy gets away with it!"
>>7671945 It's actually great advice if you're writing fiction. Be simple, get your point across, don't go off on irrelevant tangents, etc.
The man can write an engaging story, that's more than a lot of anons can say. I mean, you arnet going to start writing like Pynchon or Faulkner or whoever else you idolize without first grasping narrative basics. On Writing is a nice way to get started in short stories. You don't have to adhere to every piece of advice literally, but it's a great jumping off point.
>>7671926 >>7672092 What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.
But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?
It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.
>>7672115 It's great advice if you're trying to write a generic bestseller, is what you mean. You can write like whoever you want to write like. It just won't sell (and probably won't even be publishable) unless it's generic shite.
People have been primed to expect certain things from narratives by mass media. That doesn't mean their expectations are correct or worth catering to on an artistic level
Thread replies: 19 Thread images: 1
Thread DB ID: 495023
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.