Bob Toomey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:09:22 -0500
Mark Sullivan wrote:
> I'll grant you that Hemingway's "aim of achievement"
was higher. Which
> brings up the always intriguing and probably never answerable question:
> Which is better a fully realized work of limited goals or a flawed
> masterpiece? I've never been able to come up with a consistent scale
> even for myself, much less generalizable to others. I seem to always
> answer it on a case-by-case basis.
Hmmm -- Jane Austen's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE is a fully realized
work of limited goals that is also a masterpiece. So is
Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON, and P.G. Wodehouse's UNCLE FRED
IN THE SPRINGTIME. Why are these things incompatible? It's
true that some masterpieces, such as HUCKLEBERRY FINN and
CATCH-22, are deeply flawed, but the flaws hardly matter.
Beyond that, there are any number of books that are neither
fully realized nor masterpieces, but I love them anyway: THE
BIG SLEEP, THE NIGHT OF THE JABBERWOCK, RED HARVEST, etc.
Sometimes I'm just not up to dealing with a masterpiece.
Sometimes I just want to pass a few idle hours with a writer
whose simple, limited goal is to entertain me.
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to email@example.com. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon 27 Dec 1999 - 22:07:40 EST