>An amusing romp through, and pan of, modern pop
fiction (including pop
>crime fiction). The piece lists six keys to this
"style," which the
>unironic or clueless aspiring writer may appear to be
recomenndations:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40763-2001Nov16.html
does this go to the whole elite/literary quandary? I have to
wonder if anybody who calls Janet Evanovich a "no-style"
writer has read her stuff. Not to say you have to like her,
but if his point is that the works are indistinguishable,
that hardly applies to JE's slapsticky, poop-joke obsessed
books. I suppose I can see the more recent Sue Grafton books
(esp. since M is for. . .) Also, the smug statement about a
"television mentality" in popular fiction makes you wonder if
they even watch television (does this mean The Sopranos or
Judging Amy?) And then he uses the quote of a professor who
read one Stephen King book years ago and can't even remember
which one it was to conclude that, "Hey, King sucks, too".
Also like the notion that "even" pulp novelists used to have
style.
As for the notion that "Elements of Style" has done more harm
than good - the author here seems oblivious to the notion
that it's primarily supposed to be a tool for *nonfiction*
writers - journalists, essayists, etc.
(though, interestingly, I've heard similar complaints about
the Raymond Carver minimalist school of fiction).
Carrie
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Nov 2001 EST