When I say "good style", which I usually don't, I am referring to an author who is very economical, very evocative, and very ,very precise (almost lawyerly) in their meaning. My exhibits would be Gibbon, Johnson, Austen and Chesterton. Perhaps they are indigestible and long-winded.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 08:40
Subject: Re: willeford RE: RARA-AVIS: recent reads
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Michael Rogers" <jeddak5@...> wrote:
> That's funny. I'm very much a mainstream literature guy and I think Woolrich writes quite well. The only HB guy I cn think of who actually has good style, in the Gibbon sense, is maybe Hammett. Even Faulkner wasn't there, but you rarely hear Faulkner sneered at as a "bad writer" even though, as a stylist, he certainly was.
Huh? In what sense was he a bad stylist? What is "good style in the Gibbon sense"? And what does Gibbon have to do with anything?
I find the idea that there is writing and then there is "prose" rather funny. Spanish critics, for example, have this fixation with guys who have "good prose", by which they mean indigestible, long-winded nineteenth-century style -- as a consequence, they tend to miss almost all the good new writers and praise many mediocre ones.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Jan 2010 EST