It's a hot August night and I'm reading...
how would it be, say for someone who hates over-writing?
Did you think Pride and Prejudice was over-written?
Haven't read it. But I assume it would be viewed as overwritten if it were to be judged by modern standards (and not overwritten at the time of its publication). Pretty much all classical literature written in English is the same way. While classical literature that has been translated usually wouldn't be viewed as being overwritten because their translations are modernized.
Classic example of overwriting (that's bad lit rather than classical lit): http://www.rdrop.com/~hutch/argon
how would it be, say for someone who hates over-writing?
Did you think Pride and Prejudice was over-written?
Haven't read it. But I assume it would be viewed as overwritten if it were to be judged by modern standards (and not overwritten at the time of its publication). Pretty much all classical literature written in English is the same way. While classical literature that has been translated usually wouldn't be viewed as being overwritten because their translations are modernized.
Classic example of overwriting (that's bad lit rather than classical lit): http://www.rdrop.com/~hutch/argon
That is hilarious. I laughed and cried. Cried mostly in pain. Thanks for the great example.
"You make love well wench," Admitted Grignr as he reached
for the vessel of potent wine his charge had been quaffing.
I feel more like I do now than I did before.
God, I love words, words, words and more words. Tell me a story, and make it loooooooooooooong. I like some of the minimalist stuff, too, don't get me wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen anything as being overwritten. (Except Bradley's link, which made me laugh). Whatever floats your boat, though....
i've read some "classics" and award-winning books i would call over written
-house made of dawn
-the graveyard book
-american pastoral
-tracks
two of those books have won pulitzers, one won the newberry medal.
i dont consider, say, GATSBY to be over-written. dull, sure. but there's nothing wrong with how it was written, especially considering the period.
www.triplebeard.com
http://darkroomreview.blogspot.com
“...There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one's head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people's pain. You ought to have some apprehension that the man you see before you was once even younger than you are now and arrived at his present wretchedness by imperceptible degrees.”
-James Baldwin
Just cracked open Raymond Chandler's Lady in the Lake.
Andrez Bergen
A couple o' hack novels out, and upcoming noir/pulp/comicbook thing (Who is Killing the Great Capes of Heropa?)
http://andrezbergen.wordpress.com/
of course, the example is great, too.
www.triplebeard.com
http://darkroomreview.blogspot.com
“...There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one's head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people's pain. You ought to have some apprehension that the man you see before you was once even younger than you are now and arrived at his present wretchedness by imperceptible degrees.”
-James Baldwin
I didn't find The Graveyard Book over written at all.
I'm still going with Beach Music by Pat Conroy. I'm enjoying it.
I know this thread is derailing somewhat, but I have been thinking about this 'over-written' subject all day. Chuck? Now see what you have done?
And Bradley's over-the-top example really shows just how far an over-written idea can go. Executed with a bit of cunning, though, that story could become brilliantly hilarious. Pant-shitting even. If the author were simply more aware of his self.
Still, I don't think that applying the term over-written to Austen or classical literature in general is very accurate. Or fair. Not for me anyway. Generally it comes down to a question of aptitude. Of elegance. Of rhythms and stylistic DNA.
Austen's work is laced with her essence, marking it as indisputably hers. Iain Sinclair comes to mind as a contemporary example of a writer one might tag as an 'over-writer.' Again, though the text is compiled densely with an air of complexity, it flows, carrying his ideas in a way that is uniquely his.
Their language becomes so recognizable, stamped with their writer's DNA, and that DNA becomes embedded in the text.
Literary complexity seems too easily confused with this so-called 'over-writing.'
I guess it always comes down to the same question for me: Is it any good?
Ok, back to your regularly programmed thread...
I feel more like I do now than I did before.
And Bradley's over-the-top example really shows just how far an over-written idea can go. Executed with a bit of cunning, though, that story could become brilliantly hilarious. Pant-shitting even. If the author were simply more aware of his self.
Still, I don't think that applying the term over-written to Austen or classical literature in general is very accurate. Or fair. Not for me anyway. Generally it comes down to a question of aptitude. Of elegance. Of rhythms and stylistic DNA.
Austen's work is laced with her essence, marking it as indisputably hers. Iain Sinclair comes to mind as a contemporary example of a writer one might tag as an 'over-writer.' Again, though the text is compiled densely with an air of complexity, it flows, carrying his ideas in a way that is uniquely his.
Their language becomes so recognizable, stamped with their writer's DNA, and that DNA becomes embedded in the text.
Literary complexity seems too easily confused with this so-called 'over-writing.'
I guess it always comes down to the same question for me: Is it any good?
Ok, back to your regularly programmed thread...
I'm with you on this. I read tons of classics and I don't find them to be generally over-written. And definitely not Austen.
Anyway, I just started The Last of the Mohicans, I don't remember at the moment who wrote it.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I think of Lovecraft's writing as overwritten (or "purple prose" may be more accurate), although I'm able to enjoy it if I'm not in a mood where that kind of writing gets to me.
Overall, I think there's a lot more unpublished work that is overwritten than published work. I see it with submissions to my lit journal (Bust Down the Door and Eat All the Chickens) and much more so way back when I was working as an assistant editor for Weird Tales (maybe 8 or so years ago) and reading the slush pile. I read a lot of stories written by dreadful Lovecraft imitators.
It's not necessarily overwritten, but Gilbert Sorrentino wrote a novel called Mulligan's Stew and much of the writing is intentionally bad. I thought it was a great idea, but couldn't get very far. Intentional or not, bad writing is still bad writing. While bad movies are more fun to watch assuming they're not boring.
Re-reading Written On The Body by Jeanette Winterson tonight, before starting The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton tomorrow.
But, but, it's September!
And House of Mirth took me a while. It was meh.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
Moneyball (Michael Lewis).
Rereading it after The Big Short, by the same author, that I recommend a lot.
Don't get me wrong. I come from the land of minimalism, but fettering language is troglodition.
Less is not always more. And for fuck's sake, A lady, if one wants to assign overwriting to her dossier broke ground when ground was frozen to women writers.
Okay, sorry to be so harsh.
^5.