tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post2400707825248421304..comments2023-04-30T07:27:54.645-07:00Comments on <b>HUNGRY GHOST BLOG</b>: Somewhat conversationalDavid Chutehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05606470667042155559noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-3882187663017396932011-04-27T16:25:48.288-07:002011-04-27T16:25:48.288-07:00I'll give up my copies of Tristram Shandy, Gra...I'll give up my copies of Tristram Shandy, Gravity's Rainbow, and 2666 when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.Tulkinghornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380273659057130770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-29572989290581563872011-04-27T15:59:27.177-07:002011-04-27T15:59:27.177-07:00I agree.I agree.David Chutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05606470667042155559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-84732451128276594012011-04-27T15:54:05.794-07:002011-04-27T15:54:05.794-07:00I agree that efficiency is a basic aesthetic princ...I agree that efficiency is a basic aesthetic principle. Though, in the case of a book like Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," one imagines that it is almost a quantifiable one. The difference between the edited edition and the "author's cut" is remarkable. The edited version is a joy to read, the author's cut seems bloated in comparison.<br /><br />Length of prose often, though not always, signals a lack of sufficient drafts or editorship. Think of the later Rowling books. I would argue that she placed market demands above aesthetic demands. The books are still well written, but they are bloated textually.<br /><br />None of this means that a book's prose need be jumbled/bloated in order to be complex and difficult. One can easily imagine a book that is tightly written that is challenging -- one can go back as far as the Euthyphro to find such a work and there are many more recent works that meet that criteria.Christian Lindkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12381310217234123318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-73440291123220571762011-04-27T15:40:13.473-07:002011-04-27T15:40:13.473-07:00Not actually arguing your POV, BTW. Just insisting...Not actually arguing your POV, BTW. Just insisting on it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.<br /><br />Efficiency is a pretty basic aesthetic principle, it seems to me. Maybe there's a New England Puritan streak in there somewhere, too.David Chutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05606470667042155559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-62849635156719958442011-04-27T13:54:59.423-07:002011-04-27T13:54:59.423-07:00Actually, no need to huff and puff: There is a ple...Actually, no need to huff and puff: There is a pleasure to complexity that requires no apology.Tulkinghornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380273659057130770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-44236262462605063732011-04-27T13:51:11.738-07:002011-04-27T13:51:11.738-07:00Where you go wrong in your bias is the notion that...Where you go wrong in your bias is the notion that deviation from simplicity requires justification because of complicated ideas, seems to me.<br /><br />1)The deviation doesn't require justification -- sometimes it just comes out that way. See, for example, anybody from Laurence Sterne to Dostoyevski, to Joyce, to Vargas Llosa to Bolano, to Proust, to, to , to..<br /><br />2) And if you must needs have justification, the "ideas" are usually the least of it. See again those above with the exception of DostoyevskiTulkinghornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380273659057130770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8896069787782846811.post-43771115525650986682011-04-27T07:03:11.843-07:002011-04-27T07:03:11.843-07:00The Eggars essay is wonderful, and careful readers...The Eggars essay is wonderful, and careful readers will note a studied lack of symmetry between the one position -- that fiction SHOULD be easy to read -- and the other - that fiction CAN be challenging.<br /><br />Usually, one puts the tight-assed rule makers on the side of the difficult. Eggars characteristically reverses it. Verbum sap., as they say. <br /><br />I've always thought that Jonathan Raban was an asshole -- his being unpersuaded by Wallace's wonderful Kenyon speech is further evidence of that.Tulkinghornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380273659057130770noreply@blogger.com