Fort's literary style
Bob Rickard
>As I mentioned in my last post, I finally settled down an purchased
>(and began reading) "The Complete Books of Charles Fort". After having
>my mind blown by the first page of "The Book of the Damned", it took me
>a bit to get used to his, well... unique style. The accumulation of data
>is at the same time impressive and numbing.
* a commentary or discussion on Fort's literary style could
be a strong thread here.
Of course it largely grew out of his career of writing short
stories for newspapers and mags of the day - but even, comparatively,
I'd say it was unique - full of impressionism and surrealism. He
attempted what no one else had done, a critique of scientific
methodology in theatrical prose.
Fort himself once wrote: "I am a pioneer of a new kind of
writing that instead of heroes and villains ill have floods and bugs
and stars and earthquakes for its characters and motifs." Herein
lies one of the secrets of Fort's creative genius...not content with
anthropmorhising (?) things or objects, he applied the trick to
forces and processes from the cosmicly huge to the minutest and to
ethereal or psychic (mental) items like ideas, theories and
explanations. Then he reversed it all, dramatising human weaknesses
and motivations on a cosmic or universal scale.
Yes, his style is difficult for modern readers - especially
one who has not read, say, the gothic horror school of Lovecraft et
al - as there is a real love of unusual words (for their own sake)
and creative play with grammar and rhetoric (things which are not
taught in modern schools). But however difficult his style, the
force of his ideas and data carry one along.
Persistence pays off. If you can last the obligatory three
chapters into Book of the Damned, you get huge enjoyment from the rest
of his work. But you have to be prepared to immerse yourself in it.
Fort wrote in that leisurely way that is alien to today's quick pay-off
mentality. He'll play word, meaning and data games with you, but best
of all, he takes time with his imaginative ideas ... who can fail to be
amused at his running gags about "our slippery brains"?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Bob Rickard
Editor - Fortean Times
email bo...@forteana.win-uk.net
*"In the topography of intellection, knowledge is ignorance
surrounded by laughter." (Charles Fort)*
WWW homepage: http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/ft.html
## FT: Where the extraordinary is just another day at the office ##
Mike Jay
> Yes, his style is difficult for modern readers - especially
> one who has not read, say, the gothic horror school of Lovecraft et
> al
Who Fort reminds me most of stylistically is, oddly enough, Nietzsche. He's
got the same love of dense, aphoristic prose (sentences without main verbs,
for example), self-coined words or oxymoronic word-collisions, and inverted
punch-lines where dashes and italics frame the - *opposite*! of what you
thought he was going to say.
Do we know if he read Nietzsche? And does he mention any other stylistic
influences (Ambrose Bierce, perhaps?) in his own writing?
--
Mike Jay
c63...@gold.missouri.edu
> Of course it largely grew out of his career of writing short
>stories for newspapers and mags of the day - but even, comparatively,
>I'd say it was unique - full of impressionism and surrealism. He
>attempted what no one else had done, a critique of scientific
>methodology in theatrical prose.
Are there any collections of these short stories? I bet they would be an
interesting read.
Sean
Stephen Atty
> Persistence pays off. If you can last the obligatory three chapters
> into Book of the Damned, you get huge enjoyment from the rest of his
> work. But you have to be prepared to immerse yourself in it. Fort
> wrote in that leisurely way that is alien to today's quick pay-off
> mentality. He'll play word, meaning and data games with you, but best
> of all, he takes time with his imaginative ideas ... who can fail
> to be amused at his running gags about "our slippery brains"?
I read it when commuting to and from work (a journey time of 45 minutes)
and have to agree that you can't really dip in for a few minutes. What I
really like is the way he responds to some of the official explanations
- the one about the meteorite in the field is a classic. I also like the
way he comes up with a theory about where objects fall from and then says
that although it provides an explanation he may discard it later if it no
longer fits the bill.
Steve