GOD MINGO FALLS OFF PEDESTAL
>Literary Agency*
Jack (At least in one of my lives I'm a writer. Why does that gall you
>so?) Mingo
Taproot replies:
Oh, don't flatter yourself, Jack. You're a mediocre writer at best, and
you're nothing more than that. Since YOU were the one who voiced your
rather unfortunate delusion that I must be envious of you, it became
imperative that I correct such a preposterous idea. You seem to be
choking on a rather suffocating strain of confusion, so let's clear the
air.
Now it's true that I've never been one of the "Oh, Jack, your writing is
so wonderful and I wanna be just like you when I grow up" fans. In
point of fact, I've never even mentioned your writing in public up until
very recently -- until you began your insinuations of how "jealous" you
imagine me to be. Indeed, you seem quite annoyed that anyone wouldn't
slobber over the idiotic junk you write which you feel is just
oh-so-funny and enlightening.
I'm sorry, Jack. I find your writing to be childish and trite at best.
There's a sing-song sameness to it that, frankly, annoys me. In the few
books of yours I've read (OK, I confess I was too bored to finish them
completely, but I saw enough) you seem to try just a little too hard to
be bright and witty, and as a result your stuff comes off stiff, forced,
and flat. Now there are writers who are truly funny, but you are not
one of them. Your overeagerness to please is a bit heavy-handed, your
half-baked puns come too frequently to have any impact, and in most
cases I am quite indifferent to your choice of subject matter. This is
all just a nice way of saying that, in my view, your writing is
essentially meaningless. I don't know how to make it any plainer than
that. But please, don't fancy yourself a writer I would ever envy. I'm
actually embarrassed for you that you would seriously consider such an
idiotic idea.
Jack, I think that part of your problem is that you are so used to
newbies with stars in their eyes just gushing over you and your books
that, when someone comes along who doesn't show the proper deference
and respect, you seem quite unable to accept it.
But the fact is, Jack, you must learn to face reality. The vast
majority of people will not admire your writing for the simple reason
that it doesn't _merit_ admiration. It's really as simple as that.
Now why is it so important to you that you have my respect?
Taproot
>Literary Agency*
KATHLEEN MANZ
>Literary Agency* (suc...@aol.net) wrote:
: Jack (At least in one of my lives I'm a writer. Why does that gall you
: >so?) Mingo
:
: Taproot replies:
:
: Oh, don't flatter yourself, Jack. You're a mediocre writer at best, and
: you're nothing more than that. Since YOU were the one who voiced your
: rather unfortunate delusion that I must be envious of you, it became
: imperative that I correct such a preposterous idea. You seem to be
: choking on a rather suffocating strain of confusion, so let's clear the
: air.
I've been reading this ng on and off over the past couple of years. SO
I'm not up to date on all the goings on in this group. I know some of
Jack's books are at my local library. IMO that's pretty good -- I have a
couple of rejection letters for my efforts. I would like to read Jack's
books and Taproot's book(s) and judge for myself who is the better
writer. So Taproot who are you and what book(s) do you have out?
--
Kathleen
ma...@nevada.edu
http://www.nevada.edu/home/1/manz/html/whimpy.html
http://www.nevada.edu/home/1/manz/html/homepage.html
The Claw
Martin Fouts wrote:
>
>
> What published writer do you like or dislike, and what about their
> writing makes you like or dislike them? Extra credit given for citing
> examples from their work.
>
> I'll start with Tom Robbins, because he writes such outrageous
> metaphors and makes them work. I especially like "Skinny Legs and
> All," in which a dirty sock, a tin can, and a spoon, all animated play
> an important role, as does an airstream trailer that has been turned
> into a "turkey-mobile."
>
> --
>
> Do not waver into language. Do not waver in it. -- Seamus Heaney
Funny you should mention Tom Robbins... I love his writing to the extent
that I've tried to write pieces mimicing his style, but I've only been
able to finish one novel by him! Great prose, but his stories just
grate on my nerves for some reason...
My favourites: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ray Bradbury and Paul Quarrington,
not necessarily in that order
~The Claw
Sunbeam the Deacon
Martin Fouts wrote:
>
> Having been heartily chastised for being rude crude and otherwise
> eschewed (did I get that right Paine?) I thought I'd try another tack
> here.
>
> Jack and Taproot have been trading, well whatever it is their posts
> are about, for a while now, so maybe they'd like to join us in a
> writing related thread here.
>
> Taproot writes:
>
> Taproot> [ and I edit for brevity ] I don't like Jack's writing.
>
> I know we've had the favorite writers/greatest books thread, but I
> want to try a variant:
>
> What published writer do you like or dislike, and what about their
> writing makes you like or dislike them? Extra credit given for citing
> examples from their work.
>
I like Charlotte Bronte, who has Jane Eyre say:
"I have been with my aunt, who is dead."
which, of course, lout that he is, Mr. Rodchester makes fun
of.
> --
>
> Do not waver into language. Do not waver in it. -- Seamus Heaney
--
Pete, keeping an eye out....
Stephen G. Esrati
Stephen G. Esrati wrote:
>
> >Literary Agency* wrote:
>
> > Taproot replies:
> >
> SO WHICH ONE ARE YOU? URSULA OR JAMES?
> --
My litttle attempt at needling, mailed to "suc...@aol.com" failed and
was returned to me.
Obviously, Taproot is both Ursula and James.
--
Stephen G. Esrati
Shaker Heights, Ohio
ste...@gwis.com
Phone: (216) 561-9393
FAX: (216) 561-6030
piranha
In article <332903...@gwis.com>,
Stephen G. Esrati <ste...@gwis.com> wrote:
[zap the little attempt]
>My litttle attempt at needling, mailed to "suc...@aol.com" failed and
>was returned to me.
>Obviously, Taproot is both Ursula and James.
obviously, you are in strong need of a large, soft cluebrick.
here: needling an address that wasn't used won't work. the
"from" header of the article reads "suc...@aol.net". net,
not com. different domain. (same owner as it so happens
here, but normal users don't post from the aol.net domain.)
but don't bother with that address either, because the "from"
header is faked. that's easily seen by looking at the path
and the NNTP posting host of that post -- it originates at
prodigy. and since woodside has used this one before for the
normal spams they send out, it's a foregone conclusion that
it's pretty obviously woodside.
a 6 year old child could do what woodside did -- they took
taproot's original article, stripped the attributions and >
off, faked their "from" header, and posted it. tadaa. not
exactly a feat requiring an intellectual giant.
obviously, taproot, while having his own more or less love-
able quirks, is _not_ woodside.
shouldn't writers be checking their facts before publishing?
-alix
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <332929...@mail.baynet.net>, The Claw <keag...@mail.baynet.net> writes:
> Martin Fouts wrote:
> >
> >
> > What published writer do you like or dislike, and what about their
> > writing makes you like or dislike them? Extra credit given for citing
> > examples from their work.
> >
> > metaphors and makes them work. I especially like "Skinny Legs and
> > All," in which a dirty sock, a tin can, and a spoon, all animated play
> > an important role, as does an airstream trailer that has been turned
> > into a "turkey-mobile."
> >
> >
> > Do not waver into language. Do not waver in it. -- Seamus Heaney
>
>
> that I've tried to write pieces mimicing his style, but I've only been
> able to finish one novel by him! Great prose, but his stories just
> grate on my nerves for some reason...
>
> My favourites: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ray Bradbury and Paul Quarrington,
> not necessarily in that order
>
> ~The Claw
It seems to me, from extensive conversations about his work, that liking Tom
Robbins' writing is a pretty good predictor for liking a lot of other books I
don't like. (most of which are also playful, and all of which seem shallow to
me, and most of which, like Robbins, make me wish I liked them better)
I think it has to do with a certain orientation towards realism -- some of us
are trying to get at what _is_ (or what _was_ or what _might be_) even when
we're reading or writing fantasies. When I saw an interview with Robbins I
thought that there was a clue also in his saying repeatedly in different ways
that the world we live in is not real, that reality was someplace else more
cosmic or abstract.
Lucy Kemnitzer
funny, I do like Philip K. Dick in spite of his similar relationship to
reality.
Ray Dittmeier
My friend rit...@bbs.cruzio.com translated from the original Sanskrit
text:
[...snip snip...]
>funny, I do like Philip K. Dick in spite of his similar relationship to
>reality.
Ol' Phil's one of my favorites. But I tried one Tom book and couldn't
get more than halfway through. I couldn't go along with all the "I'm
so clever! Look at how clever I am! I'm making characters out of a
spoon and a can of beans! Look how clever I am, everyone!"
Phil put more imagination into telling a better story, had more
discipline (thus making all the imaginative stuff serve the STORY
rather than the style), and, as far as I can tell, had more substance
underneath the whole thing.
Ray Dittmeier
My friend Martin Fouts <fo...@null.net> translated from the original
Sanskrit text:
> >> Ray Dittmeier writes:
> Ray> Phil put more imagination into telling a better story, had more
> Ray> discipline (thus making all the imaginative stuff serve the
> Ray> STORY rather than the style), and, as far as I can tell, had
> Ray> more substance underneath the whole thing.
>No contest. Dick is incredible. But I read Robbins *because* he is
>lightweight. Sometimes brain candy is a good thing ;-)
Oh, no, there's nothing wrong with brain candy. But even at that
level, to me, Tom is circus peanuts. Harry Harrison and the Stainless
Steel Rat are chocolate.
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com
Marty saw me my realism and raised me a Gide:
> I wonder if the direct route -- ie realism -- is the only, or always
> the best, way to get at "what is"?
>
> For myself, I find the more "realistic" the novel, the less I am drawn
> to ponder. For instance, I've read Updike's Rabbit novels, and
> although they are well written and very real, they compell me to no
> epiphany. Or, to take another author, Kesey's "Sometimes A Great
> Notion," although a very good book, does not speak to me nearly as
> much as does his "One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest," the latter being a
> very allegorical book.
>
> I have just finished Andre Gide's "The Counterfeiters" (in the
> original English translation unfortunately) in which Gide has a
> character representing himself writing about writing a novel called
> "The Counerfeiters" which is not the novel Gide has written.
Funny, I don't like Updike or Kesey much either, but for different reasons. (I
get very easily tired of the self-pitying alienation of privileged white men
who see themselves put upon by women: both Updike and Kesey give me the
feeling of being trapped in a stuck elevator with prep school boys who have
just discovered Bellow and Hemingway and are shouting the choice lines they've
made up -- louder and louder to show off over each other)
You're all going to laugh at me, but the examples of realism I like that come
to mind are almost predictable, if most of them weren't so obscure:
Gladkov's _Cement_
Nilin's _Comrade Venka_
Gorky, Gorky, and Gorky, though his fiction's pretty garish
Ethan Mordden's _I think we're not in Kansas anymore_, _Buddies_, and
_Everybody Loves You_
Almost anything by Nadine Gordimer
George Elliot
_Charlotte_ Bronte's _Villete_, _Shirley_
Toni Cade Bambara's stories
O E Rolvaag's _Giants in the Earth_, _Peder Victorious_
Nexo's _Ditte:Child of Man_ etc.
Langston Hughes' "Simple" stories
some of Mark Twain
Thomas Hardy
um. I'll stop.
I tried to describe what these have in common with each other and not with Tom
Robbins and so on, but while I can smell it, taste it, and feel its fur, I
can't seem to name it.
Lucy Kemnitzer
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <73g1xip...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Martin Fouts <fo...@null.net> writes:
>
> Him. "priviliged white men?" Oh well. I always thought there was more
> to Updike than that, although it is present -- he does write about
> what he knows. Have you read "S."? Actually, I found Rabbit to
> be a pitiful character.
read through _Rabbit, Run_ and see how much thought and empathy goes into the
women and children Updike places in the landscape for Rabbit to feel sorry for
himself with respect to.
>
> I think the phrase that ties together the author's you mention, although
> I'm guessing, having only read about half of them, is "literal
> photo-realism." These are writers who abhor allegory, depend heavily
> on cultural context, and paint very accurate but not very deep
> pictures of their characters.
>
I wouldn't go for the phrase "literal photo-realism," because the literal
rendition of facts isn't the point or purpose.
I think the ones I mentioned are pretty deep, myself. I don't think you can
get much deeper than Nadine Gordimer.
> For instance, I find Gordimer often inpenetrable, because I know there
> is a cultural context there that she is relying on, but I just can't
> follow it because its not a cultural context I share.
This may not be what you think it is. I'm no more a white South African than
you are, and she resonates all over the place for me. I'm wondering if you
are experiencing the counterpart to what I experience with Tom Robbins?
> The bridge between the photo-realistic and the allegorical is the work
> of James Joyce, especially "Dubliners" and "Ulysses." Ulysses is
> probably the most ambitious photo-realistic novel ever written, but is
> also deeply allegorical.
Well, here you have another possible definer of the thing. I loved _Dubliners_
and never finished _ULysses_ though I enjoyed pondering each page I read.
Eventually, I wandered away (I think to read _The Idiot_ over and over again).
>
> Other writers in this vein include Eco, although he is uneven, Pychon,
> if you don't mind your reality on psychedelics, Gide, mentioned
> earlier, and, oddly, the science fiction writer Sheri Tepper, who
> writes about imaginary worlds in a phot-realistic way.
Eco is another one, along with Rushdie, that I regretfully can't stay with.
And here I know exactly what is happening: it is that the focus is too long
for me. I guess I'm simple minded, but I like a closer picture of the people
in the story, and both of these authors pull back farther than I like. I keep
seeing far vistas and words on a page but I don't feel the skin of the people.
The once and future pinkhaired one, however, dotes on these guys, and he's a
logic and justice kind of guy.
Pynchon is wonderful when he is paying attention. But he shows off too much
(though I love the banana breakfasts anyway).
Tepper I don't know.
> I suspect that none of them make your list, which means I'm starting
> to recognize what you are smelling, even though I suspect that you
> won't approve of my name for it.
YOu mean "literal photo-realism?" No, I don't think the name does the trick.
When I think of what "photo-realists" do in painting, it's not the same thing.
Although there's a person round here who uses the photo-realist technique
whose paintings are also like this. (a painter so obscure I don't know her
name, though a friend has several of her paintings) The paintings that do what
these writers do tend to have a softer realism and to employ different
techniques.
I kind of thought somebody was going to throw the words "socialist realism" at
me, and I was going to have to say "well, kind of including that but more than
that."
Lucy Kemnitzer
(now, who sides with Dzhiga Vertov, and who with Sergei Eisenstein?)