I love tackling books written prior to the 1940's. They wrote in a different voice - if that makes any sense at all.
Sadly, I realized that over the years authors have scaled down their depth and their writing styles to accomodate readers. Detailed descriptions of landscapes and well-worded emotional expressions used to form part of our vernacular. Now the echoing blast from a gun gets broken down to mili-seconds and stripped into words - which the editors eventually scratch out.
Do we no longer credit readers with brains? Or has illiteracy ratings guided us to a more depraved grammar in order to make our stories more readable? Or has self-publishing opened the door for writers who would normally not have made it to the shelf?
I credit them with VISA
Debit them with PayPal
No, James. Like death, he cometh! And never stopeth!
Found you on Amazon. Will connect in August.
I have come across an interesting blog and became intrigued by the last blog post concerning Ted Mooney and his book The Same River Twice. Has anyone read it? Here's how it is described:
The book got glowing advance comments that clearly established its achievement. From Jayne Anne Phillips: “A smart page-turning thriller that doubles as a darkly luminous literary jewel.” From Oscar Hijuelos: “A superbly written and wonderfully paced novel that succeeds as both a page-turner and a work of literary fiction.” From Jay McInerney: “That very rare beast — a literary thriller….Patricia Highsmith couldn’t have done it better.”
Here is the blog: Gary Fisketjon I've been an editor at Knopf for twenty years, after...
A short story series of noir fiction was recommended me by a couple of trusted resources. The short story series is a creation of Akashic books. Each collection is set in a location somewhere in the world. A good writing friend has recommended Istanbul Noir. Here's Richard Thomas' review of Cape Cod Noir for the Chuck Palahuniuk site: http://chuckpalahniuk.net/reviews/cape-cod-noir. His review makes me want to buy and I like Thomas as a writer.
I'm not sure this is the place for this, but while I was discussing book ideas, I thought I might mention this one as well.
'm not sure which book your talking about, Mooney or the series by Akashic. In general, though, before purchase, I check out both negative and positive reviews and consider the sources. I try to weigh opinions according to their sources and someone I listen to may not be another's preference for a critic. The blog reference was from a source I trust, though I would still try to sample the book myself before purchase.
OK, just after writing the above I found the ever so brief PW review of Mooney's book. I'm not sold this book is a bad choice for everyone, however, just a little forewarned. As a reviewer for journals myself, I understand how some of this process plays itself out. Some books very talented critics have hated I've loved and given detailed reviews accordingly and vice versa. I try to withhold judgment until reading.
Thanks for the heads up.
Mooney. Our system with replies doesn't always place the comment under the right post.
I don't know anything about Akashic but have heard good things about them.
I've been thinking about the "competition" thing, though, and there is something to it. Maybe 50 years ago people got up from dinner and read books or sang around the piano, whereas now many of them watch TV.
But it's not "competition" in the normal sense of the word. It's habit and lifestyle. It's not like you can write this super-wonderful book that will cause people to read it instead of watching their favorite soap, then what's on next. That's habitual.
Know who gives readers credit for brains?
But they don't take Mastercard.