Richard Moore wrote about my post on I MARRIED A DEAD MAN:
Actually, miker, almost your entire post was paraphrasing or
quoting others'
opinions. The only opinion of your's I could find was that
you disagreed with the broad condemnation of this book Mike
Nevins in his biography as you
found the writing hauntingly lyrical even though you had
problems with other
aspects. For what it is worth I would like to read more of
your opinions than a bio-biblio background.
*********** You are correct, of course. The reference to the
book being similar to Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher" was
mine, al- though I'm sure that similar references can be
found. And the comment you mentioned about, "Although I
wasn't enamored with the plot, the characters, or the
heavy-handed melodrama, I still found his prose to be
hauntingly lyrical."
I made some other comments a few months ago and didn't feel
the need to repeat them. I guess even then I paraphrased
myself a bit. So those two comments were really about the
only thing I could add about the book. To be real honest, the
girl's incessant whining and crying made me want to see
somebody slap some sense into her, and I could add that the
melodramatic drivel on the first few pages just about turned
me away from the book, but because I know he's a classic I
thought I needed to read it, if for educational purposes
only.
But to tell the truth, I've been trying to step back a bit
from the work and look at it from the big picture, so that
limited my comments to the ones I made. I don't know exactly
what roll personal prejudices play in a decent review. I
recognize that there's a strong feeling towards just saying
any damn thing you feel like saying, whether it's any kind of
realistic appraisal of the work or not. I would refer you to
Edmund Wilson's "Boys in the Back Room" essay. What you find
in that essay is Edmund Wilson as Ellroy. The essay really
isn't about the books he mentions; it's about Edmund Wilson
and his big ego. And if he wants to flaunt his ego, that's
perfectly fine with me. My complaint is that I learn little
about the books.
This does not mean that I am afraid to knock out a scathing
review. Search the archives for what I said about Iceberg
Slim's PIMP. I still stand by every word of that. But I
thought that the book warranted it. I felt my criticisms of
it were an across-the-board level-headed analysis of the
work.
But the added comments I made above about the melodramatic
drivel and somebody smacking some sense into the girl feels
too much like me as Edmund (in a very narrow sense, of
course. I realize that Edmund is a great literary
critic.).
And about the bio part. You will notice that when I review a
book the plot summary is, compared to others, microscopic.
That's me. I don't care for plot summaries much longer than a
sentence. I'd rather spend the time finding out and relaying
something about the author. Although I would like to say that
I subscribe fully to Barthes's "Death of an Author" essay,
the truth is that an author's life in relation to his works
often- times is as revealing as the book itself.
I appreciate your request for more of my opinion and perhaps
less background. I consider that a compliment, with the
built-in criticism duly noted. If other's don't care for the
biographical material, then I'll delete it from further
posts.
As I reread the above I realize that a large part of it could
be designated as bull. But it's the best I can do. I'll let
it stand.
Thanks, miker
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Dec 2002 EST