Verbiage by Sandra Horn
I feel a rant coming on. Fans of Margaret Drabble, A S Byatt and the like, should stop reading now. I have just plodded my way grumpily through The Gates of Ivory, muttering/shrieking 'less is more!' 'do we need to know that?' 'what was all the stuff about toxic shock syndrome, when it didn't actually happen? Was it perhaps a public health warning: Do not use old tampax and then leave them in too long? Fair enough, but what was it doing in this story?'
Why this need to add things that don't advance the plot or shed light on the characters? Is it 'Oh well, I've done all this research and I must put it in somewhere'? I suspect it might be. I'm all for getting the facts right, but NOT for including them in great indigestible lumps, for facts' sake! It feels patronising, somehow.
In Angels and Insects (ASB), the family is an obvious beehive metaphor. OK, got that - but then there is a superfluous academic discourse about bees, just in case one hadn't got it, I suppose. Grrr!!
Somewhere between a short, bald list of facts and an overblown expatiation, there's the right and pleasing amount of them. It's hard to define 'right amount' but it's to do with what they add to the pictures in one's head - colour, spice, music...I might have been feeling grumpier than usual at The Gates of Ivory because it was such a contrast to the book I'd read just before, Frances Thomas's A Daughter of Helen.
It made me think of the theatre and films; there is power in the words and the scenery and the pace and rhythm and how they all fit, but the whole illusion can be destroyed if the balance is wrong. Take the films of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings - terrific stories but no matter how clever cgi is/are, there are only so many times a bridge can break and people plummet downwards, or thousands of Orcs come surging over the screen, before it all becomes utterly tedious. Less is often more, and enough is quite enough, thank you.
I'm going now. I'm going to have a drink before supper. We're having fish with mediterranean vegetables and couscous. The drink will be fruit juice as I'm resting my liver after 10 days of excesses on holiday. We went to York, Halifax and Stainton in the Lake District. You didn't need to know any of that, though, did you?
Rant over.
Why this need to add things that don't advance the plot or shed light on the characters? Is it 'Oh well, I've done all this research and I must put it in somewhere'? I suspect it might be. I'm all for getting the facts right, but NOT for including them in great indigestible lumps, for facts' sake! It feels patronising, somehow.
In Angels and Insects (ASB), the family is an obvious beehive metaphor. OK, got that - but then there is a superfluous academic discourse about bees, just in case one hadn't got it, I suppose. Grrr!!
Somewhere between a short, bald list of facts and an overblown expatiation, there's the right and pleasing amount of them. It's hard to define 'right amount' but it's to do with what they add to the pictures in one's head - colour, spice, music...I might have been feeling grumpier than usual at The Gates of Ivory because it was such a contrast to the book I'd read just before, Frances Thomas's A Daughter of Helen.
Here is Hermione describing her father's splendid hall:
Imagine what seems like a forest of columns, deep red, so that going through them makes you feel as though you're entering a magic wood. Inside, the light is glowing and shivering, and then you make out the coffered ceiling of cedarwood...I was there! I could hear the young girl's voice tinged with pride and a little awe. I didn't need to be told where the cedarwood came from or how it was transported or how the columns had been dyed red, and I wasn't; it was an elegant sufficiency.
It made me think of the theatre and films; there is power in the words and the scenery and the pace and rhythm and how they all fit, but the whole illusion can be destroyed if the balance is wrong. Take the films of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings - terrific stories but no matter how clever cgi is/are, there are only so many times a bridge can break and people plummet downwards, or thousands of Orcs come surging over the screen, before it all becomes utterly tedious. Less is often more, and enough is quite enough, thank you.
I'm going now. I'm going to have a drink before supper. We're having fish with mediterranean vegetables and couscous. The drink will be fruit juice as I'm resting my liver after 10 days of excesses on holiday. We went to York, Halifax and Stainton in the Lake District. You didn't need to know any of that, though, did you?
Rant over.
Comments
But seriously, it was about the only thing that annoyed me about Donna Tartt's book The Goldfinch. She describes E V E R Y T H I N G. For instance, the exact dishes of a Chinese takeaway that is not even of passing significance. It's like a nervous tick.
Still a great book, though. :-)
Overwriting is a matter of definition - and taste, I suppose. I'd rather have all manner of moreness if it's well done. If all I want is a decent story, I'll read the synopsis -- or watch TV.
That said, it is awfully difficult to get it just right. I've been reading some Frances Hardinge lately, for example, and groaning. Her metaphors are excellent - but does she really need to load up just about every paragraph with several of them? They lose their effect.
'coffered ceiling of cedarwood' is at least less commonplace, but I'm not happy about the rhythm nor the three c's - we see as we read -(nor the two s sounds of ceiling/cedarwood), something which needs to handled with care - quite deliberately or not at all.
And the older I get the less I think I know what 'overwritten' actually means. I think a lot of it is a matter of taste. Some of us like some thing, some others. Today, I'm not sure that I just want to read something which only 'advances the plot' or 'reveals character'... but tomorrow that might mean something to me, who can say. Today it seems like someone suggesting that we should be eating fast food when what I want is slow cooking. this is not a well thought out response as I've been up since 3.30am and am beginning to flag, but I wanted to thank you for giving me something to think about (like I didn't have enough) -and to offer a tentative suggestion that perhaps a lot of what we rant about in literature/fiction and 'quality' is in fact no more than matters of taste (and if I wanted to get political I would add that it could be the 'privileging' of one style over another - but I'm too tired for political debate today...so I'll just say thanks for provoking my thoughts and leave it at that). So if I'm baling out of the 'discussion' at this point it's just 'real' life getting in the way - but did you need to know that? I'm sure you can all draw your own conclusions if I go silent from here on - but who will know 'the truth.? LOL or smiley face or whatever it is one does to show one is being lighthearted!!!!
My motto for the day is: fiction is fashion so lets not be fashion (or fiction) fascists (apologies for the alliteration over-writing but as you know comedy is all in the...)
And actually, an appropriate amount of alliteration always adds an air of archness, ain't it?