No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

To be fair, that has been the critique of each of Wolfe's novels, and is actually one that I tend to agree with to some extent. (Not the "book becomes just awful" part, but the "book starts off great and becomes less great about 50% through" part.) For example, trim the prison-inspired philosophical epiphanies from A Man in Full, for example, and you have a legitimately great book.

My issue is usually more about how unkind, even mean, Wolfe is to his characters. Which is an odd thing to worry about, what with his characters being fictional and all, but I am just weird.

Anyhoo, YMMV, toe-may-toe, etc.

I don't think he understands his own characters and routinely has them do things that directly contradict the very nature he just spent 200 pages building.

I just finished Ghostwritten and and am in the middle of Cloud Atlas, and holy crap is David Mitchell talented.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3606

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3607

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3608

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3609

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I don't think he understands his own characters and routinely has them do things that directly contradict the very nature he just spent 200 pages building.

I just finished Ghostwritten and and am in the middle of Cloud Atlas, and holy crap is David Mitchell talented.

Totally, but just a little soulless, no?

I liked all of his books (except the newest one, which I haven't read), maybe Black Swan Green the most, and that one seems the most autobiographical.

[Icky Thump]

and will be previewing Zombies tomorrow?

This guy.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I don't think he understands his own characters and routinely has them do things that directly contradict the very nature he just spent 200 pages building.

I just finished Ghostwritten and and am in the middle of Cloud Atlas, and holy crap is David Mitchell talented.

I think that Wolfe is more interested in plots and narratives than characters. Which is mostly fine with me. I like plot. As a English teacher once told me, there are plot-driven books, there are character-driven books, and there are writerly skill-driven books. She gave Dickens as an example of the first (and Wolfe would probably identify as a neo-Dickens), Cheever as an example of the second, and Toni Morrison as an example of the third. Obviously, there's overlap and the distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, but I think it's useful.

And speaking of Wolfe, Vanity Fair just posted this great article about him by Michael Lewis here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I think that Wolfe is more interested in plots and narratives than characters. Which is mostly fine with me. I like plot. As a English teacher once told me, there are plot-driven books, there are character-driven books, and there are writerly skill-driven books. She gave Dickens as an example of the first (and Wolfe would probably identify as a neo-Dickens), Cheever as an example of the second, and Toni Morrison as an example of the third. Obviously, there's overlap and the distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, but I think it's useful.

And speaking of Wolfe, Vanity Fair just posted this great article about him by Michael Lewis here.

what type writer were penske's socks?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what type writer were penske's socks?

The Daintiest Petunia's writing was character-driven.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Totally, but just a little soulless, no?

I liked all of his books (except the newest one, which I haven't read), maybe Black Swan Green the most, and that one seems the most autobiographical.

I have mixed feelings about him. He's a superb writer, but the stories do sometimes feel cold, or overly contrived. I definitely felt that way about Bone Clocks.

But Jacob de Zoet. Oh my god, was that a masterpiece.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Totally, but just a little soulless, no?

I liked all of his books (except the newest one, which I haven't read), maybe Black Swan Green the most, and that one seems the most autobiographical.

Yes. A little soulless. What he does with words is amazing, but you're right.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3610

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3611

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3612

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3613

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3610

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3611

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3612

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3613

TM

Some of those were a little soulless.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I've only recently discovered that The Undefeated was a thing. And I don't get it.

I'm still not clear what ESPN had in mind after reading this article. Did they want a site with black talent writing about sports and pop culture? Seems like they wanted some true substance by the way they were chasing Coates. But then what does the site look like? Black issues in sports and everywhere else written about by black talent (with sports issues pulling people in)? If given the freedom to write about actual issues in a way that would surely offend people that make up a huge base of ESPN's demo, it sounds like a great site, but a terrible business move.

Generally speaking, ESPN sucks for lots of reasons. The two biggest reasons for me are: (1) As the article says, they have fallen into this "Every issue has two legitimate sides" false equivalency bullshit such that whenever one of their small-minded employees who thinks they're brilliant because they're on tv says some stupid, offensive shit, ESPN doesn't know what to do and (2) The people they employ are not journalists; they're fans and they conduct themselves like fans. There is very little impartial reporting. All of the personalities they promote are trying so hard to have relationships with the people they must base their reporting on that it's just one big, incestuous clusterfuck. Either you are legitimate news source or you are E! You can't be both. They try. How can you report on the NFL doing all the dirt it does on the regular and maintain a business relationship with them at the same time? Not possible.

Finally, I've never paid much attention to Whitlock, but that's because I can't recall him saying anything interesting.

TM

If I may add (3) because they hired Ray Lewis in any capacity, (4) because they've stopped sharing the Monday Night telecast with their network partner, ABC, which means for those of us without cable, we can't watch MNF at home anymore. This might not have been ESPN's decision (I don't know), but I hold it against them nonetheless.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

If I may add (3) because they hired Ray Lewis in any capacity, (4) because they've stopped sharing the Monday Night telecast with their network partner, ABC, which means for those of us without cable, we can't watch MNF at home anymore. This might not have been ESPN's decision (I don't know), but I hold it against them nonetheless.

ABC long ago gave up its sports department. ESPN is the Disney Co. sports outlet now, and occasionally they put certain games on ABC. But I think ABC doesn't want to take up prime time with sports.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3614

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3615

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3616

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3617

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Would the Lamar Odom story be nearly as big of it didn't give the media the opportunity to use the word "brothel" repeatedly?