date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
C.G.
(new)
Dec 10, 2012 06:30PM
I have to say I like your paragraph better. His is impressive and richly worded but for me it doesn't give me the same kind of sense that yours does. I almost want to call his description 'melodramatic'. I often skipped descriptions - and still do - if they don't add anything to a story. Your paragraph gives me a real sense of where the narrator is - the sights and sounds and smells.
reply
|
flag
Well, that is nice of you. What is amazing (to me) is that you read his first paragraph and think, wow, that is stunning and sort of over-the-top, and then THE WHOLE BOOK is like that. While I was reading I felt weirdly awed and bored at the same time (not totally unlike the way I feel when playing dinosaurs with my kids).
I agree with the assessment that yours is the better paragraph. Peake has some awesome description but it's very cold (and convoluted). Yours has emotional resonance because of the character's comparisons between the two cities and what she is feeling. Her emotional response is an anchor for the reader.
Ha, maybe I should write a new post, on being more awesome than Mervyn Peake! Well, my difficulty with Titus Groan was exactly the lack of "emotional" anchors, and I did find the book cold in a way... but though it really isn't a lovable book, I think it's impossible not to recognize the genius if you read it right through. I picked the first paragraph, but could have picked any paragraph in the book - the writing is incredible (but also, yes, convoluted, sort of "old-fashioned" I guess). I don't actually want to write like Mervyn Peake, but I'd love to be able to, and very much envy his ability to make a setting so vivid and monstrous and complete over the course of the book. I sometimes forget about setting, will not even bother to imagine the room a conversation is taking place in, say, because I'm busy with the conversation and don't care about the room. Not that every room needs a long elaborate description, but I think it's a kind of laziness in my writing / imagination. But anyway very glad you guys liked my paragraph #2! Whether I can really make the city come alive is still an open question, but I'm trying to pay attention to it.
While MErvyn Peake's descriptions are amazing, I think it's a good idea to remember that descriptions have to work in the context of the story, ie what the author is trying to achieve. The castle of Gormenghast is in a sense one of the characters, and its very weird architecture vitally important for the atmosphere and mood of the story. If that's not what you are looking for in your story, don't write it. In my own writing I'm not one for massive descriptions of place either - that doesn't make you a bad writer, just a different one. Your more minimalist description manages to set a scene well, so why worry?
I don't actually want to write like Mervyn Peake - amazing as he is, he writes enough like Mervyn Peake for the lot of us. But "description of place" *is* a weakness of mine, and Mervyn Peake is way at the other end of the spectrum. I don't want to write like him, but I do want to be a better writer and capture places more vividly. Nice point about Gormenghast being sort of like a character in the book. I should read the second book soon, while the first is still fresh in my mind.


