But what really leaves the reader appalled is the incredible amount of redundancy throughout the book. Whenever one anecdote would be sufficient to make a point, Wolfe uses two, sometimes one more later in the book where he is picking up the threads from a plot left unresolved. Repetition is the key, with cute inventions like "fuck patois" or "conversational nugget" (also a self-citation from the Bonfire) reintroduced and repeated over and over the interminable feuilleton.
Maybe the novel was intended for a public suffering from Alzheimer Disease? If so, while appreciate the noble intentions, I regret the lack of a warning label for the rest of us. Or possibly, this is a result of stinging together a bunch of over-researched episodes, without anyone really giving it more than a quick read-through. What happened to the concept of editing, or that "less is more" in literature? One has to regret Ellis' "Less Than Zero", which definitely got to the point so much more effectively and, above all, concisely. How many times can one remind the readers of an obvious point before forcing them to toss aside the massive and unwieldy hardcover? If all this was not enough the temporality or at least the succession of events is, to say the least, strained. Little childish "teasers" are inserted in chapters to remind the reader (i.e., that moron of a reader) of subplots evolving, desperately trying to get everything in sync for the predictable climax.
All this could have been easily fixed. So why wasn't it? Is this really the result of a team of researchers or at least creative writing students patching together a feuilleton? That's definitely how it feels like. With all its satire about the rising age of the idiot in our prestigious colleges, Mr. Wolfe has provided that very constituency with good, fun, and above all easy reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment