that is all there is of the first paragraph of one of my favourite horror novels Heart Shaped Box by Joe Hill (and i know he is Stephen Kings son, good storytelling runs in the family!) i still cant explain why i like it, maybe because my reaction was like, ok, now what is in that collection? and i tell you what, it certainly got you hooked, i think i read this book in a manner of hours!
- Before I Go to Sleep From my scant repertoire of fiction reads, here's one which stands out as it is first-person, present tense, both features which can make it difficult to write something good. It's chilling, intriguing, and most of all it sounds great in my head. I couldn't stop reading from here on.
"The building was on fire, and it wasn't my fault." - Jim Butcher, Blood Rites (Dresden Files #6) It sets a spectacular scene that both has a cause and presents an immediate danger, and it has personality. I am intrigued by the fact that the first thing the narrator does after setting the scene is to say that he is innocent -- did he think that he would be blamed? What role does he play?
I have a love/hate relationship with McCarthy's writing. I have not yet read Blood Meridian, but if I read that opening not knowing who wrote it, I would probably dismiss it. Truth be told, the poetic style was intriguing as just that - poetry - but what was being said was far less impressive than the way in which it was said. Style over substance. I've read No Climax For Old Men, and apart from the utter lack of a satisfactory ending and absolutely no catharsis for the tension building throughout the primary conflict...I enjoyed it. The movie adds a lot of little details that do not exist in the book, like the dog chasing the hero through the river, and a few others that I cannot recall off-hand, but those little moments add quite a lot to the suspense of the conflict. I'll give the movie the edge, but I legitimately enjoyed reading the book. The Road, however, and please don't lynch me or turn my car over and set it afire for what I'm about to say, but The Road bored the living shit out of me. I could not even finish the book, to be honest. It was ridiculous in how barren the page was. I understand the need for sparse writing, but this is going way too far. There's a "paragraph" of dialogue where the man and the boy talk and it ends with the boy asking the man if they're going to die. The man says he doesn't know, then no, go to bed. MOVING ON... Wait, wait a second, Cormac. That's all you're giving us? This empty, monotone exchange that should evoke emotion in the reader but fails to do so because there's nothing apart from the words spoken, not even a mention of a gesture or a movement or a pause or anything at all to actually *create* the emotion we're supposed to feel? Sorry, but you've got to do the work, Mr. McCarthy. That's your job. Do it. You didn't do the work. The movie adaptation of The Road, on the other hand, is the true masterpiece. It contains everything McCarthy failed to include in the book. Like emotion and detail. The film-makers actually did the work, and it paid off. I also enjoyed the film The Counselor, for which he wrote the screenplay. As problematic as the screenplay for that film is (very problematic), it's still an interesting story with a unique feel. There's a lot to find appealing, though a lot to criticize, as well.
@Sheriff Woody I will be the first not to lynch you. The Road bored me as well. (I actually just read it a few days ago, and then watched the movie.) I feel the same way about it that you feel about Blood Meridian: I sensed a beautiful, almost poetic style in it, but I could not discern much substance. I also feel exactly the same way about the movie. In a nutshell, the book is a book that wishes it could be a movie. But since the book is the source material for such a good movie, I give it full credit for being a good story. Words alone simply cannot do justice to it. I have not read No Country for Old Men, but the movie is easily in my top 20, possibly in my top 10. It pulls off the amazing accomplishment of being the quietest movie that I have ever seen by far, while still being one of the most thrilling and dramatic movies that I have seen. Many of the same strengths as 2001: A Space Odyssey. (I guess part of that opinion is my personal reaction to the trend that movies are making toward using unnecessarily bombastic sound effects and soundtracks to grab the viewer's attention -- Gravity, anyone?) I guess that is an example of the drastic difference between books and movies: a movie can get away with being a masterpiece on the basis of style (especially Pulp Fiction), but a book, not so much.
NCFOM would definitely be one of my favorite films if not for the last 20 minutes, which go against everything that was previously set-up. I see it like this...if you're watching Wrestlemania and all throughout the program, the announcers are hyping the big main event between Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant, and the tension is building and building, but then Howard Finkel comes out before the match is set to begin and says Hulk Hogan was ran over in the parking lot and Andre went home, so here's Sgt. Slaughter to wax philosophical for half an hour. Hope you enjoyed the show! No, that would not be satisfactory. You cannot use suspense to work the audience into a state and provide no catharsis. Alfred Hitchcock preached this over half a century ago. He was right then, and he's still right today. I agree with what else you said, daemon. A lot of films try to get by on style alone, and this pleases many theater-goers, perhaps because most people don't go to the movies to study the storytelling. They go to see special effects and explosions, and are satisfied when they receive that, even if the storytelling is so dumbed-down and debased as to treat the audience like babies (Christopher Nolan has made a career out of this formula). Books, however, usually require a bit more substance to keep the audience (in this case, reader) engaged.
I liked the movie version of No Country for Old Men, but that was because I'd read the book first. In the book, there are little inter-chapters between the main chapters, and these inter-chapters are told from the sheriff's point of view, establishing that he is the main character of the book, and also clarifying what the theme of the thing is. Spoiler The Coen Brothers made a mistake in omitting these inter-chapters; doing so focused the action on Llewellyn Moss versus Anton Chigurh, both of whom are actually supporting characters. When the Big Showdown between them takes place offstage, it works in the book, but not in the movie. The movie audience felt cheated, but the readers may have felt a bit more satisfied.
See, that is one of the things that I love about the movie. (It could make a difference that I knew the basic plot, including the ending, before watching it.) By "style", I was not referring to special effects and explosions, but to stylistic elements that can be appreciated through study. The Road is stylistic in its cinematography and score; with anything inferior, it would be a boring movie. I did not mean "get away with" in the cynical sense that viewers drool over dumbed-down movies that dazzle them, but in the sincere sense that I personally consider some movies to be masterpieces more for style than for story. Not that the story is bad, but that the style is a much more important reason to praise the movie than the story. (NCFOM, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the list goes on...)
Film allows for storytelling through other means than what was written in the screenplay. A juxtaposing edit, like in Kubrick's 2001, can speak louder than any words. I wouldn't call that choice a stylistic one; it's a storytelling decision. What I meant by films getting by on style alone would be something akin to The Avengers, which is nothing more than a cartoon with real actors. The film-making doesn't help tell a story. It's only meant to get the characters on screen and in action or argument scenes. It can be a fun movie, but it's very, very dumbed-down with little substance to speak of. Nevertheless, people love it because 'splosions. The cinematography, score, costume and set design, etc. in The Road are absolutely essential to create the environment and emotional states of the characters and their journey, which is absolutely essential to the telling of this particular story. All of that was missing from the book. The film-makers used their medium to make up for McCarthy's inability to use his own to properly communicate tone and detail and line reading/delivery and environment and setting and atmosphere, etc. They actually did the work of storytellers. McCarthy did not.
@Sheriff Woody looks like we agree and we just had different definitions of "storytelling" and "style".
