Yeah I didn't like it. To me him mentioning he didn't use his sword implied he didn't kill the guy. This to me says he didn't use his blade. Then he's throwing a broken body.
I find this confusing and clumsy: Particularly "which he was." Like an addition by a middle school pupil, but on the other hand, as I'm missing the context, it could be meant to sound sarcastic or something. Also, at first I got confused who rode like they were pursued by the Devil, the narrator or "him," although the context helps. But I enjoyed the last sentence: I think because it's not trying too hard to be poetic or complicated (matter of taste, and all that), and I like "hurled", "broken body" (because it makes me wonder how it's broken, what happened to the body etc), and the imagery of "dark with birds," in particular. In any case, this guy got published and he's popular so clearly his readers, his publisher, and his editors think he can write, so I feel a tiny bit iffy about criticizing him too much because I haven't been able to do what he's done. However, I still think exercises like this are fun and useful for us, so we do have to get back to the drawing board concerning that new critique room
My thoughts exactly! I can't help but think that the severe criticism of this paragraph is largely taste-drven. I don't find the paragraph's style or topic particularly amazing, but I read it fluently and got immersed in what the writer was saying, so as far as I'm concerned it's pretty good. And the context, I'm sure, contributed to the OP being so enamoured by it. Just look at the signature quote I have. It was one of the most emotional and poignant moments of "Kafka on the Shore", and I wanted to keep it with me for a while. Taken out of context like this, you could rip it apart and mock it's simplicity, clumsiness etc. And yet, in the book, it was perfection. I think it's important to remember this not just now, but in general when we critique posts in the workshop. I've seen a number of criticisms on excerpts from novels, that are working on the premise that the excerpt posted should have been a complete, beginning-middle-end, stand alone, self-explanatory short story. Not the same thing at all.
This is a really interesting discussion. I just finished a book by Shirley Jackson, and this was her opening paragraph: No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone. She uses most of this same paragraph at the end of the story as well, which you don't often see. Could I get an idea of what you all think of this one? She has a really unusual style, but it seems to lend itself well to creepiness.
@aikoaiko : I quite like it. First sentence is oblique and just a tad difficult, which pulls me in and forces me to pay atention to every word. It starts almost as a biology lesson, and then turns interesting at "and it might stand for eighty more". By the time I got to "floors were firm and doors were sensibly shut" I was hooked and "whatever walked there, walked alone" gave me chills, both creatively and mystery-wise.
I feel this way about my favorite novel, Dina's Book. It'd probably make any proclaimed and self-proclaimed writing guru balk, I'm afraid, as the style is quite cold, distancing, and perhaps even gaudy to some. But the context, the world it takes place in, everything just works wonderfully for me. There's a thread about Opening Paragraphs in Book Discussion, actually. I loved this novel.. In the opening paragraph, the sentences are long but flow well and evoke an eerie mood. I don't want to go into that house, but... I still do, dammit!
@KaTrian : I so want to read that book! But I kept hearing how the English translation lost some of it's essence. Did you try any English translations, and is there one you'd recommend?
I don't know if there are other translations than Nadia Christensen's. Something always gets lost in translation, but I have read the English and Finnish versions and felt that both of them worked. I can't read Norwegian 'cause even with some Swedish skills... It'd be infinitely slow going. I think the story itself stretches and expands beyond the words, and it can be told in several languages. It's funny but I have read neither of my favorite novels in their original languages (Dina is #1, Vigdis Grímsdóttir's 'Ég heiti Ísbjörg, ég er ljón' is #2, the latter hasn't been translated into English). The language, even the style can change once it's sifted through the translator's brains, but the story and the powerful characters remain.
@aikoaiko, I loved that book too. Although my favorite unit of text from it is probably even worse on its own: “I cannot perch for long on anything here; I skid.” (said by Luke) I think opening paragraphs are a bit easier to judge than ones taken from the middle of the book because when you first read the opening paragraph, you have no context: it's giving you the first hints of what the context will be whereas parts from the middle are written with the assumption that the reader already knows what has been revealed before it and can use it to place the text into its proper context. I'm not sure if the paragraph the OP posted was an opening, but I did prefer Jackson's. I've always been a visual reader, so I love it when the author has the skill to paint me a mental picture. I find that largely a matter of taste though; some prefer to fill in the gaps themselves (Zelany seems to cater more for that audience), even that the MC is not described at all or very little, very late (like Abercrombie's The Blade Itself), whereas some (like yours truly) want to be immersed in the author's vision and see their characters and their world like they do (to the degree that it's possible since perfection in that regard is, of course, impossible until we can actually link minds).
Yes. This. Absolutely. This is why I often mention that it's important to interact with the author when giving feedback. The only time we can helpfully critique out of context is if a person has posted opening paragraphs. In other words there IS no context yet, other that what those words provide. If it's an excerpt from within the story instead, the author seeking feedback should tell us what has gone before. Not only the plot, but give us an idea of the STYLE of what has gone before, whose POV they've used, etc. In other words, get us up to speed as much as possible, and make it clear we are NOT looking at an opener that requires a 'hook.' If they don't tell us this, we should ask. Otherwise, there's a great risk that everybody's time, including the critique-giver's, is going to be wasted by focusing on the wrong stuff.
I second everything @jazzabel and @jannert have said here. I that case, I have no bearing saying it again, particularly because it's come up in a couple of other discussions. Getting to the meatier portion here... I really like this opener, as well. It gives the reader a good sense of the tone of the book and of the writing. It has a little macabre to it. The construction is sound and it has a nice sort of rolling cadence, in my opinion. I can't pin point exactly how she achieved this, but I felt it. I love the alliteration of S, L, and W because it makes this section read very quietly too. There is a nice element of poeticism to it the just makes you enjoy the language and create the image of the house, but it asks you to slow down in order to do that--which is fine by me. I also dig the big slap in the face to everyone who ever said never use a semi-colon. She does so well three times in one paragraph. I didn't even notice them, at first. Although periods could have done the same job for some, I love how the semis connected the ideas, as if saying, "take a breath but not don't hold for too long because there's just a bit more." I also realize this paragraph is not everyone's cup of tea. I can imagine what criticism it might draw. But I like it for what it is, especially if I can have the time and patience to move through more sections like it. (Time and patience are two things that life today seems to asks much for but doesn't seem to reciprocate.)
Very well said! And I agree with everything here. Alliteration is, I suppose, one of Shirley Jackson's main tools, because she also uses it with H (Hill House; hills, holding) and F (floors were firm). I haven't read this book, but my roommate has a copy of it and I'm borrowing it! I like the point you make about the semicolons. This opening has one in each sentence, and the two paragraphs that follow each begin with a sentence containing a semicolon. Shirley Jackson is clearly a master of their use.
Good point, the alliteration of the F and H was so subtle that I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out (that is, aside from Hill House). I'll have to look this book up to find more. A mon avis, this is simply a gem of language!
I think it's interesting that good writing can often be defined by not knowing why it works. You can look at a story and see that its broken every rule in the book: too many semi-colons, mile-long sentences, and every unconventional description in between. Yet it works! Parts of this book were actually written in the stream-of-consciousness style, especially near the end. I was reading this together with my teenaged boys, and by the time we got to the end we weren't sure 1) what had happened, and 2) whether the main character was possessed or just losing her mind! Like all great books this one never did the work for is, we had to do it ourselves. Next I'll get a hold of her short story 'The Lottery,' which is actually her most famous work. I remember reading that one in college but I haven't seen it since.
I can only join the descending opinions: that paragraph sucks. It had maybe one good idea in it, which someone has already pointed out, about birds darkening trees, but that's literally it.
@aikoaiko, you've shed some light on a worthy topic. How much work should writers expect their audience to have to do? In today's world, as I said above, time and patience are two things that there's just too little of... those and love, sweet love... (sorry, couldn't help myself). In my poetry class, we discussed the question of how much you should expect readers to know for your poem to be effective. Someone wrote a beautiful elegy of Gabriel (Gabo) García Márquez, but only a few people recognized the references ad there was no other indication unless you knew "Gabo" was referring to Marquez. In fiction, how much work should you expect your readers to do to get your work. Older writing can be fairly dense. So can some today, but it's not widely popular. The populace seems to favor shorter relatively straightforward sentences. The emphasis is on the story, not the language. That's not to say the language is inherently bad or that the story and language have to be mutually exclusive, but readers today seem to hold language in less value. Granted, if what's being said doesn't make sense, you can't expect it to be considered good This is why it is so importance to consider what kind of audience you're writing for or what type of audience might best suit your writing. Then again, it might not be that important if you focus on making your writing clear and enjoyable. The question is how much you should consider what other people enjoy when you write? just something to think about. Answers are welcome though.
@Andrae Smith Isn't writing supposed to be about what you want to write? I was writing my novel and hit a wall at 56,000 words. It was literally a big brick wall. It felt like I was adding plot elements and plot points to expand the story. The problem is there's only so much character growth and action you can shove into a book. So I put it aside, aiming to focus on some non-fiction books for a week or two. Then I started reading some blog about descriptive writing. This guy hit me between the eyes. He does it in five levels. The fifth being ridiculously wordy but I write in level 1/2, whereas 3 just seemed so much more juicier. So I started hunting down Amazon books on descriptive writing. To answer your question, I don't entirely know. I think you need to tread the line between leaving everything to the readers imagination, and nothing to their imagination. I tended to avoid most of the senses in my scenes. One sense would prevail and the others got ignored. I realized I was leaving pretty much everything to their imagination. However a reader reads because they want to be taken away from reality. What is reality? To me reality is thinking. If someone reads they either want something they haven't got right now, or they don't want something they have right now (and this is usually mental, such as fear/worry/stress). If you give them too much then it's almost like slapping them in the face. Here's three examples off the top of my head. No information - I rode the train to my gradmothers, again. (The placement of the comma emphasises the word again. To me I imagine him thinking not again and rolls his eyes, however another reader might perceive it as Sweet I'm going to grandmas again. I hope she's baked those brownies again. God I love her brownies. Right amount of info - I rode the train to my grandmothers, again. Mother smiled at me. "It'll be fun." I rolled my eyes and watched green rolling hills finally give way to skyrises and apartments that reached for the clouds. Great, we're here. (In this, I've indicated that it won't be fun, but not why. I've also switched roles and had the character living in farmlands and her grandmother living in a highrise apartment, again why) Too much info - I rode the train to my grandmothers, again. I crinkled my nose as I imagined that ungodly perfume she wore. Rosemary, she called it. I called it putrid. Not to her face of course. Mother always made me come with her, and wouldn't even let me take my video game. (Here, I've pretty much converted a dot point summary into words and thoughts. My choice of words screams that my character does not like these trips one bit. I then explain why. That's just my take of course.
I'm impressed that he can throw a man into a high oak tree. Any dude that can do this probably doesn't need a blade.
The way I interpreted it was that the narrator is the Devil, or some reasonable approximation. He's chasing the other guy. The other guy is riding as though pursued by the Devil, "which he was." So the narrator is someone of great power, at the very least. He can take the guy easily without using his blade, even though the other guy is armed. It's not surprising, then, that he can hurl his broken body into a high oak tree. That bit actually seems phrased wrong to me. I would have put "hurled his broken body high into an oak tree" as opposed to "into a high oak tree." To me, "high" does not mean "tall." You can have a short oak tree that's growing high on a mountainside, and if I'm in the valley below, I'd call it a high oak tree. Short, but high. So if Zelazny wanted to suggest the oak tree is tall, then "high into an oak tree" is much clearer. I realize this level of detail is more than most writers consider, but they're pretty important to me.
While I fully understand the vast majority of people here for not liking paragraph in OP's post, I must make a certain notion for anyone that may, at any point, wander upon this thread while looking for inspiration, writing advice, etc, etc. Just because it looks wrong, doesn't make it bad. One must think this through when encountering a piece of writing that doesn't really flow in "how it should be" waters. First thing that everyone should be aware of is that this is not just a dud, or a first-draft remainder that editor missed. This is how the author writes. This is his style, and pretty much all of his work is written in this manner. And it is a style that brought all the prestigious awards that a genre writer can win to Zelazny, brought them on multiple occasions, made him a top class SF writer with a style that influenced even the likes of G.R.Martin. The style is strange, may even seem wrong, but should we really try to change it? Are we drowning it then? I honestly believe that Zelazny fought many battles against editors for his early work, but he obviously won them and got to the point were he had a number of his stories published as first-draft. That literally means he wrote the way he wanted, not caring for those who may not like it, and was still able to maintain his status as a great SF writer. My point is, if a writer has a voice, and that voice is enjoyed by many, no matter how strange it may sound, changing it is sacrilege. Once again, I am writing this because I am concerned that some aspiring author with potential to form a voice of his own, may come here and think that he should bind his wings into what sounds correct. I personally, would never try to dissect and correct something that is strange to me, if that something is the work of someone much greater than me. I would only dissect it to get into that someone's mind and learn, no matter if it's to my personal liking or not. We can learn a lot, even from a piece we don't like. Especially from a piece we don't like.
The way I see it, the body wasn't thrown high into the tree; the body was simply thrown into a tree that happened to be tall. For all we know, the body could be hanging from the lowest branch. Maybe Zelazny was ambiguous on purpose. I don't know.
OK, enough is enough. It’s time to step into the breach and defend my paragraph! Having been exposed to a book and a half of the MC’s superhuman exploits by this point, this is what I understood by the paragraph: I rode on, and it was not long before I overtook him, Obvious. riding as though he were pursued by the Devil, He was shit scared. which he was. And he certainly should have been shit scared because when you have made a god your enemy, he becomes a devil. I spoke not a word when I unhorsed him, Because this scum merited not a single word of mine. nor afterward, He was saying things like “Come on Corwin, she was a mere harlot! Can’t we come to some sort of arrangement? Ow!”, but I didn’t dignify him with a reply. and I did not use my blade, though he drew his own. I’m so hard that I don’t need to use my blade on someone like this. Drawing my sword would be treating him as an equal, whereas I’m a prince of Amber and this guy is beneath contempt. I hurled his broken body into a high oak tree, I spent a good while beating him up and snapping his bones and so on and so forth, but I was still pretty angry when he was dead so I used my full strength to throw him really high up. Imagine how hard it would be to throw someone high up into a tree – that’s how angry I was. OK, what kind of tree? Maple? Definitely not. Apple? Don’t be ridiculous. Aha! Oak sounds nice and poetic. and when I looked back it was dark with birds. Crow/vulture food – that’s what this guy deserves to be. Fantastic imagery too. I love “I hurled his broken body into a high oak tree”. Changing it to “tall oak tree” or “high into an oak tree” disrupts the pattern totally. This is not a perfect comparison, but when I first read Poe’s awesome line “It is the beating of his hideous heart!”, I seem to remember thinking the phrasing was odd. One might initially expect “It is the hideous beating of his heart!”, or a word other than hideous, but it just wouldn’t sound as strong or as good.
As I mentioned above, changing the phrasing in this case actually changes the meaning of the sentence. To use the Poe example, "beating of his hideous heart" is not the same as "the hideous beating of his heart." In the first case, "hideous" is modifying "heart," and in the second case, it's modifying "beating." Those are two different things.
I like it. I like the, contentious to most here, use of ', which he was.' I think it nicely subverts the cliche of the guy fleeing as if being chased by the devil, and it gives us a sense that the narrator is more than human. The switch from before to after the killing, without any description of the event itself, is great too. Dark with birds - fantastic!
