In all seriousness, Pasternak is an extremely bad writer - the only thing that makes him even partially interesting is his subject matter, which is the story of a man versus the system. Haven't much better writers covered this same topic, though? Isn't this one of the key conflicts they teach you in elementary school? It doesn't matter whether the system is Communist or Democratic or whatever label you want to slap on it (like a fool) - any system can and will hurt some people. That doesn't mean we should read some 600-page atrocity just to get a heavily overdone message.
Do you know why Dr. Zhivago sucks? Because of the heavily descriptive writing style and the flat, boring characters.
I'd say more, but I think this quote says it better than I ever could; seeing that it comes from a famous writer that we're studying, I think it's especially appropriate for discussion in English.
I think descriptions of nature should be very short and always be à propos. Commonplaces like "The setting sun, sinking into the waves of the darkening sea, cast its purple gold rays, etc," "Swallows, flitting over the surface of the water, twittered gaily" — eliminate such commonplaces. You have to choose small details in describing nature, grouping them in such a way that if you close your eyes after reading it you can picture the whole thing. For example, you'll get a picture of a moonlit night if you write that on the dam of the mill a piece of broken bottle flashed like a bright star and the black shadow of a dog or a wolf rolled by like a ball, etc. ... In the realm of psychology you also need details. God preserve you from commonplaces. Best of all, shun all descriptions of the characters' spiritual state. You must try to have that state emerge clearly from their actions. Don't try for too many characters. The center of gravity should reside in two: he and she. ~Chekhov
No comments:
Post a Comment