Today I picked up vols. three and four of an old edition of Harrap's New Standard French and English Dictionary for free. Unfortunately, it is only the English-French half, but I'm not going to complain. It's big. When I returned to give away a pile of my own books for free [do not worry, Gentle Reader, they were abominable books which I had picked up for free ages ago], I noticed a trade paperback of Neal Stephenson's
Quicksilver there, free for the taking. I pondered: should I? On the one hand, it is free. On the other, I only have so much room for books and every additional one would be that much more hassle. Besides, I would probably give up reading it in frustration. I finally decided not to pick it up, the reasons are many.
WHY NEAL STEPHENSON IS A HACK- He does not know how to end a book. One need not even cite examples.
- He does not know how to edit his books to make them readable. I don't mind verbose writers. Dickens usually deserved to be paid by the word. Neal Stephenson is not Dickens. His prose is not beautiful. It is not particularly interesting. Those are forgivable sins if the story is good, and Mr. Stephenson often makes the story good, but he also makes the story long. Long in a way which does not add to the art. Cryptonomicon was barely worth reading on that account. If one had read the ending [see above] before finishing the book, it would have been a wash.
- Slashbots and other g**ks dig him. A lot.
And but like so I did not pick the book up. I'm considering putting my Spong on the pile, but who would pick it up? I don't want it, but it's safe in my hands. So, I think I will only lose four books. Even that broke my heart. Farewell,
Shipping News! Adieu,
Thousand Acres! We hardly knew ye, Elmore Leonard books! Now you know why I got rid of them.
3 comments:
This is the second Neal Stephenson is a hack post I've seen in the last two months.
Frankly, the end of System of the World was worth any of Stephenson's hackishness. Dickens was a hack. Twain was a hack. Defoe was a hack. Trollope was a hack, but one can be a hack and still be a good novelist. Hackishness is a style rather than anything substantive.
You possess Spong?
re: System of the World. Well, perhaps it would be worth it, then. I might reconsider if he actually was able to end a book properly.
re: Dickens, Twain, Defoe. Heresy! Heresy! I mean hackishness in the non-stylistic way, the way where you don't have prose-smithing or editorial talent and thus give in to the temptation of bloat.
re: Spong. I have his Change or Die book, I picked it up for free one day. I ceremonially deny him fruit using the book.
Post a Comment