I finished Big Sur today, and it had me wondering just now (while in kitchen standing and drinking a cup of tea), what the heck makes ‘good writing’ and bad writing anyway? I don’t know the answer. I just know my answer. My answer is that it’s a combination of things: of prose style, of form, and the conveyance of ideas. It’s all of that. I can’t say I am deeply in love with Jack Kerouac and his work, but I am a fan of his style of writing. It’s almost as if the writing shouldn’t even be prose. It’s so poetic. If you don’t know what I mean when I say that, just read On The Road and Big Sur and you’ll understand (I think). Albert Camus’ writing wasn’t deeply complicated when you analyse the prose itself, but the prose itself, the way he told the story he was telling, and the form of the story he used to connect it all is utterly fantastic, and I like him for that. He is one of few authors I’ve read multiple works from. In fact, I’ll be re-reading The Stranger now that I’ve finished Big Sur
I’m no longer saying that ‘I liked this…” or “I liked that…” I’m more into saying “I liked this because…” or “I liked it for…” which is a good way for me to look at things. There are few things, in this case writing, that I read and by the time I’m finished I can say ‘Man, I loved that book.’ A Tale of Two Cities is one of few, and a remarkable work, but I’m not going to get into it. I read that book a long time ago, and I was into saying “I just love that book,” at the time. I still feel that way about that book, but no more analyzing things like that. It’s tired and inaccurate, and I’m all about accuracy. I like to pinpoint the things I like and dislike, rather than considering the whole, and for me to consider the whole would take a long pause in a conversation that would really suck, for me and especially the blessed soul that has to listen to me.