“Do not fear mistakes. There are none.”
That’s one of those great inspirational quotes. I had a good day of writing and I thought this was a good thing to sum up some of the things I meshed together today. Some of the work I thought had no purpose, just another draft on some night that got saved and waited to find a place somewhere.
(from Wikipedia on Arthur Rimbaud) Wishing for new poetic forms and ideas, he wrote:
I say that one must be a seer, make oneself a seer. The poet makes himself a seer by a long, prodigious, and rational disordering of all the senses. Every form of love, of suffering, of madness; he searches himself, he consumes all the poisons in him, and keeps only their quintessences. This is an unspeakable torture during which he needs all his faith and superhuman strength, and during which he becomes the great patient, the great criminal, the great accursed – and the great learned one! – among men. – For he arrives at the unknown! Because he has cultivated his own soul – which was rich to begin with – more than any other man! He reaches the unknown; and even if, crazed, he ends up by losing the understanding of his visions, at least he has seen them! Let him die charging through those unutterable, unnameable things: other horrible workers will come; they will begin from the horizons where he has succumbed!
I want someone to reply or comment on this post with their review of Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. I started in on it a few days ago. It’s going to take a while, but I think it’s awesome so far–such dense prose, ambitious, and technical, complex. I like that. I also like Hemingway’s terse prose. I like both of their styles the most, I think. They are both influencing me heavily on how I write my third person works. I admire Pynchon’s complexity and love of punctuation, yet I love the times when you need to slow things down, be terse, and romanticize an experience the way Hemingway does. Now, back to Gravity’s Rainbow. As I said before, I want someone to comment or reply on this post and tell me what they thought of that novel, WITHOUT SPOILERS, because I’m still reading the book. Oh, and I read The Crying of Lot 49 , and I thought it was a cool book.
I might as well write a review of this book, since it’s what I read before A Clockwork Orange . So, I read Waste by Eugene Marten. It was a short read, and a little bit of a thriller if I can call it that. Hell, I can call it whatever I want really. I liked that it was short, and nothing was wasted. Some people are turned off by short books. I saw it as a good reason to tackle right away. I admit I debated on what to read next for a while, after finishing Metropole by Ferenc Karinthy.
There won’t be any spoilers in this review. I just tell you that nothing was truly wasted in this story (play on words, ha!). I loved it. I read the reviews on the book before reading it and they made me want to read it a little more. Urgency, urgency! They also said nothing was wasted. Sometimes things are a little vague yet specific at the same time, and I know that seems contradictory, but it’s true. This one can’t be spoiled, and shouldn’t be, because it’s so interesting how a story can be made interesting, when it deals with a janitor, and well, trash. I snagged this little thing at the Brooklyn Book Festival. Get it. That’s all I wanted to say.
What I thought of A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess:
Perhaps a review is in order for A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. I can’t say I really liked this novel that much. I find the main character/narrator someone of annoyance, but then again I guess he was supposed to be that way. He’s a kid, and a little devil at that. I do like that he changes in the end (seemingly). That makes him dynamic. Burgess mentioned that the American version of his novel excluded the last chapter in which the protagonist changes for the ‘better’. He doesn’t disclose the reason that the chapter was excluded. My guess is it was a publishing matter. That’s the ugly thing about publishing I guess. Maybe his editor thought it would be a better sell if that last chapter were excluded. Burgess makes a good point that it’s not a story if the character doesn’t change. That’s arguable, and I won’t get into it here. I’m a young one in the game of literature so I’ll stand back. I’ve got years to go before I get better at the whole thing, reading and writing.
The language in the novel is something difficult, and it gets annoying at times when you’re looking for a great description, partly because you have to remember what some of these made up words mean. It’s a slang, I guess you could call it, called Nadsat. I admit that it does get crafty in some of the descriptions, being that it extends beyond just replacing normal English nouns as Burgess uses the funky argot to replace adjectives as well. For most of the novel Nadsat was mostly replacing nouns, and that wasn’t enough. It was annoying most of the time, but I say again, crafty as well.
The level of violence was scary, and dark, and intended to be so. Every night was a night of adventure for the so called droogs of Alex (narrator/protagonist) and his friends. They go around destroying things and harming people to their own amusement for no reason at all really, and that’s an obvious point of the novel. It’s one of the characteristics of youth Burgess tries to point out: youth is like a bestial mode of the life cycle, lacking in higher purpose and thinking (maybe), or reasoning capability. Maybe that’s the best way I can word it. I’m not editing this thing, so, moving along. The descriptive violence was something memorable. I think I can speak that funky language slang now and make reference to it because it’s so violent and almost impossible to forget.
I gave it 3/5 on goodreads.