Scan barcode
ipanzica's review against another edition
3.0
I think this book had some good insights into the way books are written. Another thing that I liked about this book is that there was no fluff in this book and it got to the point using examples from famous books. Though I did not like that this book has some spoilers in it for other books. For example, I am not very happy about finding out one of the characters I like in War and Peace dies, since I wanted to enjoy that book without any spoilers.
donasbooks's review
3.0
Instagram Review: http://www.instagram.com/p/CFDamC1gZAa/
After I read [b:Summer|269528|Summer|Edith Wharton|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1418788209l/269528._SY75_.jpg|3140028], I fell in love with [a:Edith Wharton|16|Edith Wharton|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1484512230p2/16.jpg] as a writer and a representative of her era. So many of the male literary giants of her era -- Hemingway, Fitzgerald -- wrote in such gaunt styles. The popularity of this "clarity" persists in contemporary literature. But Wharton, who won the Pulitzer for [b:The Age of Innocence|53835|The Age of Innocence|Edith Wharton|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388248423l/53835._SY75_.jpg|1959512], wrote in a lush style, perhaps what some today might consider verbose. But I love the unspooling sentences, the fearless use of descriptors. And so I thought I would love her book on writing, The Writing of Fiction.
However, I found that Wharton spent more time bloviating about the conventions of writing (many of which are now out of date anyway) than discussing the elements of writing. When she does get down to the meat of the matter, the material is interesting and useful -- mostly.
There are five section in this book, and of those, only "II: Telling a Short Story" and "IV: Character and Situation in the Novel" are of particular use to contemporary writers. If a writer is diligent and curious enough and wants good material for an unusual form of novel, they might choose to wade through "III: Constructing a Novel."
All said, this text didn't hold up well for its age while other books on writing from the same era did. I loved Hemingway's [b:A Moveable Feast|4631|A Moveable Feast|Ernest Hemingway|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1427463201l/4631._SX50_.jpg|2459084], and I don't even have a warm relationship with Hemingway. I also appreciate Brenda Ueland's [b:If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit|248954|If You Want to Write A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit|Brenda Ueland|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388202674l/248954._SY75_.jpg|3065140], published in 1938. Neither of these texts replaces Wharton's, though; so be careful choosing to omit it from your studies.
Be safe out there my fellow creatives! Everyone remember your masks and watch your hands. Stay bookish, stay resilient!
After I read [b:Summer|269528|Summer|Edith Wharton|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1418788209l/269528._SY75_.jpg|3140028], I fell in love with [a:Edith Wharton|16|Edith Wharton|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1484512230p2/16.jpg] as a writer and a representative of her era. So many of the male literary giants of her era -- Hemingway, Fitzgerald -- wrote in such gaunt styles. The popularity of this "clarity" persists in contemporary literature. But Wharton, who won the Pulitzer for [b:The Age of Innocence|53835|The Age of Innocence|Edith Wharton|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388248423l/53835._SY75_.jpg|1959512], wrote in a lush style, perhaps what some today might consider verbose. But I love the unspooling sentences, the fearless use of descriptors. And so I thought I would love her book on writing, The Writing of Fiction.
However, I found that Wharton spent more time bloviating about the conventions of writing (many of which are now out of date anyway) than discussing the elements of writing. When she does get down to the meat of the matter, the material is interesting and useful -- mostly.
There are five section in this book, and of those, only "II: Telling a Short Story" and "IV: Character and Situation in the Novel" are of particular use to contemporary writers. If a writer is diligent and curious enough and wants good material for an unusual form of novel, they might choose to wade through "III: Constructing a Novel."
All said, this text didn't hold up well for its age while other books on writing from the same era did. I loved Hemingway's [b:A Moveable Feast|4631|A Moveable Feast|Ernest Hemingway|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1427463201l/4631._SX50_.jpg|2459084], and I don't even have a warm relationship with Hemingway. I also appreciate Brenda Ueland's [b:If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit|248954|If You Want to Write A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit|Brenda Ueland|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388202674l/248954._SY75_.jpg|3065140], published in 1938. Neither of these texts replaces Wharton's, though; so be careful choosing to omit it from your studies.
Be safe out there my fellow creatives! Everyone remember your masks and watch your hands. Stay bookish, stay resilient!
steveatwaywords's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
Wharton's work makes clear her expertise as both an erudite reader and master crafter of fiction--at least for its time. As the modernist novel rises in popularity around her a century ago, we can almost imagine the brickwork she is laying in defense of more traditional craftsmanship.
And it is difficult to fault her criteria: tight prose, efficient length, necessary action, and the like: all the qualities that have ever made for the traditional finely-honed classic work. Along the way she cites thoroughly and wonderfully the works of James, Defoe, Flaubert, Hugo, Tolstoy, and others. The final chapters are devoted almost exclusively to the epic (though at her writing still incomplete) Proust.
Where the work suffers is the categorizations of prose (the novel of manners, the short story, etc.), the names of which are--even in her own arguments--too limiting to illuminate her points. Over and over, while her fundamental advice is sound, she finds hybrids and exceptions to her previous declarations of form and type. That Aristotelian urge to classify once again works to over-simplify, and this from a mind who clearly understands the subtlety of works.
Between this and her (understandably) conservative resistance to new forms emerging, a prejudice she does not expound or examine overmuch but which nonetheless is clear from her opening remarks, possibly even justifying the writing of the book itself, the book is merely an interesting read for its analyses of authors. As a book on the contemporary writing of fiction, however, we may learn little from it.
And it is difficult to fault her criteria: tight prose, efficient length, necessary action, and the like: all the qualities that have ever made for the traditional finely-honed classic work. Along the way she cites thoroughly and wonderfully the works of James, Defoe, Flaubert, Hugo, Tolstoy, and others. The final chapters are devoted almost exclusively to the epic (though at her writing still incomplete) Proust.
Where the work suffers is the categorizations of prose (the novel of manners, the short story, etc.), the names of which are--even in her own arguments--too limiting to illuminate her points. Over and over, while her fundamental advice is sound, she finds hybrids and exceptions to her previous declarations of form and type. That Aristotelian urge to classify once again works to over-simplify, and this from a mind who clearly understands the subtlety of works.
Between this and her (understandably) conservative resistance to new forms emerging, a prejudice she does not expound or examine overmuch but which nonetheless is clear from her opening remarks, possibly even justifying the writing of the book itself, the book is merely an interesting read for its analyses of authors. As a book on the contemporary writing of fiction, however, we may learn little from it.
sambria's review
4.0
i enjoyed it more than i thought i was going to, although it's very much of a different century.
bab's review
2.0
Quite interesting and scholarly, providing some historical insight and some nice practical tips too, but ultimately disappointing, for several reasons.
To begin with, according to Mrs. Wharton the whole history of all proper literature comes from and is restricted to British, French, perhaps Russian, and then a few American writers. She mentions Goethe here and there, in passing, and that's all. No actual credit whatsoever to any other writers from any other nationalities –the Anglo-Saxon and the French, with some help from some Russians, apparently did everything.
Also, she argues the novel is the supreme form of literature, and disregards the short story and the novella as lesser forms, less capable of complexity and insight, stuff for losers that lack the skills to write long novels. Makes you wonder what her opinions on poetry might have been...
And then she goes on to pontificate on the innate genius of some writers as the whole explanation for their, well, genius (she uses the word genius far too much), and about "natural born readers" vs. "mechanical readers", the latter never to be able to reach or become the former (?) and instead the ultimate culprits of the decadence and destruction of modern literature... and, well, she just keeps going, just being similarly arbitrary and categorical about everything.
So – quite a few good points, half-ruined by quite a few notions that are completely bollocks. Writings that I assume were already debatable back then, and that haven't aged well at all. In the end, a great exercise in perception, perspective, and judgement – for every sentence can be insightful, brilliant, and substantially true, or instead a beautiful pile of stool in disguise. For the attentive, discerning reader (mind your step).
To begin with, according to Mrs. Wharton the whole history of all proper literature comes from and is restricted to British, French, perhaps Russian, and then a few American writers. She mentions Goethe here and there, in passing, and that's all. No actual credit whatsoever to any other writers from any other nationalities –the Anglo-Saxon and the French, with some help from some Russians, apparently did everything.
Also, she argues the novel is the supreme form of literature, and disregards the short story and the novella as lesser forms, less capable of complexity and insight, stuff for losers that lack the skills to write long novels. Makes you wonder what her opinions on poetry might have been...
And then she goes on to pontificate on the innate genius of some writers as the whole explanation for their, well, genius (she uses the word genius far too much), and about "natural born readers" vs. "mechanical readers", the latter never to be able to reach or become the former (?) and instead the ultimate culprits of the decadence and destruction of modern literature... and, well, she just keeps going, just being similarly arbitrary and categorical about everything.
So – quite a few good points, half-ruined by quite a few notions that are completely bollocks. Writings that I assume were already debatable back then, and that haven't aged well at all. In the end, a great exercise in perception, perspective, and judgement – for every sentence can be insightful, brilliant, and substantially true, or instead a beautiful pile of stool in disguise. For the attentive, discerning reader (mind your step).
More...