I know this is a little difficult without context, but I’m trying to read a well-known novel (spoilered below) and this sentence is typical of the writing style. What do you think?
The novel is Philip Roth’s American Pastoral
I like it fine. It’s some very careful word choice, and some nice turns of phrase. Some people would probably find it excessively wordy or feel that the vocabulary was too difficult, but I do mostly academic reading or stuff like Calvino, Ondaatje, Eco, etc.
No idea who this guy is, FWIW (I mean, I’ve heard of him, but no real exposure. After reading this sentence I’d be more likely to pick this book up)
Did he really say “who’s” instead of “whose?” Hard to imagine a professional writer would make such a goof, and that it would get by the editor.
On the opinion front, I find the style tedious.
Yeah, the “who’s” struck me as well.
I’ve read Roth, and he’s ok, but you have to expect this sort of wordiness if you want to read him. If you want to read a book of his that’s a little more approachable, try Portnoy’s Complaint. It’s hilarious, and very readable.
I dislike it. It reads like a text book.
It’s okay, but he sounds a bit full of himself in a oooh-look-at-me-I-can-use-all-of-these-big-words kind of way. And I am also surprised that he would use “who’s” instead of whose. Not that I mind intellectual discourse, but a person’s eye needs rest places, so to have more of a comfortable “reading rhythm,” sentences need to have more balance.
Of course there’s no real way to tell what kind of writing he actually does just from one sentence.
If I read it aloud I can almost enjoy it - I might enjoy it thoroughly as an audiobook. If I try to read it silently to myself, my eyes slide over the lack of punctuation and the plurality of modifiers, and I don’t understand it at all.
I had to force myself to finish even that brief excerpt. I can’t imagine reading an entire book in that tedious style. And yeah, it should have been “whose.”
It’s not what I usually read, but I like it fine. It would take me longer to read than usual, though.
Far too over the top. I wouldn’t want to read a book written entirely like that.
As to the “who’s” / “whose” issue, I’m already at work this morning and don’t have the book with me, but I will double check myself when I get home tonight. I copied it by hand (obviously) and it’s possible the error was mine.
As to the style, I posted it because I found it slightly arrogant and pretty tedious to read. I’m enjoying the story so far and will continue to read it, but it’s not an easy book to read before bedtime. It takes a lot of concentration.
He’s hardly using any “big” or difficult words; not in that extract anyway. What words are “big” there? “Rebelliousness” is the longest; “rectitude” possibly the most obscure. Neither is likely to be beyond anyone who’s ever read a book.
I took that phrase to mean that the “way” the author wrote was in a “oooh-look-at-me-I-can-use-all-of-these-big-words” kind. Not that the author actually used big words.
To answer the OP: I find the passage awkward and difficult to read. My mind had difficulty with the image of taking a taboo between my teeth, for one. It just doesn’t lend itself to smooth reading.
I don’t care for it.
It seems badly edited. Poor use of punctuation and bad sentence structure keeps it from flowing.
And isn’t that the editors job?
I read it ounce and thought: “Sheesh!”, but then I read it again, more “out loud” in my head and that actually makes a big difference.
Granted the voice in my head still sounded like Niles or Fraser Krane, but I think a vocal cadence helps. It would give me a headache to read a book in that style though, I’m not one of the sound-it-out-in-your-head readers typically.
ETA: I think it’s the kind of thing where, as you read along, you get used to it so it starts to flow better. (Would still bug me though).
It’s hard to judge out of context; maybe by that point in the book, if you’re into the characters and story, the style would flow smoothly through your mind’s ear. But taken by itself, it does read more like an essay than an enjoyable fictonal character’s narrative voice.
Also, I imagine there’s something concrete in the character’s life that gives the paragraph a personal context.
The only Roth I’ve read was Portnoy’s Complaint, which I remember (from thirty-something years ago) as being in an almost stream-of-consciousness style, but very accessible and entertaining.
Well somebody must’ve liked it; it won the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. It’s also on the list of Time Magazine’s 100 All-Time Best Novels (1923 - 2005). More quotes can be found here.
Ok, I searched on Google Books and found the passage I quoted. He does say “whose.” My apologies to Mr. Roth.
Count me in with the lot that considers it workable if we hear it written out in our heads.
At first I went ‘buh,’ at the modifiers and such, but tried again, picturing it spoken out loud instead of written, and that worked.
That said, I’ve read books that did the ‘spoken novel voice’ much better.
Moved from IMHO to CS.