Tuesday, July 01, 2008

*sigh*

Okay, so writing-wise, Paul Dies is better than Bob Dies. "You can see the growth of maturity between them," I think somebody said. Heck, you can see the growth of maturity in my writing in the one book. I mean, come on. In the beginning, things happen to him about twice a sentence. Then at the end, we get a bit of dialogue and rest and it's a different tone. Why didn't I have an editor??

However, it seems the 'randomness', or rather, the inconsistency of BD is what people liked about it. Should I just continue to write like it's 2 AM and/or there are several weeks in between sentences? (Meaning the one is hardly related to its neighbor.) I dunno. I am/was rather prouder of PD than of BD, but now I'm just confused.

9 comments:

  1. Personally, I liked Paul Dies better because it seemed to flow better... in Bob Dies, it just seemed like you wrote whatever popped into your head, while for the other it seemed like you took the time to carefully think about what was going to happen to Paul before he died. I'm sure that's partially because it was written as a poem, and poems take longer and need more thought to write.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh good. That is sorta how I wrote Bob Dies; I wasn't really sure how to go about it, so I went with whatever worked quickest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As the sign in the hotel put it, "Whatever you are, be a good one". :P

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, whose to say you can't have fluidity and randomness at the same time? Now I'm revealing my ignorance, by referring to the only postmodern writer I've spent any time with, and who isn't even in the same genre as what you do, but you evoke thoughts of Jacques Derrida for me when I read your work. In other words--it's really good. Not just Paul Dies, but some of your longer blog posts, too. Maybe picking up some postmodern literature and philosophy would help the maturing process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another note to Rachel D.: It's hard to judge how much you like something when the reaction to the first was over the internet. Anyway, somebody else read and commented immediately afterward: "Bob Dies was better."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe that person didn't know Paul. I like "Paul Dies" better for various reasons... partly because I was actually in on more of the jokes in it and because I knew Paul better than I knew Bob. AND because Paul bugged me more. Paul Dies makes more sense in way that's just as crazy as BD.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anan: That person knew/knows Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Author MaggieJuly 05, 2008 12:21 AM

    Anan: This is, of course, the author Maggie. :P

    ReplyDelete
  9. I liked both of them; and I don't know how fair it is to compare them. Yes, Paul Dies exhibits more signs of literary merit than Bob Dies, but the random 2 AM-ness was what gave BD its charm. You couldn't do the same thing again, however, for numerous reasons. (You could try for the same thing again, and get close, but it just wouldn't actually be the same. Which is why I think it was an excellent choice to change styles for PD. My point, originally, was that comparing BD and PD is actually akin to comparing poetry and prose.

    Moria's point is a good one, too. You CAN have randomness (or seeming randomness) with a logical flow... or at least a flow... to it. The easiest example I can think of would be Monty Python: they go from Owl Stretching Time to How Not To Be Seen to The Argument Clinic with seeming randomness: however, there is a flow to it, that can best be described as stream-of-consciousness. So if you were to go back and edit BD to be more "literary" (which would be a very bad idea), you might put those connections in. Or, um, something.

    ...My two cents' worth of rambling, for what it's worth.

    ReplyDelete