the book i was trying to read is mediocre. perhaps i should spend more time elucidating on my favorite writers and what it is particular to their style that i find so alluring. but fuck that. i tend to think it is some sort of poetry of the language, but not in any standard form. i feel too many authors spend too long listing details of appearance so as to “paint a picture” with words. there is a way to write dialogue that skips over this process and delivers an image that goes beyond description. plus, i’m reading a fuckin book. if it ain’t super relevant to the story, describe as little as possible. my imagination works. douglas adams barely described shit, except when he had to, and when the description itself was of value, like talkin bout vogons or something. neil gaiman can just write a sentence about a character and you go “oh yeah that’s pmuch the best way you could say that within the confines of language, good job bro”. hunter s thompson wrote great stuff about what should have been done with nixon’s corpse.
really though when it comes to a book, i’m much more concerned with how the story is told than the story itself. cause, i mean, every story has been told. they are all the same when you get down to it. when someone writes well, they don’t even need to be writing about anything in particular. i’m in.
anyways patrick rothfuss’ “the kingkiller chronicles” was pretty good i enjoyed it