Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Informative and entertaining, 15 Mar 2009
Amidst the dozens if not hundreds of 'books about books' or literary theory I found Mullan's work a very refreshing read. True enough, it shows that it is based on Mullan's weekly articles for The Guardian and was not from the very beginning conceived of and planned as a book as such, but that doesn't detract from the informed and insightful way Mullan treats his subject matter. On the contrary, I found it all the more easy to read and - if need be - lay aside for a while to resume reading some days or weeks later, as all the pieces are 'bite-sized'.
In a little over 80 articles, as diverse as 'the anti-hero', 'weather', 'plot' or 'intertextuality', Mullan treats the following subjects:
- Beginning
- Narrating
- People
- Genre
- Voices
- Structure
- Detail
- Style
- Devices
- Literariness
- Ending
By no means will you find in this book an exhaustive treatment of the above-subjects, but all in all this still is a very good book to give you a good enough grasp of 'how novels work' to read them with all the more pleasure afterwards.
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The laypersons guide to the novel., 27 Oct 2008
This book is aimed directly at the interested reader as opposed to the scholar and works better for it. Of course, some will want deeper links to literary theory and a gretaer range of discussion but if, like so many, you read novels for pleasure as opposed to study and simply wish to know a little more as to how writers create the effects and emotions they do, then this is the book for you.
John Mullan does a superb job of guiding you through certain techniques used by writers to present their stories. Any complex theories are alluded to in clear, understandable language. For some this may dilute the quality but again, this book is aimed at the more 'general reader' who is perhaps less interested in the complexities of the theory itself and more interested in why the novels they read work as they do.
I would recommend this to any reader of fiction who is perplexed at how writers are able to move us as they do.
|
|
|
9 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A book about how novels work that doesn't, 15 Oct 2008
In his introduction John Mullan makes the important point that "space for quotation is one of the necessary privileges of criticism" and promises "to show how a critical vocabulary can make our opinions lucid." Unfortunately, my initial and perhaps somewhat naive enthusiasm that I was about to learn a whole lot of new and exciting things about how novels work soon deflated into indifference as I read on: the quotations rarely sparked my interest and the only critical vocabulary around was generated by me.
Anyone who's tried to write a review of a novel for this website knows how hard it can be. The difficulty lies in finding even a few hundred words to do justice to a few hundred thousand, to figure out why it either did or didn't work. In going from one novel to the whole of literature, the task not only becomes daunting for even someone as obviously well-read as Mullan. It also risks losing that personal edge. Mullan has the luxury of over 300 pages and focuses on the mechanics of "narrating", "voices", "structure", etc., but to what end? Although technical reasons might sometimes explain why a particular novel fails to grab us, it's doubtful they can adequately account for a novel's capacity to engage us emotionally as well as intellectually. It is telling that "emotion" does not appear in the index and does not feature as a section heading (while those perennial concerns of many readers - "Intertextuality" and "Heteroglossia" - do). Hamlet caught the mystery of how fiction works when he wondered how Hecuba could make the player weep. This book is more of a Hamlyn guide to the gearbox.
Mullan draws on a wide range of authors, and there is always the danger of dilution to the point of superficiality, if not absurdity. For example, he introduces Carol Shields as "a modern observer of ordinary women". Within a few lines, however, we learn that the "eldest of Reta's three daughters" in her novel "Unless" has dropped out of university and become a silent beggar. Hardly "ordinary". Elsewhere, he claims that literary novelists such as Julian Barnes and Iain Banks "often dabble in genre fiction - for the sales". No evidence from the authors is presented for this view, and it doesn't ring true. (In fact, I think Iain Banks tried getting his science fiction published without success until he broke through with the bestselling and "literary" Wasp Factory - the complete opposite of what Mullan is claiming.)
At one point I felt sorry that he has to read books (sorry, "texts") of literary theory on grim topics like narratology. (Such books, apparently, "often contain diagrams of the narratives they analyse".) Mullan's dry response to Mieke Bal's stunning insight that the "character is not a human being, but it resembles one" is "Just so." By including such an asinine remark in the first place, however, he accords it too much respect. Perhaps academic literary theorists - inappropriately aping the the third-person objectivity of the physical sciences - sacrifice their subjective responses and are afraid to talk about what really matters, which is whether a novel touches your soul or leaves you cold. The irony is, reading any decent scientist on how atoms work, how the mind works, how language works, will leave you both fascinated by the subject and envious of their profession. You will also be in no doubt that they love their work. The terrible conclusion after reading even a few chapters of "How Novels Work" is that, if this is what constitutes "understanding" in the world of literary criticism, I'd rather remain in ignorance.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|