Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
The linked article describes the books as "Two influential, if woefully under-read, American classics". I think the "under-read" aspect may well be the result of seeming immaturity in the writing. I would find it hard to recommend either of these book to others to read; they're interesting but they're not that well written.
Do you think that assessment (as it relates to Passing) is too harsh?
|
No, I don't think it's too harsh; I was going to post along similar lines after a bit.
Passing has that flaw of many first novels of being grossly overwritten. A good editor, or even a keen eye early on who alerted Larsen to the flaw, could have made a difference. I found the style rather off-putting from the start and then got to this:
Quote:
|
pouring the rich amber fluid from the tall glass pitcher into stately slim glasses
|
It's just iced tea; no need to make such a song and dance about it. And what the heck is a "stately glass"?
I was done for after that; I'll just mention my contention for worst of all, when Clare's dress was described as being made of "priceless velvet." Well, unless Clare stole the fabric from the Velvet Louvre, she most certainly paid for it and it had a price.
So it wasn't just the common flaw of too many adjectives and adverbs; the injudicious selection of words compounded the situation. This created a jarring note for me throughout the book.