What do you think?
Rate this book


319 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 26, 2016
Repetition is different from redundancy. Don't strain yourself looking for synonyms... Think of repetition as a drumbeat. Somehow, a marching drummer can repeat a rhythm countless times without making it sound tedious. After a while, the rhythm becomes unnoticeable, almost like a heartbeat. But it must be done for effect and with a purpose. Beware of those times when you unintentionally repeat a word or image. Readers will judge you as inattentive.Essentially, this book teaches analysis. It argues for very close readings of famous texts - very close; at one point Clark points out the omitting of the word "the" prior to "leaves" in a paragraph by Hemingway, and how that omission acts as a spotlight on that particular instance of the word "leaves."
In college, I wrote a paper describing Roth's Goodbye, Columbus as an "anti-Jewish Jewish novel." I could say something similar about Joyce's narrative on Irish Catholicism and Rushdie's view of Islam in The Satanic Verses, for which he received officially sanctioned threats of assassination.This book simultaneously argues that writers are both deliberate and instinctive, and that certain techniques are universal because they're effective (whether deliberately done or not) which is something readers can spot when x-ray reading a work.
But it would surprise me if Joyce built his work on allusions connected with Islam or if Roth's work depended on the sacramental language of Christianity. There is instead an identifiable collection of words - the Anglo-Saxon poets called it a word hoard (like a treasure chest) - drawn authentically from the experience of growing up in a certain cultural tradition. It must be said that such a language heritage is only influential and not determinative. It can be enhanced and enriched by education and travel. But it cannot be escaped. It should be embraced.
And I’ll never forget going to the final exam and being asked why Chaucer used certain verbal devices, certain adjectives, why he had certain characters behave in certain ways. And I wrote in a white heat of fury, “I don’t think Chaucer had any idea why he did any of these things. That isn’t the way people write.”Clark doesn't believe this, and he makes a strong case for devices and symbols that are deliberately used by authors. And there are times when he convinces me, too - a big deal, considering I love that L'Engle quote.
I believe this as strongly now as I did then. Most of what is best in writing isn’t done deliberately.
[Intertextuality] is not a euphemism or rationalization for acts of plagiarism. It is, instead, a recognition that long before an adult author has written a first novel, she has read hundreds of others. From those readings she has learned not just the grammar of written language but also the grammar of stories. There are all kinds of ways, good and bad, that she will use this knowledge in her writing...Yes.