Re: Hapworthless

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Bernd Wahlbrinck: "catcher in the oatmeal?"
• Previous message: William Hochman: "Re: Hapworthless"

In a message dated 10/4/99 10:00:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
wh14@is9.nyu.edu writes:

<< On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Matt Kozusko wrote:
 > 
 > Why should we assume that the fab boy Cornish is proposing a realistic
 > situation in "Hapworth"?
 
  >>

That's a good question and possibly the route by which Hapworth as a piece of 
writing can be redeemed, but the next obvious question would be, 

"what point does the unreality serve?"  

I love good magical realism, good fantasy, and even good old nonsense, but in 
all cases something of a self consistent world is constructed -- one that the 
reader suspends disbelief to enter.  The Glass family saga and the pleasures 
it brings is based in the world you and I inhabit -- or very nearly so.  
That's always been part of what makes it enjoyable and attractive.

And meaningful :)

So, what do we gain in Hapworth and the way it steps away from that?

Jim

• Next message: Bernd Wahlbrinck: "catcher in the oatmeal?"
• Previous message: William Hochman: "Re: Hapworthless"