Friday, January 23, 2009
Some Dribble About The Hours
If one considers the subject matter and how much one can get out of it, Cunningham's book is fairly intriguing. He is able to turn some incredibly boring situations into somewhat entertaining, masterfully written, reads. I do not deny that Cunningham has structured this book beautifully. The words flow, things connect, sentences and paragraphs sound right. This, perhaps, is the only reason that one could become entwined in this book. If it wasn't for Cunningham's adeptness at structuring sentences and whatnot, this book would be a loser. I mean, he practically rewrites Mrs. Dalloway. I'm a little shocked that he didn't get charged with plagiarism or anything close to that because of the similarities between this book and Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway. It's not word for word or anything but it's pretty obvious that he was just looking at Woolf's book and going page by page but twisting names and characters around. The two books are very similar. And what about Cunningham delving into Woolf's head? That seems not only intrusive, but incredibly inaccurate. How can Cunningham know anything about what goes on in Woolf's head? The readers may know more than he does. It seems as if the only completely original section of the book is Laura Brown's section which is the stimulating tale of an ordinary woman baking a cake. Pretty boring. On a more serious note, however, I have enjoyed the book so far, if only for the connections made between the three characters and the masterfully written sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think one has to make their own interpretations of someone they admire if they've never met them. I mean, think about it; Michael Cunningham was born long after Virginia Woolf died. I'm sure he studied her to the point of being able to make a guess of what she would do, what she would say. And it isn't like his making a biography of Woolf; she's a character in his many-layered story who also happens to be a famous and renowned author. The guy's doing the best he can. Cut him some slack.
I agree that the reproduction of the novel is not only boring but seemingly "illegal." Although, I don't so much agree with what you say about his sentences flowing smoothly and his ideas to be adept because I believe that not just what Cunningham has to say, but also how he says it is simply a copy of Woolf. The language, the ideas, the fluency all seem to replicate themselves in CUnningham's work.
I think the book's not "illegal". It's not like Cunningham is claiming the basis as his own idea, and even the similar stuff (Clarissa) is pretty different. It might be presumptuous to write as Virginia Woolf, but it's fiction. The writing is still beautiful, though a bit like Woolf's.
Walker,
Nice post (and I like how it has engendered some interesting comments). Your two charges (that the book is wholly derivative and that there is an undue presumption in entering into another writer's head) both carry more force because they come on the heels of your acknowledgment of the book's ostensible merits (principally, the fact that it's pretty well written).
I'm anxious to learn of your reaction both to the balance of the book (which does start to depart from the source novel a bit) and to Dee's article slamming Cunningham on similar charges to the ones you level here.
Again, good post!
Post a Comment