Desk redux

[triadruid]

Cut for those who don't care about the state of my desk at work.


Not completely cleared, but then whose desk ever is before they stop working somewhere? The last time it was this clean was Sept. 8th, 2004... most of you can probably figure out why.

Finished LOTR, burning my way through Slaughterhouse Five right now. Vonnegut is a funny bastard; I think my other thirds will both like this book as well.

Interestingly, it's fairly absurdist, but in the sense that Douglas Adams is absurdist, or Terry Gilliam, not Robert Anton Wilson.... I'm sure there's a deeper meaning on there someplace, but right now it's time for work.

Comments

Call me Doubting Thomas...

[wildnsquirrelly.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you didn't just take a snapshot of someone else's desk? :D

Re: Call me Doubting Thomas...

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Well, if I thought it mattered, I'd point you at the PDA cradle, the certificates on the wall, and the pile of unfiled papers in the lower right corner of the shot...

Re: Call me Doubting Thomas...

[druidevo.livejournal.com]

Also the placement of the window would be hard to conterfeit as well.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I love Vonnegut, but have somehow never managed to read Slaughterhouse Five. In general, though, he reminds me of a somewhat drier Joseph Heller (it's a similar background thing, I suppose). If I recall correctly, you don't like Heller, right?

Also, well done with the desk thing. I'm suitably impressed.

re: Heller

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Well, I believe the only thing of his I've read is (part of) Catch-22, but no, I couldn't get into that.

If it makes sense w/o giving away the plot, SH5 has less of the "plot by d20" of Heller and RAW; the absurdist elements actually seem to have something to do with advancing the overall story (whichever way it turns out), and they don't overpower it. Cleverness for cleverness' sake doesn't appeal to me; cleverness to get somewhere, now that's impressive...

Re: Heller

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

True, you get a lot more filling out of the world with Wilson and Heller than with Vonnegut. I tend to like that, though.

And if that's your objection to Heller, I wouldn't suggest reading any of his other stuff, either. If anything, Catch-22 is more confined in scope than, say, Something Happened or God Knows.

re: "filling out of the world"

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Can you define that a bit, please?

I'm trying to contrast it with my recent experience of Tolkien vs. Jordan, if that helps.

Re: "filling out of the world"

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

*shrug*
I think it's a difference in focus. Some of these authors are telling us about their characters, who happen to live in a world, and some of them are telling us about their world, and some of the stuff that happens to happen in it. Tolkien definitely fits into the second category -- the songs and historical digressions you hate were probably as important to him as anything Frodo did. Or at least that's the impression I get reading. I'm not sure where Jordan fits in this model. He's less holistic than Tolkein, I think, but it's sort of hard to see it since there are so many plot threads going on.

Another example, since I know you just read this one: Niven's A World Out of Time (I read it yesterday). If that had been written by an author more like Tolkien, or Wilson, for that matter, you'd have known how the State happened, and what the secret of forever-young was, or at least what it was rumored to be, and you'd know what Mirelly-Lyra said to Peerssa to get him on her side. You don't, and that's okay, but it means that you have to just accept that some things *are*, without much justification. But, on the other hand, you'd also know about the evolution of the giant turkeys, and the jokes the engineers cracked while building the Don Juan and countless other things that don't directly relate to Corbell's actions, but only exist in the narrative to give a sense of life to the world.

Anyway, I'm not explaining this very well -- rio_luna could do a better job, probably.

Re: "filling out of the world"

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

No, actually you're making a lot of sense. Character-driven versus world-driven isn't a standard literary division (I hope by saying that, that I'll induce fionnabhar to correct me if I'm wrong. She's gonna be a librarian, you kno.), but it clicks with me. I think I prefer character-driven, but I'd have to look back over my reading habits to be sure.

Re: "filling out of the world"

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

These are what we librarians call "motifs." It's a style issue, more than something involving the literary structure. It would, I imagine, be obvious to point out that some authors lean towards one or the other, often depending on the theme and purpose of the story. The best writing, I think, manages to do both. (My also being a Newbery Award-winning novelist helped me know that part.)

[teross50.livejournal.com]

take the short version of Slaughter House 5 If you can still find the vidio anywhere

::applause::

[ajs-moppet.livejournal.com]

Well done! How did you eat that much paper that quickly?!

*picks teeth*

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Mix it with a bit of dirty rice, and it goes down like anything...

Re: *picks teeth*

[ajs-moppet.livejournal.com]

::looks at piles of paper here::

Dirty rice, you say?

Re: dirty rice

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I don't think you want to eat that...it's liable to give you indigestion.

Re: dirty rice

[leiandra.livejournal.com]

Would you be needing kindling for your Beltane fires? I could ship you crates of it. Although, I know the feeling of recently seeing the desktop for the first time in ages.