Reprint Time--Helena
A comment from the blogkeeper at Underbelly (thank you Buce) inspired me to look this up. I was fairly certain that I had reviewed the book in the recent past, and so I discovered this. a good book is worth appreciation--over and over and over again. Also, while you are appreciating, you might want to take in Underbelly's look at Helena as well. La Belle Hélène on March 18, 2005 8:11 AM In reading Helena last night I stumbled across a large number of passages I would like to share. But I thought the more important thing to share was an observation. Evelyn Waugh liked this best among his books. There are a good many reasons why this might be so: it is splendidly written--both the prose and the coherence are several notches above some of his earlier, more frenetic work. It is tightly done, with just the right strokes and exactly the right selection of detail. But I suspect the reason Waugh prized this above all the other works is that in t...
I was a bit confused by the article. What was the "misprint or mis-edit" of James' quotation? James's comment was about Hammett, whereas Nicole's review was about Chandler.
ReplyDeleteDear Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe misprint is that the James quotation as printed reads:
"ruthlessly pruned of all essentials. . ."
and it should read "ruthlessly pruned of all non-essentials."
And yes, the writer starts with a very brief foray mentioned Hammett's _The Thin Man_ and then spends much of the article talking about how Chandler's style is more evocative before returning to _The Thin Man_.
I suppose I'm one of those who thinks that everyone ought to read more Hammett AND Chandler, and reasonable articles that tell us why.
Thanks for your note.
shalom,
Steven
Steven,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing up the misprint.
I also think we should read more of Hammett and Chandler.
Two different writers--two different styles...
Both get the job done, as far as I'm concerned.