LITERARY COMPARISONS

I hope readers will indulge me with just one more post on the subject of literary comparison. I love battles between writers. The way to do it is the way it's done here, with two paragraphs side by side, and with each writer describing the same thing. Battles like this get bloody. Reputations are won and lost. It's not for the faint of heart.

Here's the first comparison, from Ayn Rand of all people. In an essay In "Romantic Manifesto" Rand compares a passage by literary novelist Thomas Wolfe (above, top right),  and one by down-and-dirty pulp novelist Mickey Spillane (above, top left). She prefers Spillane. See what you think. Both writers attempt to describe New York city at night. 

Thomas Wolfe: "The city had never seemed as beautiful as it looked that night. For the first time he saw that New York was supremely, among the cities of the world, a city of night. There had been achieved here a loveliness that was astounding and incomparable, a kind of modern beauty, inherent to its place and time, that no other place nor time could match."

Mickey Spillane: "The rain was misty enough to be almost foglike, a cold gray curtain that separated me from the pale ovals of white that were faces locked behind the steamed-up windows of the cars that hissed by. Even the brilliance that was Manhattan by night was reduced to a few sleepy yellow lights off in the distance" 

Rand comments: "There is not a single emotional word or adjective in Spillane's description; he presents nothing save visual facts; but he selects only those facts, only those eloquent details, which convey the visual reality of the scene and create a mood of desolate loneliness." Wolfe, she argues, uses only estimates, "and in the absence of any indication of what aroused these estimates, they are arbitrary assertions and meaningless generalities."

Here's (below) another interesting comparison, two versions of the first paragraph of Genesis. I'm only comparing line number two ("And the Earth..."), but I'll start with the first four lines just to put everything in context: 

<< Genesis 1 >> King James Version 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Okay, here's the comparison: GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water. King James Bible And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Obviously the King James version is superior...but why? Well for one thing, "formless and empty" is merely descriptive. The KJ version milks more drama by dividing "formless" into two words, and contracts "empty" into the more masculine, one-syllable word, "void," creating more contrast, and giving us a deeper sense of loss. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep" is pure genius. Who'd have thought the deep could have a face, but it works. Anything that does something to a face gets our attention.   "The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" is even purer genius! Imagine the spectacle of a miles long face of God cruising at awesome speed above the sea, regarding what He created. And there's that word "face" again! If only it were possible to know who wrote/translated this version! I wish there was a whole book of comparisons like this. Imagine how much you could learn from it! BTW: Don't confuse Thomas Wolfe (above), the novelist who wrote "Look Homeward, Angel",  with Tom Wolfe, the author of "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test."