Charles Williams is a Bad Writer

So, okay, a few weeks ago I reviewed two of CW's novels. Now, I gave All Hallow's Eve a  chance, and -- well, okay, let's be blunt. Over and above any eye-roll-inducing supernatural themes Williams may endorse, I've come to the conclusion that he's just an awful stylist. I was still on the fence with his first two novels. Although I didn't really enjoy either, I gave him credit for a talent for characterization, and I got through the relatively plotless Descent into Hell by skimming the long prose passages. But my patience finally hit a wall with All Hallow's Eve. I couldn't force myself to read more than half of it and, after two and a half novels, I feel confident in grading Williams's style from mediocre to bad.

The Good

  • He does have some lovely diction and phrasing
  • Strong mixture of sentence structures
  • I do like his deftness in interweaving literary and biblical references

None of that, however, overcomes . . . 

The Bad (and the ugly)
  • long, long, and long (and tedious) prose descriptions of mental states and so forth. Dialogue makes a book sound snappy, but Williams always subordinates his dialogue to these dense passages of prose.
    • In fact, these passages can get very confusing, the natural effect of skipping over small sections of text that contain plot-important details. Several times, I had to re-read sections just to find out how I got from Point A to Point B.
  • A truly weird mix of authorial omniscience (i.e., Williams's point of view) and focalizer (the point of view of some character, although usually as seen through the author's position"outside" the character's consciousness, though not always). He goes from one to another without any apparent consistency
  • Abrupt switches between focalizers. Sometimes the narration will be focalized through Lester, then abruptly it'll be focalized through Evelyn, then the evil magician, and so forth. Even if you're paying closer attention than I am, the effect can be jarring.

The absolute worst, however, is 
  • a fatal reliance on weak verbs

I had a hard time, at first, pinpointing why I found his prose so unreadable. After all, he does have some very nice rhythms to his sentences. Then I did something that I only do for my freshman students -- I went through his text and counted the "to be" verbs. Flipping open pages at random, I counted 10 on the first page, 12 on the next, and goddamn 18 on the final. Great Samuel Johnson's ghost, how does anyone incorporated 18 "to be" verbs on a page only 400 words long in the first place? Partly, that's Williams never writing "helped" when "were helping" will do, but you basically have to employ a "to be" as your main verb in just about every sentence. Even when he avoided the is's and the was's, he'd often use a weak verb such as "had" or "has."

I will never, ever read another Williams novel. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Genre Fantasy Bestsellers through 1990

Image
I've been studying Keith Justice's Bestseller Index , which compiles information from two separate bestseller lists -- New York Times Book Review and Publishers Weekly -- up through 1990, and the results are ridiculously fascinating. For instance, you wanna take a stab at which SFF author has the most individual books appear on a bestseller list? No, it ain't Heinlein, Clark, Herbert, or Asimov. It's not even Terry Brooks or David Eddings. No, the answer is Piers Anthony ... and even if you somehow pulled that name out of thin air, you'll still never guess how truly dominate Anthony was. Up through 1990, Anthony had more than double than number of distinct bestsellers than the next most frequent bestseller, Anne McCaffrey. Whereas Anthony had an astounding  22 different books appear on a bestseller list, McCaffrey had "only" 9.** Now, caveats. These numbers need to be taken with one (or two) grains of salt. For instance, although Anthony had 22 two distin...
Read more

A Look at Charles R. Saunders and "Sword & Soul"

Image
So, I've been reading lately about Charles R. Saunders, the black author of sword-and-sorcery fiction, and man .... poor guy. If there's been ever a case of someone being born about 30 years too soon, it's Saunders. Usually, when people mention about black S&S authors, they mean Samuel R. Delany. This makes sense. As a queer, Marxist deconstructionist, Delany established his street cred first by writing SF before wading into the "gutters" (ahem) of S&S fantasy. (Sidenote: are there any black fantasy writers except maybe Jemisin who didn't first establish their street cred by writing SF?). Although I personally never much cared for Delany's  writing style or Nevèrÿon books , which are basically what happens when someone who holds a subgenre in contempt decides to write in that subgenre, it is true that academic critics love Delany .... especially critics who hate S&S themselves. So if they mention Saunders at all, which is rare, it's usuall...
Read more

NEW POETS OF RUM-RAM-RUF: Zach Weinersmith & Boulet

Image
In the opening paragraph of my metrical appendix to Speculative Poetry and the Modern Alliterative Revival , I raised a conundrum: how do revivalists today officially arrive at an alliterative meter? The question’s a good one. In every case known to me, at least in English, revivalists never “grow up” with alliterative poetics. They don’t – they cannot – know the meter on an intuitive cultural knowledge, not as medieval skalds or scopas did. In other words, the meter has been moribund for centuries, and if young poets today – those crazy kids – experiment with alliteration at all, it is only of the ornamental variety. That’s what tongue twisters teach you: the rum-ram-ruf of sounds jingle-jangling together. Accordingly, if revivalists know what they are doing at all, they deploy a poetic form learned only as an adult. Someday, though, I hope to eat those words – or at least chew them slowly. The parties responsible are author Zach Weinersmith and the artist Boulet, the creators of a w...
Read more