Following up a bit on our conversation last time about Tender is the Night's lack of character development and depth, how do you think this book compares?
Personally I've noticed that the characters in this book are incredibly well-developed (at least their internal features), which has been interesting.
I personally feel like there is a bit more substance in this book. I am not that far into it but I enjoy the way that we are introduced to characters and the space as if it is all foreign to the reader. Whereas I felt that Fitzgerald assumed that the reader would be able to understand the context of the world within the story.
ReplyDeleteI would agree...but in fairness to fuddy-duddy Fitzy, I think it's partly due to the perspective of the narrator--he's describing his own family (when he talks about the Hamiltons).
ReplyDeleteBut yes, he gives you a well-painted backdrop, a solid foundation for the story, and doesn't do it in a boring way AT ALL--which is the part that I'm impressed with. Descriptions of setting and character can easily become dull to read. Steinbeck clearly does not have the inclination to bore us.
I also agree. I am almost 200 pages in and I still feel like the stage is being set, but in spite of the fact that it all seems like background information, character development etc, it is quite gripping. I think part of what makes this a bit more readable than Fitzgerald is that the characters are more likable and easier to relate to (possibly becouse we know them better). They seem more like people you might meet in real life unlike the over the top wealth and privilege in Fitzgerald.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you! I think Fitzy was a bit sloppy in his character development, whereas Steinbeck is really giving it his all. He seems to leave no (essential) detail out, and while it's sometimes hard to picture his characters, it's easy to get an excellent sense of who they are from his descriptions.
ReplyDelete