| |
|
... but when you say that you like Ignatius for the same reasons I say I hate him, I’m baffled. So please elaborate; I’m very interested to know why people love this book so much, ...
I guess it's because when I read it (which was over ten years ago now) I was so very sick of narratives by and about writers which try to make the protagonist fallible while still maintaining a cool sheen. Ignatius was so very loathsome and self-aggrandising it was refreshing and I admired Mr Toole for being so honest. After all, there's more than a sprinkling of ego and arrogance involved in being an artist of any kind. It reminded me of Fante's 'Bandini' books except that the protagonist's arrogance had been pushed to the limit.
e.g. The scenes of Ignatius stuffing his filthy, fat face with greasy hot-dogs while looking at the rest of the world as an uncultured "confederacy of dunces" was (IMHO) pure genius. Reminds me of watching Elton John and David Beckham talking about world poverty at the Live8 concert.
I also liked that almost ALL the characters (except for the only black character in the book) were so horrible and f**ked up; more true to life than many fictions I could mention. Now, of course, I know writers are supposed to make their characters appealing in some way, but I don't think this has to be so important a consideration and risks being very patronising to the reader. After all, most of the interesting (though maybe not likeable) characters in life and throughout history have been TOTAL c**ts. Indeed, it annoys me sometimes that readers (apparently) feel the need to identify with and empathise with protagonists to enjoy a story. This is (IMHO) selfish and small minded (although please note, this is not directed at anybody in particular!). I mean, we're all human (I think), so isn't that enough? Do we always have to find something of "us" in "them" to be able to understand another soul? And haven't we all done something bad at some point in our tiny lives.
For example, I once wrote a story about a total chauvinist wanker getting his comeuppance and gave it to a friend to read, and my friend gave it back to me saying:
"I couldn't identify with your main character, Sidney Manners. I just didn't care enough about him to like him." To which I replied,
"Good. I should hope not. The man's a c**t."
Of course, my friend is partly right and I don't enjoy reading through a whole book about people I couldn't care less about (e.g. any of Jane Austin's books), but I have and I do because I don't think that my particular type of personage is that great either. Indeed, I was hoping that any future readers of my aforementioned story would actually enjoy watching somebody they could hate being taught a lesson he would never forget.
As for style, etc ...
e.g. And then there’s the convoluted prose which I mentioned before, Toole’s total, and I think embarrassing, inability to maintain momentum and sustain interest, ...
... it was so long ago when I read it, that I couldn't possibly comment in detail. However, like I typed, I remember enjoying it and having no problems with the prose.
Hope that answers your questions JT.
Best wishes. |
|
|
