Down and Out with Algernon Blackwood

[Extollager]

I think I'm dropping this. It's a pretty good read, but I don't have a particular reason for reading it through this second time. Blackwood is a bit prolix.

Incidentally I received that 3-CD British Authors CD set (BBC) and have begun to savor it. Blackwood's on it, with a ghost story -- haven't listened to it. I have listened to half of the Arthur Conan Doyle talk and to Arthur Machen. Doyle sounds (to my North Dakotan ears) Scottish all right, and Machen has a pleasing elderly deep voice. His four minutes or so deal with the difference between realistic fiction and truly imaginative fiction -- the thesis of Hieroglyphics in a brief talk!

 

[Fried Egg]

Blackwood is a bit prolix.

Sorry to resurrect this old thread but, I've heard it said quite a few times that Blackwood is a bit "prolix". But is that really the case? It never seemed that way to me on reading his work.

Sure, he does say things in a more lengthy manner than most other authors might but the real question is, does he pad out his writing with mere verbiage? Could it really be condensed down without loosing anything?

To my mind, Blackwood is one of the superior prose writers. I find it really poetic and pleasing to read. But I guess that is a personal judgement and doesn't mean that there's not any amount of verbiage in there somewhere. I can certainly see why some might think he often belabours the point but I find that this is Blackwood's way of building up tension and a sense of unease. He's not really repeating himself when (for instance) he describes a character's emotional state several times. He's actually reflecting a transition of the character's emotions that is most gradual. Thus, his narratives make the most gradual and subtlest transitions from the idyllic to nightmare.

Of course, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not really a literary critic, qualified to assess the objective facts of the matter. But this is how it feels to my untrained reading.

 

[j d worthington]

F.E.: There has been an increasing shift to that way of viewing Blackwood over the years. I think, on a first reading (where the focus is often to see what happens in the story) it is easy to mistake Blackwood's tendencies that you describe as prolixity, but on later readings, I think a careful reader would be more inclined to agree with your assessment, at least in most cases.....

 

[Extollager]

My comment about Blackwood's prolixity was intended to refer to this book, Episodes Before Thirty, and not necessarily to other things by him!

 

[Fried Egg]

My comment about Blackwood's prolixity was intended to refer to this book, Episodes Before Thirty, and not necessarily to other things by him!

Sorry, I suppose I did quote you somewhat out of context.

 

[j d worthington]

And here I had thought you (F. E.) were referring to a general criticism I have seen from various sources.....

 

[J Riff]

Do you know what years Blackwood was in Toronto? Maybe I can scratch up some info here, find some long-lost manuscripts or what-not. )

 

[Fried Egg]

And here I had thought you (F. E.) were referring to a general criticism I have seen from various sources.....

Well, I was responding to that criticism more generally, but I did quote Extollager specifically. I see it quite often in reader reviews of his work.

 

[Fried Egg]

Blackwood is one of my favourite authors. He just produced so much of a consistantly high strandard (in my experience so far). He really had a unique voice.

At his best, he is the best, or just about, in the field of the weird tale, but even "The Willows" is blemished, isn't it? I'm thinking that you have this superb development of atmosphere as the two men journey down the Danube and their sojourn in the willow-realm becomes prolonged -- and then they have to start talking like theosophists or something. Gahh! It's as if Blackwood doesn't have enough confidence in his material and has to "explain" it. If he had to explain some things, he should have found a better way, or so it seems to me remembering the story.

Having just re-read "The Willows" I feel able to respond to this comment made some time ago now.

I think I know what you mean, and you are probably right, that the story might have been better had these explanations embedded in the dialogue been left out. But I still regard this story very highly. I love most the way that the beauty and peacefulness of the Danube is gradually transformed to a place of dread and horror.

I think my original comments stand in that I think he consistently wrote of a high standard, but that is not the same as saying his stories were without fault.