Virginia Wolff...

No it's not riddled with bad grammar- It's a first person narrative and uses the street vernacular- the author chose the layout for a reason- It's very compelling and a wonderful book about the choices facing unwed- uneducated mothers...
A perfect example of the fact there are no rules in good fiction.
Another great book that uses language differently is Beasts of No Nation

My character Perry tells the story so the sentences are choppy and declarative and the language is simple...It all depends on what the author's vision is-

Meg Rosoff's book "How I Live Now" starts off using very little punctuation and no dialog tags. At first it annoyed me and pulled me out of the story, but you get caught in the story so easily, and the book is amazing.

I have not read the book, but didn't Woolf write some stream of consciousness stuff? To me, that's a unique style and shouldn't really be judged with conventional standards.

maestrowork said:

I have not read the book, but didn't Woolf write some stream of consciousness stuff?

Click to expand...

About 90% of her stuff.

caw

Charissa said:

Not 'Woolf' ... 'Wolff'

Click to expand...

Okay, but this "Virginia Wolff" I've never heard of. The other one, with two o's, is a bit better known.

caw

blacbird said:

Okay, but this "Virginia Wolff" I've never heard of. The other one, with two o's, is a bit better known.

caw

Click to expand...

No it's Wolff. Different author with a marketingwise un/fortunate(?) name.

***

ETA: Wtf? Have I read a non-existant post? Apologies, I thought your post said something different...

Dawnstorm said:

No it's Wolff. Different author with a marketingwise un/fortunate(?) name.

***

ETA: Wtf? Have I read a non-existant post? Apologies, I thought your post said something different...

Click to expand...

Correct (re-read my post). But I've still never heard of her until now.

This is a bit like conflating Tom Wolfe with Thomas Wolfe. It would have been nice if the poster of the OP had clarified in the first place.

caw

blacbird said:

This is a bit like conflating Tom Wolfe with Thomas Wolfe. It would have been nice if the poster of the OP had clarified in the first place.

caw

Click to expand...

Good point that.

Again, sorry for misreading you. Bizzarro universe neurons were firing.

Charissa said:

Which brings me to the question: has anyone read a book that defies some of the most important factors of good writing, but loved it anyway?

Click to expand...

No, because IMHO the only "important" factor of good writing is keeping the reader turning the pages. Everything else is personal taste and window dressing.

blacbird said:

It would have been nice if the poster of the OP had clarified in the first place.

caw

Click to expand...

You mean aside from using her full name (which has a different spelling, and a middle name), and including the book title?

Yeah, the OP does seem to have gone out of her way to avoid the almost inevitable misunderstanding. Short of a disclaimer like: This is not THAT Virginia Woolf.

Though at first I was wondering whether the "Woolf" wolf had managed to pen a novel from the grave. Which would have been cool.

Phaeal said:

Though at first I was wondering whether the "Woolf" wolf had managed to pen a novel from the grave. Which would have been cool.

Click to expand...

There's precedent. V.C. Andrews and Robert Ludlum are still doing it.

caw

OK, sorry... I have never heard of Virginia Wolff.

But after reading a bit through that link... I agree with Patricia. It seems like she did it for a purpose: it seems to be told from a 14yo undereducated girl's perspective. There's a bit of experimental aspect to it (by using an unconventional layout/structure).

Anyone with doubts as to whether Ms. Wolff can write should check out The Mozart Season, which is, in my opinion, one of the best youth/YA books of all time.

I have read and enjoyed all Frank McCourt and most Cormac McCarthy novels. Both authors take an unconventional approach to narrative and dialogue.

willietheshakes said:

You mean aside from using her full name (which has a different spelling, and a middle name), and including the book title?

Click to expand...

A. I don't know Virginia Woolf's middle (or maiden) name.

B. We have more than enough people here who misspell author's names in discussions on a regular basis (Hemmingway for Hemingway, as an example; there are plenty of others). It wasn't much of a stretch to assume that this was just another example.

C. Clarity in communication is such a useful commodity in writing.

caw

The first three pages of "The Road" pissed me off beyond belief and I was going to throw it against the wall, but dammit, it hooked me and I stayed up til 3AM to finishing, looking for some redemption. Somewhere. Anywhere. Serious page-turner.

Finnegan's Wake, on the other hand, gave me a migraine and I would happily beat James Joyce to death with a hard-copy edition if he weren't already dead.

blacbird said:

C. Clarity in communication is such a useful commodity in writing.

Click to expand...

Not that it matters much at all, but I agree: communication is an ESSENTIAL commodity in writing.

Communication, however, is a two-way street. Your criticisms of the lack of clarity in the original post are rooted in YOUR side of the communication, not the poster's.

YOU assumed that they were referring to Virginia Woolf, not Virginia Euwer Wolff.

YOU assumed they had made a mistake in the spelling of the name.

The poster included the title of the book in question, very clearly NOT one written by Woolf.

The poster provided ALL the relevant and correct information necessary for that message to be perfectly clear -- it was your assumptions the muddied the waters.

(And I understand how -- I stumbled over the name, especially in the header, as well. I made the same assumptions, but I didn't jump to the same conclusion that you did.)

Stop the bickering, guys. It's been cleared up and just let that go. The OP did nothing wrong. It's just that Ms. Wolff has a name that is so close to Ms. Woolf (thus the confusion), and I assume that works to her advantage, too, to some degree (apart from the fact that she's a good writer in her own right).