The Crimson Petal and the White

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Has anyone read this new Michel Faber book (which appears to be longer than his previous books and novellas combined)?

Serena (Halo Derain), Thursday, 17 October 2002 18:09 (twenty-three years ago)

what is a michel faber?

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Thursday, 17 October 2002 18:43 (twenty-three years ago)

You forgot to add "and can we it it?"

rosemary (rosemary), Thursday, 17 October 2002 18:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Michel Faber as in Under the Skin.

Serena (Halo Derain), Thursday, 17 October 2002 20:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I've read it. For a 900 page novel it was a fairly swift read. I couldn't help thinking the main point of the thing was its length though. (Steady, Dan.)

I liked the fact she was so scabby.

I enjoyed it. I enjoyed The Courage Consort and The Hundred and Ninety Nine Steps a lot more, though. He certainly writes fine sentences.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 October 2002 22:14 (twenty-three years ago)

So it's worth reading, then? I was thinking about buying it.

Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 18 October 2002 00:32 (twenty-three years ago)

I have to echo this call for Michael Faber info. Who and what and why and all.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 October 2002 00:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Nicole: yes, it's worth reading, especially if what you're after is a massive (somewhat re-thought) Victorian novel with mucky bits.

After "Under The Skin" I'm a bit wary of MF's capacity for clunky metaphor, and the end of "TCPATW" goes a bit that way. I think he manages to carry it off without too much clunk this time.

Tim (Tim), Friday, 18 October 2002 07:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Has anyone read any of Charles Palliser's monstrously huge Victorian-novel genre exercises?

Tom (Groke), Friday, 18 October 2002 08:43 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think he does write fine sentences Tim. He reminds me (haha, pomposity coming up) of me when I overegg the already eggy pudding. I do this a lot. But, to the point, when I read on the front cover of Under The Skin, The Guardian's comment (albeit, a stock comment) about his 'restrained prose' I almost choked. Genuinely, his sentences give me headaches.

Also, worst sentence in a reviewers lexicon: "[xXx] could give Cheever, Nabokov, Fitzgerald, [etc.] a run for their money at writing the perfect sentence"?

I have no intention of reading this book until it becomes a paperback, it is large.

david h (david h), Friday, 18 October 2002 09:14 (twenty-three years ago)

UTS is a very clunchy metaphor if its meant to be about modernized industrial farming techniques.

david h (david h), Friday, 18 October 2002 09:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I enjoyed Paul Morley tearing this book apart on Newsnight Review recently: "breathtaking in its banality".

Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 18 October 2002 09:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Score!

david h (david h), Friday, 18 October 2002 09:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Crieky Jerry isn't "breathtaking in its banality" a rather banal thing for PM to say?

David: the copy I read was a paperback, I wouldn't fancy hefting a copy of the hardback around.

Tim (Tim), Friday, 18 October 2002 09:30 (twenty-three years ago)

I've had this book for months because I was sent a review copy. Don't let the pagination scare you off, it's a very quick read.

I think Faber's intent was to write a Victorian novel using all the information it was not possible for Victorian-era writers to reference, whether through a lack of knowledge about what those poxy sores were, or for reasons of social propriety. He does really well with researching the area of St Giles (a 10-minute walk from my flat) and the (often hypocritical) social mores of the time. What isn't so satisfying is some of the clunkier bits of dialogue, but it's nowhere near as bad as Morley made out.

Under The Skin is still a bazillion times more phenomenal, though.

suzy (suzy), Friday, 18 October 2002 11:28 (twenty-three years ago)

...when I read on the front cover of Under The Skin, The Guardian's comment (albeit, a stock comment) about his 'restrained prose' I almost choked.

His writing in Under the Skin IS concise, not a superfluous word in the volume.

Serena (Halo Derain), Friday, 18 October 2002 14:11 (twenty-three years ago)

No it is not. And I'll come back with examples later. It is horribly overwrought in places; it reminded, in some places, of AL Kennedy's more hefty sentences in Everything You Need, though her writing is a lot more supple, and doesn't alert you to the migraine that you should probably have. Also, she's a much, much better writer than him.

I'm interested in why suzy thought UTS was phenomenal, I struggled my way through it after Amliss Vess appeared, zZz.

david h (david h), Friday, 18 October 2002 17:29 (twenty-three years ago)

nine years pass...

so this was turned into a miniseries. which I spent 4 hours watching. ending was so annoying. I do eventually want to go back and read the novel but am already wary of the ending. (Under the Skin was similarly annoying).

akm, Sunday, 16 September 2012 15:34 (thirteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.