Tom’s Crossing: A 1200-Page Western by Mark Z Danielewski
This is a critical review excerpt focusing on the narrative voice of a novel called Tom’s Crossing. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
* Perverse Narrative Choice: The reviewer finds the novel’s narrative voice deeply flawed and “perverse.” It’s presented as a transcription of an oral account,but the resulting voice is jarringly inconsistent.
* Contradictory Style: The voice is a strange blend of high and low registers – “Homeric and hayseed.” It mixes archaic, elegant vocabulary (“cynegetic,” “rupestral”) with colloquialisms (dropping “g”s, double negatives, “fer” for “for”).
* Prolixity & Distraction: This stylistic mishmash leads to overly wordy, rambling prose that unnecessarily lengthens the reading experience. The reviewer points out how seemingly irrelevant details (like Allison’s warning about guns) distract from the core action.
* Example & Analysis: The provided passage illustrates this point - the rockfall is a simple event buried within unnecessary backstory.
* The “Stranger” Analogy: The reviewer brilliantly compares the narrator’s voice to the Dude’s (Jeff Bridges) character, “The Stranger,” from The Big lebowski – a rambling, philosophical figure with a distinctive voice. He suggests it’s like The Stranger channeling the ornate prose of 17th-century writers like Milton or browne.
* Overall Impression: The voice feels self-indulgent and inconsiderate of the reader, prioritizing stylistic affectation over clarity and pacing.
In essence, the reviewer believes the novel’s unique narrative voice is a detriment to the story, making it harder to engage with and unnecessarily prolonged. It’s a case of style overshadowing substance.