Well, I do think Willis tends to rely on communication difficulties to make her plots move -- in
Passage
the entire last 1/3 of the novel has to happen because X person didn't tell Y person the Important Information. Then again, in that case, it was perfectly reasonable that X and Y person did not get the chance to exchange information, and the whole point was each individual journey, with major sidetracks and garden paths, towards the lightbulb moment.
Then again again, that whole novel suffered from geographic and interpersonal adventures in avoidance -- I got really tired of "you have to go up to 12, take the walkway over to 11.5, and then take the service elevator down to..." Oy.
A lot of Willis's farces rely on faulty information exchange, too, with comedic frustration as the chief result (see "At the Rialto"). A key point in
To Say Nothing of the Dog
works on the basis of faulty information, but it was the sort of point that even the narrator had forgotten was at issue, till it became at issue again.
faulty information exchange
I think this is something that makes me so crazy in Real Life that it's hard for me to find it bearable in a book. At least when it is
overused to the extent I think it was in Doomsday Book. I don't think I would have minded if a communication problem caused difficulties for the protagonists a few times but it happened over and over and over and over. And I felt like there were so many more interesting ideas for her to explore while telling this story.
Also
I wanted Colin to go back with Dunworthy and get the plague and DIE DIE DIE horribly.
lisah, if the plot element of faulty communication annoys you, under no circumstances should you rerad Passage. At least not soon.
I found the issue believable and realistic, especially given the voice-mail hell I'm currently experiencing in dealing with my credit card company and bank. But that's my issue.
Oh it's definitely realistic. Also, the kind of thing I have nightmares about.
The King in Yellow is here.
The King in Yellow is here.
Does he hate Green Lantern as much as Allyson does?
So, Matt, is this a modern backfill or does it actually predate Chambers?
Okay, I'm utterly lost.
Is The King in Yellow a legendary book that nobody thought existed? What's it about? Backstory, please?
So, Matt, is this a modern backfill or does it actually predate Chambers?
I'm certain that it's a modern backfill on Ryng's part. Since buying I've turned up references by people associated with Pagan Publishing (the company that bought out the inventory of Armitage House) that refer to Ryng as the writer rather than translator. And the Translator's Introduction refers to English editions of the play published under the name The King in Yellow in 1892 and 1893—I feel certain that if those had actually existed, Chambers aficionados would have turned up reference to them long before 1999.
It did arrive under interesting circumstances though—the package from Britain was completely sealed in packing tape, and the cardboard envelope within was sopping wet. (Fortunately the seller had also used bubble wrap, so the book itself was unharmed.) I've never before gotten a delivery that was so thoroughly soaked by the elements despite attempts to seal it. The moldering grave-y smell thereby produced puts me in the mood to reread "The Yellow Sign" from Chambers before diving into the actual play.
