Yesterday, Starbucks rolled out a new initiative to get bodies in store and seats in chairs. Partnering with a couple of publishers, newspapers, and other media (iTunes and Apple, it seems, will partner with anyone), they’ve killed the pay wall for WSJ.com and The New York Times.
A long time yet cheap devotee of WSJ.com’s Books section, this morning I settled down over a cup of not-so-great coffee to have a cozy read. And here’s what I found: an excellent article by Alexander McCall Smith, author of the Ladies No.1 Detective Agency series and one of my favorite myth-inspired collections, Dream Angus. Here’s the intro:
I am not at all sure—convinced, certain, persuaded—that creative-writing courses are a good idea unless they prevent people from writing sentences like this one, where adjectives—useful, helpful, intensely descriptive words—are stacked upon one another as Pelion used to be piled upon Ossa. Phew! That sentence took some writing and ended, you will have noticed, with a rather useful classical allusion. Thank you.
My bête noire—and there is nothing wrong with using the occasional French expression, although one does not want to sound too much like a menu—is overwriting. Something is overwritten when there is just too much of it. This may be because the writer has labored the point and made a mountain out of a molehill, or because too many words are used. As a result, descriptions are cluttered and the prose quickly becomes unreadable. There is a lot of it about. (read more…)
Here, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the piece gives good advice, it’s advice AMS doesn’t always follow. His Isabel Dalhousie series is long and meandering, the antithesis of concise, succinct writing. And yet, while I find the books frustrating, I can see why AMS breaks with his own idea: Dalhousie is a meandering sort of character, the woman who lingers in a tea shop or deli touching things, considering five teapots before deciding what she really needs is actually a tea infuser and his writing aptly reflects that.
Head on over to the WSJ for more; I’m in a Starbucks so I can’t be sure if the piece is behind the pay wall or not. If it is, I recommend you grab a cup of coffee.







Dystopic fiction is nothing new. According the Oxford English Dictionary, the word was first used (created of his own free will) by philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1868. Mill used the word in a speech to the British House of Commons, denouncing the Irish Land Act (“What is commonly called Utopian is something too good to be practicable; but what they appear to favour is too bad to be practicable.”). Since then, dystopias have become a staple in fiction, cycling through literary, science fiction, and fantasy. The current YA dystopic trend may signal the end of of dystopias as a wandering subgenre–perhaps even bringing them into the mainstream.
fiction and fantasy are often looked down upon by “serious readers” and, sadly, some “serious writers”. Dystopic fiction, though, depends on elements common to both: