Cone Zero reviewed

[realthog]

D.F. Lewis's anthology Cone Zero, in which I have a story, has been reviewed by David Hebblethwaite (thisplacehere) over on the Serendipity site. His conclusion:

What difference does it make not knowing who wrote which of these stories? Speaking personally, I'm not sure, because I'm unfamiliar with the work of all the listed authors (bar one) anyway. However, the stories in the book are what really count, and... Well, I'm usually wary of saying things like this, but I expect to see Cone Zero on the lists of this year's best anthologies. It will richly deserve any such place.

Comments

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

I do believe, Sarcobatus, that we agree on which is Paul's story...

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Since you're both being coy, how the heck can you make this claim, Dave?

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

Because Sarcobatus referred to a line from the story I'm thinking of in a comment above, so I assume the two of us are thinking of the same one.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

She did?

I must now reread all Jody's comments.

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

Of course, I could be completely mistaken...

[realthog.livejournal.com]

But will you flagellate yourself with false eyelashes if so, as Jody has promised she will do.

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

Er... nope. But, if I am wrong, I'll probably have to re-read some of your work to look for the stylistic differences.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"I'll probably have to re-read some of your work"

That's worse than flagellation, I'll admit.

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

Or I could compromise, and flagellate myself with one of your books.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Pervert!

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

"I must now reread all Jody's comments."

Talk about self flagellation!

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Indeed we are.

Paul's the one who's being coy. But he has to be.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"Paul's the one who's being coy."

I am? It's obviously quite a while since I wrote the story, but as of now I haven't recognized any references in your comments.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Really? Well then, perhaps your doppelganger wrote the tale. I have only a couple of stories to go before I can say I've read every piece, but there are only two or three in the antho thus far that I would guess are yours.

But this one tale in particular had your voice. And style. And was very well executed.

I hate to do this to Pam -- but you have a profound writing talent and command of the King's English, P (and maybe even the Queen's), not to mention you deliberately break the rules with finesse, which is a gift not everyone can claim. I analyzed the infractions in each story, as well as the story's style and voice, and thereby arrived at my conclusion. Each story appeared to have several deliberate mistakes in either punctuation or usage, e.g., one writer used "irregardless" twice. Some of the infractions were subtle, used for emphasis, such as comma splices to make a point.

Soooooooooo . . . I'll go over the stories one more time before settling on which one is yours. Then you can mail me your Walmart kit and I will give myself the twenty lashes, for being wrong. I wouldn't put it past you to have completely disguised your voice and style in Cone Zero . . . I've started reading your Thirty-Day Dance Card. What can I say? You are one fine writer.

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

I narrowed it down to two stories that I thought could be yours, Paul. And, in the story that's my first guess, there is one word (a couple of sentences before the one Jody referred to) that I've never seen another writer use, apart from you.

Coy? Moi?

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Agreed, David. The clues are there. Or else he does indeed have a doppelganger. Ironic, eh?

Did you catch one writer's use of "irregardless"? The story was a good one, but my jaw dropped when I read that particular word, which the author used twice. I do realize, though, that his/her usage was "voice", in first person narrative, which makes me think it was deliberate. How often do we readers encounter "irregardless", except in books such as Strunk & White's, The Elements of Style.

I must admit that I am unfamiliar with the other authors, and that it is Paul's story that I am attempting to ferret-out.

"The point of Oswald Masters" is also very good.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

See my note to Dave!

(Why can't LJ's software cope with the not infrequent wish to address a reply to two people, not just one? Grr!)

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Hey, P, would you feel more comfortable over all this blather about Cone Zero if I deleted some of my comments? Or if you can go in and delete them yourself, the ones you'd rather not have public, go ahead, you won't hurt my feelings. Really. Just let me know. This discussion got to be a sticky situation for you, and I'm sorry. Didn't mean to make you crazy (well, at least this time I wasn't actually trying to . . .) or compromise you in any way. :)

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

Did you catch one writer's use of "irregardless"?

No, I missed that completely. Generally, I'm hopeless at spotting typos and so on in books -- so, if I do start noticing them, I often start thinking they must be a pronounced problem in that particular text.

Paul is also the only writer in Cone Zero whose work I'm familiar with, so no more author-spotting for me, either.

Agreed on 'Oswald Masters', it's very amusing.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

I think this whole conversation should be suspended until after Des announces the facts! Right now I'm in the sticky situation where I can neither confirm nor deny anything, nor -- really -- even comment on your and Dave's speculations. At that point I will quiz you seriously, J, on the matter of the literary transgressions you see in my work while also trying to find out from Dave what the hell is this word that I'm supposedly the only person who uses!

All this unsatisfiable curiosity is driving me nuts, you understand . . .

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

I understand completely our need to suspend this discussion, and will do so immediately.

As for literary transgressions, transgressions they are not, as I read these literary liberties as poetic license, and find them everywhere I go when reading. For example, Patrick McGrath uses comma splices here and there in his wonderful novel, Asylum, to emphasize imagery and concept.

Point of view narrative and voice also lend themselves to greater license, and it is in a writer's use of license, part of which is style, that I also look for clues.

You are a peerless, writer, Paul, among those who know precisely where and how to break the rules effectively and impressively.

I look forward to your quiz. ;)

[realthog.livejournal.com]

You're really quite expert at this flattery business, aren't you, J? Now, if you could only start up a correspondence course to which Pam might subscribe . . .

[thisplacehere.livejournal.com]

I think this whole conversation should be suspended until after Des announces the facts!

Agreed. It is pretty pointless to speculate about something that we know can't be answered for another six months or so.

All this unsatisfiable curiosity is driving me nuts, you understand . . .

And, of course, a different source of curiosity is doing the same to us!

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Er . . . make that, "The Thirty-Million-Day Dance Card"! Sorry.

I'd like to elaborate on my previous comment about deliberately breaking the rules, infractions, as I phrased it: I am referring to "poetic license".

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Why, thank you, David. I appreciate the feed back. ;D