for the hell of it

finished reading David Copperfield this morning--it was a marathon session towards the end. on the whole, though, i think i parceled it out pretty well--so that i was able to enjoy what i was reading and really appreciate the little things i look for in writing--peculiar turns of phrase, etc.

i'm just amazed at how well dickens was able to bring these scenes to life--and to pack them so densely with detail--not the sort that loses readers but enriches the story. i guess being paid by the word motivates a writer to leave nothing out.

some of the scenes he came up with and some of the dialogue rang too real to be made up. though it was an accepted notion of "real" because so many things, by that same token, seemed distinctly fictional--too fantastical to be real. i'm mainly referring to dickens's characters--specifically some of the more cartoonish quirks he gave them. it made the narrative easier to navigate--and no doubt more enjoyable than if it'd been written to represent life 100% (which is probably not all that interesting anyway)--but it was just so impressive to me (speaking from the point of view of someone who's tried--albeit unsuccessfully--to write fiction and map out plots and all the rest) that he was able to construct a story so without flaws and so true to life, like the smoothest animation, so real as to make you believe what you're reading is actually happening--as if divinely written. it just amazes me that writers and artists can be that fucking consistent--like machines, cranking out flawless story after flawless story. i've never been able to locate the trick--because it is a trick, a sleight of the writer's hand--that makes you believe in what you're reading, when it reaches that point where it transcends words on a page and becomes something else--and not only that--but glides to that next level where you forget that the images the author is putting in your heads are completely fabricated--you forget that you're reading. i've always been equally impressed and frustrated with people who can do that, because i could never do it myself. that goes for music, too--it's obvious when i listen to a song i've recorded that i'm listening to a song i've recorded. all the transitions seemed rushed, the playing seems clunky and awkward not unlike so many other parts of the song. i've never been able to trick people into liking something i've produced. they either like it because they're supposed to (because they're close to me) or because they want to (for their own snobby reasons). i'd like to make something that represents me: that people can listen to without knowing who i am and actually appreciate--want to listen to.

i'm working on it but the more i try, the more discouraged i become. there's just so much to be mindful of and it's painful trying to work beyond my already-established method. i guess that's how you grow.