Maybe I should read more or pay attention to what I'm reading more. Besides graphic novels and the first half of a couple sales/marketing/advertising books, I probably haven't read a good book since high school. I focus on the plot and characters far more than the writing. Movies, that is another story. insomsbf made me watch a stupid movie called *Extract* Not even Jason Bateman could save it. Piss poor plot, piss poor editing, bad bad bad sound mixing, and Mila Kunis was a manipulative sexy lady who scared me. What I'm trying to say is, the same way I have a hard time watching a bad movie, or even a good movie with technical flaws, is probably how more proficient readers find this book. Since I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm happy. :P The reason I liked that paragraph was because it nicely described the confusion when you're really really really high. You have this inability to take everything in, while simultaneously taking in the tiniest details. I saw her sudden obsession and fascination and intrigue to be an intense drug. This, along with the other details about Archimboldi and given the other characters' obsessions, worked in reenforcing this strange writer that has a profound effect on our characters.
I'm guessing I misread that piece.Maybe I should read more or pay attention to what I'm reading more.
That was not a criticism of your perception of that piece. I just don't find it to be very Hemingway-esque. Others may disagree. As for the description of a drug induced state, I thought it read like someone that had never had a drug induced state writing about what they thought a drug induced state would be like. Also, is she actually on drugs at this point? I don't recall that she was. Am I wrong here? If I am, then I missed the part where she was literally getting high.
No she wasn't actually getting high, I don't think. I think the author/book is her drug! I mean obviously there has to be something mind-blowing about the author in order to have 4 people utterly obsessed with this guy, right?
Yeah, that's what my take was too. Thanks, now I'm certain this section was over written :)