claritylit's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- prolix prose I was looking for a quote, I believe from Mystery Science Theater, which said something like: I fear this like a monster who eats adjectives fears a novel by Hemingway. Couldn't find it. I guess it got lost in the ether. *sigh* Peggy mentions that she loves to read "lyrical, flamboyant writing", but admits that it's very easy for the author to slip into purple prose. As a staunch antagonist of excess verbiage, I agree completely with her assessment. When I had to read Dickens in high-school, I loathed him. (He got paid by the word, and it shows.) I got lost in each and every one of his sentences. He'd start with the subject, but then would have ten different prepositional phrases, some clauses here and there, and an overdose of redundant adjectives. By the time I got to the end of the sentence, I'd forgotten what the hell the entire point of it was. *My* point is that his writing didn't communicate to me. And I believe the whole purpose of language/reading/writing/speaking is communication. So I get upset when I'm reading a "classic", which although rich in metaphor, symbolism, and the like, fails to communicate to me. I bet you can guess that I don't like Faulkner (sorry, Victoria!). I didn't like Allende, either. Hemingway was fine, and I did like Camus. But so far this is mere personal preference. I think in short, scientific sentences. I generally write in them. So of course that's the writing style I understand the best, the one I get the most out of. But it's not just about style. Consider this. Miss Bingley was not so entirely satisfied with this reply as to continue the subject. Chapter 8, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Now if I wrote this it would go: Miss Bingley couldn't tell if he was refering to her, but she shut up anyway. Now, both of these sentences have a minimum number of words necessary to the point. Yet, one sentence is still better than the other. It's not simply the length or lack of decoration in the writing which makes it classic. It is, as Robert Pirsig would say, the Quality of the sentence. Both terse writing and flowery writing can have Quality. The problem is that flowery writing contains so many more places for error. It's much easier to write a good sentence in 10 words than it is in 50. Really, what's the probability that all 50 words are perfect, as opposed to the 10? Rather low. I read something on Sack.com that offered "a quick course in laconic tough-guy editing: ... 3) Eliminate every other adjective. 4) Put a line through every third sentence. 5) Cut 50 percent of the paragraphs down to topic sentence only. " I realize that this is supposed to be funny, but I can see an entire generation of aspiring authors following this procedure to 'pare down' their writing. The problem is, short sentences do not a quality paragraph make. And I have had this entry open much too long. 1:03 pm - April 10, 2002 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||