Re: rools

Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu
Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:57:12 -0600

i agree with will.  look at how revolutionary faulkner's use of chronology was
at the time.  how much more enduring and potent do you want to get?--matt

On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 08:10:46 -0700 (MST) hochman@uscolo.edu (WILL HOCHMAN)
wrote:

>
>I respectfully diagree Scottie--I take the word "novel" seriously and
>often that means changing the conventions and rules to fit the story--take
>for example cormac mcarthy's unorthodox use of no quotes (and other stuff,
>it's been a while since I read him) or David Markson's incredbile
>intertextuality in _Reader's Block_--craft and tradition with language may
>be important, but good fiction breaks rules as well as following them...I
>base my point on _Literature Against Itself_ by Geral Graff.  I am the one
>who is questioning mr. salinger's captialization scheme, but before I
>sluff it off as "arch," I think I want to think about tim's point about
>using caps to empahsize parallel to his use of italics, as well as
>the idea that capitalization quirks could be about Buddy's quirks...
>will
>
>Mar 1998, Scottie Bowman wrote:
>
>> 	
>>
>> 	Whatever about Dylan's honesty condoning unorthodoxy, it seems
>> 	to be the case, sadly, that the more restrictions an artist places
>> 	on himself - whether rules of scansion or rhyme or grammar or
>> 	whatever - the cleaner, leaner & more enduring the final product.
>>
>> 	Scottie B.
>>