Re: He shall Purify the sons of Eli...
Brendan McKennedy (suburbantourist@hotmail.com)
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:16:34 -0800 (PST)
>I think the intent of the original paragraph was that if Vonnegut were
a
>better writer, he wouldn't have to resort to the gimmick of writing in
his own
>handwriting to acheive an effect. The gimmick was a crutch he used to
be
>effective, because he couldn't be effective any other way.
>
>There's some substance to this. Prose and poetry writers who resort to
>italics or Capitals in unusual places do so to put emphasis on specific
words,
>but if the sentence is written correctly a competent reader will know
what's
>being emphasized without the use of a visual device such as italics or
>capitals.
Not at all, Jim, not at all. Refer to the post I just sent.
In fact, I'm going to have to disagree with the argument that you used
my misunderstood quote to support. Perhaps the "competent" (although
I'm afraid of others' definitons of that--my own is alright, though)
reader will insert his or her own italics and capitals, but it is the
job of the writer to do whatever it takes to tell the story in the best
way possible. I don't believe for a second that Holden would have read
the same to me without his italics--or any other of Salinger's
characters. Of course there is overkill, as there is in anything, but
the difference between the discerning artist and the undiscerning artist
is the ability to use unlimited devices, even unconventionally, with
subtlety.
Brendan
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com