Re: He shall Purify the sons of Eli...
AntiUtopia (AntiUtopia@aol.com)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:13:06 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 98-03-11 17:18:40 EST, you write:
<< 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
>>
Ok, once again, I'm glad you called me on this. One of the problems I seem to
be having with AOL is that I get responses to posts before I get the posts
sometimes. After I read your post, outside of the context of Tim's quote, I
realized I missed your intent.
But the point I was trying to make was, I believe, still valid. I don't think
it's only a matter of overkill vs. subtlety of use. I think good writers will
require fewer gimmicks. When a good writer does use a gimmick, then, it's
powerful, effective, and probably irreplaceable. When a bad writer uses a
gimmick, well, it's different...
I didn't intend to restrict the use of gimmicks, just not to praise them
unconditionally :)
Jim