|Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 02:47 am: |
I am reading a book called 'Style In Fiction' by Leech & Short (longman 1981) which explores paragraphs by Conrad, Lawrence, Katherine Mansfield, Henry James etc, examining graphological, phonological, syntactic and semantic nuances and patterns, discussing how they affect the meaning etc.
Do we miss all this? Or do we instinctively absorb it, however fast we read? Does it apply to all genres of literature? And does the writer intend these effects (in a slow laborious fashioning?) or instinctively produce them (at speed?)?
I myself feel both reader and writer 'do' this thing together - instinctively and at speed.
|Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 05:19 am: |
Instinct, it has to be that way. Can you imagine someone writing a book called 'Style in Kissing'? It has to be learned through feedback and vibe, not theory!
|Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 05:39 am: |
I agree, Rhys, but I wouldn't want to give you a pint of Guinness for each "how to" book written on these topics (reading, writing, or kissing).
Still, a certain theoretical background will definitely help (and that's a kind of feedback, too), but in the heat of the moment (of reading, writing or kissing), a well-honed instinct should take over.
|Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 05:40 am: |
Style In Kissing? Lip suction/movement coordination? Relative fluids' consistency? Mutual Plimsoll lines? etc.
|Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 07:10 am: |
Kissing, Stoup, can be likened to fictioneer and reader when the work is read.
And I think the above book Style In Fiction, Rhys, is not setting a theory on how to write, but trying to set examples of fiction writing within a pre-planned theory (i.e. a theory that writing has many subtle effects -- semantic, graphological, phonetic, syntactic -- many of which can happen instinctively and can happen thus instinctively both within the writer as he writes and in the reader's mind as he reads). It's like reading a fascinating fiction in itself.
|Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:40 pm: |
I too am reading this book as part of an MA in English. I have found it technical and dry to the point of death! Having written both commercially and for fun for many years, I'd have to go with instinct on this one. Leave the theory to the theorists, and the pleasure to the sensorists!
|Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 01:08 am: |
Yes it is overtly dry, Writer, but I find fiction based on such 'instinct' as this book evokes is very wet indeed.
|Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 07:59 am: |
If you read - in the normal course of events - this message (without being solicited to do so) AND you have a UK address, you will be eligible for a free copy of EITHER 'Nemonymous Five' anthology OR 'Only Connect' paperback book.
Please write to email@example.com mentioning this message.
Please do not tell anyone else about this message. There will be other messages with other free gifts dotted about the DFL threads or websites, should you be lucky enough to find them.
|Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 08:59 am: |
Separately, if anyone anywhere would like to review The Hawler (first published 2005) (Word Doc or PDF doc available from firstname.lastname@example.org or easy navigation from http://www.weirdmonger.com), they will receive (when the review appears) both a full set of Nemonymous and a copy of the aesthetic Prime trade paperback entitled Weirdmonger, until stocks last. All will be signed by DFL, if required. These are to compensate for the reviewer not receiving a hard copy of The Hawler and the review can, of course, be praising, critical or indifferent.