----- Original Message ----- From: "Robison Michael R CNIN"
<
Robison_M@crane.navy.mil>
> It's artsy to leave the violent part out and then
just gradually
> fill the reader in on the details after the fact. I
place the
> blame on Faulkner for popularizing the technique in
SANCTUARY.
> Edward Anderson liked it and followed suit in
THIEVES LIKE US.
> It's a delightful little game the writer plays with
the reader.
> The reader endures endless talking and talking and
talking and
> then something really wicked or exciting occurs but
the only
> way you hear about it is through more talking and
talking and...
Violence is difficult to write well. Ignoring the comedic
approach ("hey, why you just shoot me in the leg,
motherf*cker?") and the early hardboiled approach ("I
clenched my jaw. The slug had ripped into my thigh.
Fortunately, previous experience told me I'd have forgotten
about it in ten minutes"), I can think of only three main
methods of creating realistic fictional violence (I'm sure
there are many more):
1: after the fact 2: overkill 3: reportorial
There are pros and cons to all of them. My preference is for
the reportorial style, as employed to great effect by Charles
Willeford. But it has its restrictions (for example, to
report violence in this detached way makes it almost
impossible for the point of view character to be the
recipient of the act of violence). The best example of
"overkill" I can think of is the climactic scene in John D.
MacDonald's SLAM THE BIG DOOR which Kurt Vonnegut described
as "a Beethoven's fifth for coroners and safety engineers."
As for "after the fact" violence, sometimes it works. Other
times it just seems like the writer is suffering from Big
Scene phobia.
Al
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 May 2003 EDT