--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Burridge"
<stephen.burridge@...> wrote:
>
> Macdonald's way with similes can seem forced and
excessive at times.
> I believe this is a common criticism.
Perhaps, but reading older literature requires an adjustment.
And there is no real positive evolution of style but
something different: changes in discourse, different
mechanisms of mediation between the written word and what
goes on in the head of the reader, changes in the perception
of time, etc. You could say that Shakespeare's metaphors and
jokes seem forced at times, you could say that he is wordy,
etc. You could say that Dickens should have used the scissors
instead of pouring on so much stuff into any one novel. You
could say all that but their works wouldn't change.
What I'm aiming at is that any writer needs the sympathy of
the reader. Bad writers don't do a very good job of getting
such sympathy, but the good ones usually do. Which is why
Shakespeare can hook you, and why Ross Macdonald can hook
you. If you choose to look at the carpentry of his writing,
you could end up with a nice paper, but that's several steps
removed from the experience of reading.
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Aug 2007 EDT