08-05-2006, 02:53 AM
I feel that part of being a writer should be that one is also a poet in some degree, whether they write about war, death, blood, gore, sex, love, hate, friendship, happiness, industrialism, science, non-fiction or anything else they may write. The balance beween author and poet needs to be in using poetic devices and artistic license only where necessary, which comes back to Mr. Strunk's Rule #17 -- Omit unnecessary words.
The absence of artistic words and expressions will make a story feel dull, technical, and mechanical. Though such writing can be proper within the context of an essay or technical manual, a narrative must engage the reader by being vigorous. This type of writing carries power in its brevity and sharpness, but does not deny the use of literary tools, be they poetic, artistic, emotional or otherwise. It merely denies their overuse.
Mullen, your example is a good point to make. In the english language there's no excuse to be so dull as your first version, nor so extrvagant as the second.
Our words are clear and crisp delivering the message without being overly poetic. "dull knife of depression piercing his hopeful heart" can easily be reduce to a simpler tone of depression, or another contrast. The use of the negative in denial (he could no longer) makes an effective statement, and the use of absolute and concise words can increase the impact even while using less of them.
Do your additional 6 words (your passage is 32 words, while mine is 26) truly increase empathy for the reader, or simply attempt to use a device to try and increase it?
And now, on to you Wisemon. While it is true some novelist are anti-poetic, I do not agree with your thesis entirely. Poets were once held in higher regard for their ability to say more with less, but we no longer live in that day, and our young people are finding that they agree with the American belief that "more is better" and thus with the logcal conclusion from that: "less is worse."
As such we do not hold poets in esteem who do not spout of many words or long streams of incoherent thought, and these are the new poets. These are the "stream of consciousness" poets the two of us detest so much, because they do not embrace our minimalist attitude of "more with less", but the mainstream the "more is better", and so they let their thoughts or emotions ramble on the paper or through a voice recorder, or to anyone who will care to listen to them.
The same problem afflicts every author who is not poetic, and yet who attempt to use poetic and artistic devices within their stories. THey subconsciously accept that "more is better" and thus attempt to put as many words into their story as they can. This leads to the often long-winded prose we find in bad fanfiction, and which seems especially popular when describing a Mary Sue or a character on whom the author has a crush. We attempt to tell them that they are using too many words to express their thoughts, but they shoot us down with arguments such as "short is boring" or "you're just trying to be mean." The more intellectual among them may even attempt to call us elitists, trying to define what is good or bad writing, but we are simply looking at the long established rule while they ignore them.
When it comes to writing, more in less should be the ideal I feel we should all strive for, without abandoning poetic and artistic tools. But we need not be poets first, simply poets as well.
Marine, I disagree that poetic elements are secondary to narrative. All writing elements are, or should be, equal to the writer of narrative, be those elements poetic or otherwise. Even the essayist should have knowledge of poetic devices, as they can help to present his case when used appropriately and moderately. Poets are writers first and foremost, they are but a specialized type of writer, like the speech writer or essayist, who deal not with narrative or prose, but must still know the elements of being a writer overall.
The absence of artistic words and expressions will make a story feel dull, technical, and mechanical. Though such writing can be proper within the context of an essay or technical manual, a narrative must engage the reader by being vigorous. This type of writing carries power in its brevity and sharpness, but does not deny the use of literary tools, be they poetic, artistic, emotional or otherwise. It merely denies their overuse.
Mullen, your example is a good point to make. In the english language there's no excuse to be so dull as your first version, nor so extrvagant as the second.
Quote:"This is sad," Takeru moaned as he felt the chill of depression, for he could no longer deny the truth: Patamon was in love with DemiDevimon."
Our words are clear and crisp delivering the message without being overly poetic. "dull knife of depression piercing his hopeful heart" can easily be reduce to a simpler tone of depression, or another contrast. The use of the negative in denial (he could no longer) makes an effective statement, and the use of absolute and concise words can increase the impact even while using less of them.
Do your additional 6 words (your passage is 32 words, while mine is 26) truly increase empathy for the reader, or simply attempt to use a device to try and increase it?
And now, on to you Wisemon. While it is true some novelist are anti-poetic, I do not agree with your thesis entirely. Poets were once held in higher regard for their ability to say more with less, but we no longer live in that day, and our young people are finding that they agree with the American belief that "more is better" and thus with the logcal conclusion from that: "less is worse."
As such we do not hold poets in esteem who do not spout of many words or long streams of incoherent thought, and these are the new poets. These are the "stream of consciousness" poets the two of us detest so much, because they do not embrace our minimalist attitude of "more with less", but the mainstream the "more is better", and so they let their thoughts or emotions ramble on the paper or through a voice recorder, or to anyone who will care to listen to them.
The same problem afflicts every author who is not poetic, and yet who attempt to use poetic and artistic devices within their stories. THey subconsciously accept that "more is better" and thus attempt to put as many words into their story as they can. This leads to the often long-winded prose we find in bad fanfiction, and which seems especially popular when describing a Mary Sue or a character on whom the author has a crush. We attempt to tell them that they are using too many words to express their thoughts, but they shoot us down with arguments such as "short is boring" or "you're just trying to be mean." The more intellectual among them may even attempt to call us elitists, trying to define what is good or bad writing, but we are simply looking at the long established rule while they ignore them.
When it comes to writing, more in less should be the ideal I feel we should all strive for, without abandoning poetic and artistic tools. But we need not be poets first, simply poets as well.
Marine, I disagree that poetic elements are secondary to narrative. All writing elements are, or should be, equal to the writer of narrative, be those elements poetic or otherwise. Even the essayist should have knowledge of poetic devices, as they can help to present his case when used appropriately and moderately. Poets are writers first and foremost, they are but a specialized type of writer, like the speech writer or essayist, who deal not with narrative or prose, but must still know the elements of being a writer overall.