--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Burridge"
<stephen.burridge@...> wrote:
>
> An eloquent post with which I agree almost
entirely.
>
> I will note that I don't have a problem with people
analyzing the
> "carpentry" of anyone's writing, and in fact I think
such analysis
can be
> productive of more than just nice papers. It can
help the reader
appreciate
> what's going on in a book, and presumably can help
other writers improve
> their craft as well.
Yes. I've bored people here with such analyses before... My
point, to put it bluntly, is that having an orgasm and
writing a treatise that analyzes the orgasm are entirely
separate things. And we don't really know how reader and
author get tangled during a reading. We know nuthin', even if
we are the reader, ahem, syntax alert. With Ross Macdonald,
why is sameoldsameold not so sameoldsameold while we are
reading a novel of his? He's a pretty mysterious writer, and
Archer gives you nuthin', you have no idea what he's
thinking.
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Aug 2007 EDT