| |
In lugnet.castle, Leonard Hoffman writes:
> This is precisely why writing is an artform and not a science. There is no
> real way to measure exactly when something is too detailed or not enough, and
> there is always variation in your readers.
Ah, finally more interesting discussion in this thread. :)
> My advice is to provide only what detail is REQUIRED by the story, that is,
> what details are important to the development of the characters and the plot.
> For example, if you talk about a princess wearing a purple dress- is there
> anything important in that dress? is purple saying something, even if
> metaphorically, to the audience? if it isn't, then who cares? This can be a
> difficult concept to accept, because writers tend to put more detail in rather
> than less.
Yes, I was wondering when someone would eventually state
something to that extent...right now I'm looking for
rather metaphorical ideas for detail. (something
which seems rather difficult.)
However, it's sometimes difficult for the reader to
visualize the scenery if little description is
provided. (I guess that's where imagination comes in.)
Otherwise, I'm trying to place small references in
description. (for example, when Skye looks at the
imperial logo of faiye, she sees it not as a falcon,
but as a bird of prey, which would possibly
serve as a harbinger to greater conflict. (?)
> one of my favorite authors is Milan Kundera, and also Franz Kafka. Both of
> these guys are masters of the important detail. They know that your
> imagination will fill in everything else to put a picture in your mind, but
> they convey everything that is needed for the story (plot, characters, mood)
> progress. The effect is very rich writing, because meaning is behind every
> word and detail, and nothing is without purpose.
> Kundera's -Unbearable Lightness of Being- and Kafka's -The Trial- are two
> examples of the mastery of controlled detail.
> also check out Kundera's The Art of the Novel, as a guide to writing.
I'll place that on my -to eventually review- list as well.
> I would argue against seeking clarity, per se, but rather using description
> and vagueness both. Like two colors on a palette, used when you want them.
> Sometimes vagueness is excellent in expressing a certain meaning and a certain
> mood, while description expresses another.
Well, that was truely helpful advice...I'm pressed to cast
Argent in a more mysterious light, so as the reader believes
he represents one stance, yet in the end, he turns out much
different than the reader anticipated.
> the whole question is: what is it you want to convey, and what is the best way
> to do that.
> ps. i haven't taken time yet but to peruse your story, and my comments are
> based on my philosophy of writing in responce to the discussion i've read so
> far.
And that's good to hear...let me know (if you decide
to read the story, anyway) what you believe would
serve further to refine it.
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Fellow lego enthusiast
O s p r e y
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Please read this!
|
| (...) This is precisely why writing is an artform and not a science. There is no real way to measure exactly when something is too detailed or not enough, and there is always variation in your readers. My advice is to provide only what detail is (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.general)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
