As much as my final project of the semester needs to be completed, I really
just had to respond to this.

Comments and further discussions are very welcome.

=====

Gratuitous Self: Meta-Meta-What?

- 13-

     Sparse.
     That's the one word common to most commentaries of my writing style.
Sparse. I have no problem with 'sparse'.
     Asimov's writing was 'sparse'. I have no problem being tagged with the
same adjective used to describe the writing of the author of the Foundation
books, one of my all-time favorite SF series.
     Hemingway's writing was 'sparse'. While I don't particularly care for
Hemingway, or his writing, or his 'cleaning the shotgun' death, I certainly
don't mind having my writing labeled as being in the same style as such a
famous writer (whose name, by the way, gets bandied around by people who
have never read his work, so that they can sound literate).

It brought a smile to my face to see my own example brought up here and
expanded on.  It's things like this that really make C&C worth writing.

   Then I read a few books, most notably by Dickens and by Jeannette

Winterson, and I read my own works again.
     And BOY, did it feel sparse.
     No lengthy expositions on the families that lived in the area that the
protagonist grew up in. No rich, earthy, innovative metaphors. No deep
social commentary. No inclination to attempt a more cutting-edge method of
portraying lovemaking, or cancer, or autumn leaves. No propensity to
substitute long, Latinate words for short, brief, low-grade Anglo-Saxon
words.

Dear God, spare me.  I once had to read a Dickens novel in Grade 12 English.
It was one of the most painful experiences of my life.  Not only was the
subject matter of little interest to me, the story was written in such a way that
the one aspect I might have enjoyed, character interaction, was completely
lost in a lintany of worthless descriptive narative.

     All I have in front of me are scads of fast-paced dialogue interspersed
with medium-sized blocks of introspection and personal observation.
     So this is my style. Sparse. Minimalist.
     I like it.

Follow your heart, and it will lead you where you want to go.

- 14 -

     I blame my insecurities about my writing on my education.

I blame a lot of things on my education.  All of them bad.

    Reader's Ability to Infer: Let's face it: we hate it when we think that
the author is patronizing us. When the author takes a condescending tone
toward the readers for their inferior understanding or knowledge, his or her
work becomes almost repellant to us. Yes, I rely on the reader's skills at
induction quite a bit. When I say, "Takezo was crushed. How could his
masterpiece come under so much criticism from the mailing list?" I expect
the readers to infer a couple of things: Takezo sees Turning Road as his
masterpiece, and in his youthful idealism he was unprepared to accept
negative C&C.
     I didn't say these things outright, and yet the average reader picks it
up right away (even if only unconsciously). When I say "This was the fourth
girl he and his friends propositioned this day that didn't respond as
predicted," I think it's safe to assume that there were three girls before
this particular one.
     The reader is not stupid, and won't take kindly to being treated as if
he or she is. Stephen Hawking never sounded condescending, and yet he's more
knowledgeable about his chosen field and most probably more intelligent than
most of his readers. Joseph Campbell didn't patronize us even though he
probably knew more about mythology than anyone else on the planet.
     So why should I talk down to my readers? Just because my 'teachers'
want me to pander to the lowest possible denominator? No, thank you.

Why indeed?  No one likes to be talked down to.  While your examples are
chosen to make the suggestions of your proffesors look particularly ludicrous,
more complex examples certainly apply.  For some styles of writing though,
the "pandering to the lowest possible denominator" makes sense.  For you, it
just bogs down the flow of the prose.

     Tell the Readers Where and When: This is related to reader inference.
When I say Keiichi and Skuld are riding their motorcycle home while the sky
turns from blue to orange and the cherry blossom petals fall, I assume that
the readers know that they're on the road, that it's sunset, and that it's
spring. Unfortunately, some of my teachers seem to want me to expound on it
in the following manner:

     Keiichi and Skuld rode down the highway to the temple during a spring
sunset.

I really have to wonder who your proffesors for creative writing were.  Did they
do a lot of drugs in the 60's?


In any event, Meta-Meta-What? has taken a turn from the exposition on GS it
was touted to be in the beginning.  Still, I find the commentaries interesting
and sometimes enlightening and I look forward to future installment as they
may appear.

Dennis Horte
winddance@direct.ca