[stylist] Exclamation points and other stuff now

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Donna,

I agree about Seramago. I did not have to read Blindness in the class I
took; can't remember the name of the novel, but after the film came out,
I did read Blindness, along with seeing the film, on my own. I wanted to
be able to discuss the situation fully by knowing exactly what was in
the content and base opinions for myself. He wrote a sequel titled
Sighted, I believe, that wasn't any better. Despite the subject matter,
I don't care for the guys writing at all, and I don't see how he's such
a genius, but I've heard him mentioned over and over again as an example
of good writing. Experimental and edgy, but good.

In my program, the showing vs. telling was stressed to the point of
exhaustion. I think some classmates pointed this out so often because
they had no real idea how to contribute. Nonetheless, all my instructors
pushed this idea, and this is one thing the Workshop and English
departments agreed upon.

A lot of classical literature relies on the tell as opposed to the show,
and a lot of current best-selling material still follows suit.

Personally, I prefer more show as I feel too much telling becomes
annoying. Too much time inside a character's head with all that inner
dialogue can irritate me, or likewise too much interjection from the
author, but I like to think I have a moderate view on this subject. In
all things I like balance. After studying writing in a certain method, I
attempt to now write in a way I equally prefer to read. Of course I may
be biased to a point, but I can sift through what I was taught and what
I like to find common ground.

This isn't to say I won't read or write something in a different way,
and I always like experimentation. In general, it depends on the skill
of the practitioner. In my experience, most writing relying on telling
over the showing is not very good and it's poorly executed. There are
those who use the telling to great skill though. It all depends on how
well-crafted something is.

But as you say, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla, and it really
comes down to preference in the end.

Bridgit
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:53:47 -0400
From: "Donna Hill" <penatwork at epix.net>
To: "'Writer's Division Mailing List'" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] Exclamation points
Message-ID: <9EB748AE716A4C20AE8707E87FF0B748 at OwnerHP>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Bridgit,
Saramago offends me without regard to his non-use of punctuation, though
I'm pleased to hear that about him, as it allows me to think even less
of him than I already do. If he had used any other minority group as a
metaphor (I'm referring here to his novel Blindness), there would have
been riots, and I suspect he would have had a worse time than Salman
Rushty. But, since he chose to use blindness, he gets a Nobel Prize.

It's funny how tastes differ. I wasn't fully sighted, but did read print
as a kid, and I have a visual memory of the ellipsis, which I find to be
an unobtrusive and attractive mark. You had full vision and remember it
as something quite the opposite. This is probably why the experts can't
agree on anything. They are trying too hard to make rules to govern what
the reader should like. Another example of something they tell young
writers is to show not tell. Yet, if you read Joseph Heller's Catch 22
or anything by John Grisham, and lots of stuff in between, there is a
lot of telling.

Well, as they say, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Donna