Quote:
Originally Posted by teh603
Grammar went out with Said Books (since repetition and most other poetic devices are BAD and should never be used in prose). People write for effect now, not perfect grammar.
|
Leaving aside your comment that grammar has become passé, I find it odd that you feel poetic devices are actually "BAD." By extension, you're implying that various writers who are highly regarded for their poetic prose are also "BAD": James Joyce, William Styron, William Butler Yeats, Cormac McCarthy, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Beckett, Jamaica Kincaid, Robert Coover and John Hawkes, to name but nine out of at least two thousand.
Please keep in mind that prose is not always written for the same purpose or reader. Innumerable personalities, aims and aesthetic sensibilities result in countless stylistic variations. If you personally -- or even
they impersonally (a general demographic that includes you) -- happen to dislike careful prose, then that's a real consideration for the writer who wants to reach you. Otherwise, why should it matter to anyone else?
The prose writer who chooses to be poetic might do so for good reasons, including the possession of a lyric gift which helps to shape their voice. You might not like what they write, and that might be due to a realistic assessment of your allotted time and patience, but I think it's a mistake to presume that one's own impatience with certain styles serves as the merit detector for the world.
Personally, I like to see repetition used judiciously -- not only within a paragraph, but as a way of giving the reader of a short story or novel a sense of recognition. Recurring ideas, themes and phrases are often the rhymes of plotting.
I'm also a fan of the conscious use of rhythm, poetic scansion and the avoidance of sibilance to make lines and narratives flow. When used effectively, rhythm can create a feeling of momentum even when the action is static (as Beckett knew all too well).
No reason to restrict a century's palette based on a decade's fashion.