Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
I'd just like to point out that my original contribution was a defence of stylistic experimentation and variance from the norm in certain kinds of fiction, against a kind of dismissive rubbishing - or attack - that was characterised by catlady's post - which was by no means the only example of the phenomenon, just the one I responded to. It was not an attack on anyone, so it confuses me why discussions about the aesthetics of literature have to descend into slagging people off. Perhaps I am being a bit disingenuous when I say it confuses me - my suspicion is that it comes from a strong anti-intellectual streak in British and American culture, but that's another topic. Basically, if you don't like work that is challenging, don't read it, and if you do read it don't blame it for pissing you off, would be as brief a summary of my own position as I can manage.
|
I am officially f*ing sick of this. ALL I SAID WAS THAT
AN AUTHOR NEEDS A GOOD REASON TO DEFY CONVENTION. My exact post: "The problem is that any use of a nonstandard style calls attention to itself, which distracts the reader from the substance--so an author should have a darn good reason to abandon conventional practices of punctuation."
Where do you see an attack? Where do you see "rubbishing"? Where do you see an "anti-intellectual streak"?
YOU are confused? I am completely gobsmacked. My simple statement has been twisted totally out of recognition and I've been held up to ridicule for things I NEVER SAID.
Either quote EXACTLY what I said or LEAVE ME OUT!