Rand, commas, and you
Amitai Schlair
I know I've already been an English major once in the past week (and
don't let me see it again, McPeters! ;), but I just realized something
that's too potentially interesting to pass up.
Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
of them was the generous allocation of commas, which she employed to
separate phrases for purposes of clarity and effect. This technique aids
in conveying the meaning and in many cases prevents misunderstanding,
but I've not seen it used in a comparable volume or manner by any other
writer before her.
Writers who came *after* her, however, are a different matter --
especially those who share, or are influenced by, her ideas. To wit:
Branden's style in the pieces he wrote for _The_Objectivist_Newsletter_,
_The_Objectivist_, _Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal_, etc., and of course
many of HPO's readers in their postings. (There are others, but I'm
simultaneously too lazy and too excited to look for them right now.)
What, exactly, do I mean? Here's a perfect sample, concocted by the
Editor for your edification:
"Those who use commas like this, have read and liked Rand's work."
What to make of it? I'm not sure. I have some conjectures that relate
this non-essential quirk of writing style to essentials, but they're
just conjectures. Perhaps someone can shed some light on the subject?
- Amitai
Freedom
<1d24xy7.ri111x12r9p42M@[10.0.2.15]>, amitai....@usa.net held us all
spellbound around ye old campfire with...
> Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
> of them was the generous allocation of commas
<snipped>
> What to make of it? I'm not sure.
She had another style idiosyncracy, too--at least compared to *modern*
style--and that is her use of the full colon <:>. She used it often and
accurately, but certainly differently than most modern style books would
suggest.
I think some of her style comes from a combination of two things:
firstly, English was her second language, and secondly (I make a
conjecture here), that much of her reading--as evidenced by book lists
she gives in, for instance, *Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal--was books
either by, or translated by, strictly academic British writers. Modern
style is much more conversational in tone and, consequently, differently
punctuated.
Just for fun--take a look at Rand's essay style and that of Mises in the
first few chapters of *Human Action*. I think it will become clear what I
am getting at.
Here's an example:
The old academic rule was that _any_ phrase that could be removed from
the sentence without substantially or essentially altering the meaning or
effect of the main clause should be separated by commas.
or
The old academic rule was that _any_ phrase that could be removed from
the sentence, without substantially or essentially altering the meaning
or effect of the main clause, should be separated by commas.
Note the commas around <without altering...clause>.
That, in any case, is my understanding. I happily await correction if I
am missing or misapprehending something.
Freedom's S.O. Ron
Michael Schneider
In article <1d24xy7.ri111x12r9p42M@[10.0.2.15]>, Amitai Schlair
<amitai....@usa.net> wrote:
> I know I've already been an English major once in the past week (and
> don't let me see it again, McPeters! ;), but I just realized something
> that's too potentially interesting to pass up.
>
> Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
> of them was the generous allocation of commas, which she employed to
> separate phrases for purposes of clarity and effect. This technique aids
> in conveying the meaning and in many cases prevents misunderstanding,
> but I've not seen it used in a comparable volume or manner by any other
> writer before her.
>
> Writers who came *after* her, however, are a different matter --
> especially those who share, or are influenced by, her ideas. To wit:
> Branden's style in the pieces he wrote for _The_Objectivist_Newsletter_,
> _The_Objectivist_, _Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal_, etc., and of course
> many of HPO's readers in their postings. (There are others, but I'm
> simultaneously too lazy and too excited to look for them right now.)
>
> What, exactly, do I mean? Here's a perfect sample, concocted by the
> Editor for your edification:
>
> "Those who use commas like this, have read and liked Rand's work."
>
> What to make of it? I'm not sure. I have some conjectures that relate
> this non-essential quirk of writing style to essentials, but they're
> just conjectures. Perhaps someone can shed some light on the subject?
>
> - Amitai
Hmmm.....
I'm of the "if in doubt, leave it out" school.
------------------------------------------------------------------
D#lete "paidshill" to reply email.
"The President's a murderer! Er... You didn't know that?"
-- Norm McDonald, "Weekend Update", Saturday Night Live
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
Jim Klein
In <mike1-31129...@15-91.dynamic.visi.com> Michael Schneider
<mi...@paidshillvisi.com> writes:
> I'm of the "if in doubt, leave it out" school.
That can be wise advice, especially for those who use them
prolifically. (Or should it be prolificly?) Myself, I try to pattern
the usage after spoken speech, since that's what's being symbolized
anyway. Phonemics is really interesting.
Ron set out two perfect examples. In my view, both sentences were 100%
grammatically correct. The only way one could rate one "better" than
the other, would be to show that a certain set-off (or lack of same)
helped clarify whatever the actual point was or not.
jk
R Lawrence
Amitai Schlair <amitai....@usa.net> wrote:
>Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
>of them was the generous allocation of commas, which she employed to
>separate phrases for purposes of clarity and effect.
Personally, I prefer parentheticals (which I use quite extensively).
:-)
================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com>
Anti-Spam Encoded -- to email remove the ".spam"
Freedom
<68fo52$4...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com held
>
> >Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
> >of them was the generous allocation of commas, which she employed to
> >separate phrases for purposes of clarity and effect.
>
> Personally, I prefer parentheticals (which I use quite extensively).
>
> :-)
>
Parentheticals have their place (and a useful one--although, again, some
of the modern style *gurus* suggest that parentheticals either are
important enough to deserve a footnote of their own or are most often
superfluous, but I disagree). Parentheticals are sometimes merely
superfluous, but that is not a matter of style, generally. It is more
often simply that the writer did not need to make the additional point.
I use parentheticals when I consider that the clause so enclosed is
relevant but not essential to the original point. I might use them, for
instance, when the enclosed clause is illustrative of the main point, as
you did above. I use commas when I consider that the sentence requires
the additional information either to be properly understood or to
enclose a quick qualifier.
Ron
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com> wrote:
................snip Amatai quote (sorry Amatai).....................
> Personally, I prefer parentheticals (which I use quite extensively).
I concur in the matter of parens (not that comas are a bad
thing [pardon my Seinfeldism]).
Bob Kolker
Tom Bernhardt
Freedom wrote in message ...
> <68fo52$4...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com held
>Parentheticals have their place (and a useful one--although, again, some
>of the modern style *gurus* suggest that parentheticals either are
>important enough to deserve a footnote of their own or are most often
>superfluous, but I disagree). Parentheticals are sometimes merely
>superfluous, but that is not a matter of style, generally. It is more
>often simply that the writer did not need to make the additional point.
Parentheses are useful when they wrap a complex clause, especially one
containing commas. Their advantage is they have separate symbols for
beginning and end instead of just being simple delimiters.
Freedom
<68h3cb$gla$1...@news1-alterdial.UU.NET>, TomBer...@missioncritical.com
>
Understood and agreed, but I think in a lot of cases the enclosed clause
could or should be a separate sentence. I find, sometimes, a
parenthetical is so long and complex that the reader can have a problem
remembering what came before the parenthetical, and then tying _that_ to
what comes after.
Ron
gp
>Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
>of them was the generous allocation of commas, which she employed to
>in conveying the meaning and in many cases prevents misunderstanding,
>but I've not seen it used in a comparable volume or manner by any other
>writer before her.
>
misunderstanding, force the pause, and you will have helped your cause.
Phrases running together require more work to disentangle.
Jerry
Amitai Schlair
Freedom <laissezfaire*nospam*@usa.net> wrote:
> <1d24xy7.ri111x12r9p42M@[10.0.2.15]>, amitai....@usa.net held us all
> spellbound around ye old campfire with...
>
> > Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
> > of them was the generous allocation of commas
>
> <snipped>
>
> > What to make of it? I'm not sure.
>
> She had another style idiosyncracy, too--at least compared to *modern*
> style--and that is her use of the full colon <:>. She used it often and
> accurately, but certainly differently than most modern style books would
> suggest.
Yes indeed, on all counts.
Your own use of punctuation reminds me of another, related, stylistic
idiosyncrasy of Rand's: the generous use of the dash (represented as
"--" in Usenet's 7-bit ASCII). Again, I think this served a purpose,
namely to delineate the constituent parts of her sentences, but my point
is that this sort of usage (the volume more so than the application
itself) distinctly originated with Rand, and distinctly continues with
her philosophic progeny -- and, I would argue, nowhere else.
But while "Why did Rand write as she did?" is a fascinating question --
and your post provides insight into the answer -- the question I find
truly fascinating is "Why do Rand's devotees write that way too?" This
is where I have a handful of conjectures, and where I'd like to see some
facts against which to test them. Here we go...
Conjecture #1: THE SCHWARTZ COURSE
----------------------------------
Peter Schwartz gives writing courses; perhaps the content he teaches
consists of the essentials of Rand's method, which centers on clarity of
expression, to which end he could certainly specifically mention the use
of the comma and the dash.
I like this conjecture a lot, but how do we explain those who punctuate
like Rand without having taken a course from Schwartz? Mine is a case in
point that one does not have to be a Schwartz student to be equipped to
take notice of the varied and unusual ways in which Rand adorned her
sentences.
Conjecture #2: EMULATION
------------------------
Often the readers of Rand's work strive to emulate her, for whatever
reasons. Whether they take conscious notice of her writing style, or the
noticing remains subconscious, it's almost certain that they notice it;
it's hard to miss! In either case, I think it's a good bet that the
desire to emulate a role model plays a part in the propagation of Rand's
stylistic quirks.
I like this conjecture too, and I think it may be the better part of a
full explanation. But what about Objectivists who *don't* punctuate this
way? Might it be a visible means of distinguishing the Objectivist from
the "Randroid"?
Comments? Other conjectures?
- Amitai
Amitai Schlair
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <mike1-31129...@15-91.dynamic.visi.com> Michael Schneider
> <mi...@paidshillvisi.com> writes:
>
> > I'm of the "if in doubt, leave it out" school.
By itself, of course, this is a highly subjective rule of thumb.
However, assuming one has a solid grasp of the language, this rule can
fill in the gaps when one can't consult a textbook. Just be careful to
use it as a backup, and not as an overarching principle!
> That can be wise advice, especially for those who use them prolifically.
> (Or should it be prolificly?)
That depends: do you mean "highly productively," or "in the context of
arguing for a fetus's right to life"?
:) :) :)
> Myself, I try to pattern the usage after spoken speech, since that's
> what's being symbolized anyway. Phonemics is really interesting.
Sounds like it! ;)
> Ron set out two perfect examples. In my view, both sentences were 100%
> grammatically correct.
Agreed and agreed.
> The only way one could rate one "better" than the other, would be to show
> that a certain set-off (or lack of same) helped clarify whatever the
> actual point was or not.
Ack! There's that Randian Comma again! :p
Your point, of course, is well taken.
- Amitai
gp
Amitai Schlair wrote in message <1d24xy7.ri111x12r9p42M@[10.0.2.15]>...
>Rand was an excellent stylist,......
>Judging by Galt's speech Rand was a terrible stylist. This is manifested
>mainly in the form of ridiculously long sentences. For example in the
Signet
>paperback edition, page 945 the sentence that starts "Justice is a
>recognition of the fact..." runs for 21 lines of appr. 10 words each for
>about 210 words. If you think that that is bad wait till you read the next
>sentence that starts "Productiveness is your acceptance..." which runs for
>30 lines which contain appr. 300 words. The next sentence contains appr 220
>words. Much of the speech suffers of that malady.
>
>(To say nothing of the sloppy definitions, since justice is not a
>recognition nor productiveness an acceptance.)
>
>I have read only snippets of the narrative but enough to see that although
>her metaphors are imaginative and intelligent, (very good, as a matter of
>fact) they are self conscious and used to such an excess as to make for an
>overwrought style. I also detect a tremendously self-indulgent approach
>which is disinterested in efficiency, much less economy, and which puts the
>burden on the reader to put up with whatever time she wants to take to get
>to the point.
>
>I assume that she spins a good yarn, none the less, in order to command
>continued attention from many readers under what I consider circumstances
>too trying for my own patience with a workaday style extended to dogmatic
>lengths.
>Jerry.
Brandon Berg
Amitai Schlair wrote in message <1d26r6d.lmm0fj1fo1gamM@[10.0.2.15]>...
>Freedom <laissezfaire*nospam*@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> <1d24xy7.ri111x12r9p42M@[10.0.2.15]>, amitai....@usa.net held us all
>> spellbound around ye old campfire with...
>>
>> > Rand was an excellent stylist, but she did have her idiosyncrasies. One
>> > of them was the generous allocation of commas
>>
>> <snipped>
>But while "Why did Rand write as she did?" is a fascinating question --
>and your post provides insight into the answer -- the question I find
>truly fascinating is "Why do Rand's devotees write that way too?" This
>is where I have a handful of conjectures, and where I'd like to see some
>facts against which to test them. Here we go...
I, also, began using dashes a lot after reading some of Rand's work, but it
was mainly because I had never really understood how to use them. They are
extremely rare in others' works, and the vast majority of people do not
spend their free time reading grammar texts. Once I figured out when to use
them, I realized that they could serve a purpose which other punctuations
marks could not do as well, and began using them.
Brandon Berg
bb...@flash.net
Brad Aisa
>Amitai Schlair wrote in message <1d26r6d.lmm0fj1fo1gamM@[10.0.2.15]>...
>But while "Why did Rand write as she did?" is a fascinating question --
>and your post provides insight into the answer -- the question I find
>truly fascinating is "Why do Rand's devotees write that way too?" This
>is where I have a handful of conjectures, and where I'd like to see some
>facts against which to test them. Here we go...
I find that Rand's mechanical style is extremely useful for expressing
ideas, since it allows the admixture of a variety of "sub ideas" and
examples in varying degrees of subordination to the whole.
Also, it is just plain fun to create a highly complex, but gramatically
correct, sentence that expresses an idea clearly, in all its subordinated,
coordinated, compounded, conjunctive, and embedded parenthetical glory -- a
briefer style wouldn't be nearly as fun (or challenging!); however one must
always be on guard against overloading the reader's "crow" or appearing
pompous or pretentious -- effective communication is only possible when the
reader is motivated to comprehend.
:)
BTW, for anyone who is interested, there is a good article on
parentheticals in Fowler's Modern English Usage (a book Peikoff recommended
in his grammar course.)
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
*** STOP the persecution of Bill Gates and Microsoft ***
Get the facts and sign the online petition:
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft/
R Lawrence
[I'm assuming that, despite the odd placement of quote symbols (the '>') in
the article, most of what is quoted below was written by "gp." I have
modified the nesting accordingly.
"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>Amitai Schlair wrote:
>
>>Rand was an excellent stylist,......
>
>Judging by Galt's speech Rand was a terrible stylist. This is manifested
>mainly in the form of ridiculously long sentences. <snip examples>
The examples you give are only long sentences because of the way they are
punctuated (the dashes that Mr. Schlair writes about elsewhere). The
discrete thoughts within these are clearly indicated by that punctuation.
Their length alone can hardly be held forth as an indication of "terrible"
style.
>I have read only snippets of the narrative [...]
Gee, I never would have guessed. :-/
[...] but enough to see that although
>her metaphors are imaginative and intelligent, (very good, as a matter of
>fact) they are self conscious and used to such an excess as to make for an
>overwrought style. I also detect a tremendously self-indulgent approach
>which is disinterested in efficiency, much less economy, and which puts the
>burden on the reader to put up with whatever time she wants to take to get
>to the point.
Rand is sometimes accused, especially WRT _Atlas Shrugged_, of being too
"heavy-handed" and repetitive. "The message was obvious; she didn't have to
be so tendentious," is basically what such critics say. (Ironically, this
is often said in reviews where the writer apparently *didn't* get the
point.) And looking at the progression of Rand's novels, I do get the
impression that AS hammers her points home more strongly than her previous
books. I used to assume that this was a reaction to critics who had
flagrantly misrepresented her earlier novels, and considered it a (minor)
defect in the novel. But I have begun to think that the overt nature of her
points was part of Rand's theme. AS is a novel that focuses on the role of
the mind, on the impact of metaphysics and epistemology. Rand set the novel
in a world where the failure of the existing system were clear, and yet
most of the people involved in that system refused to see this. And while
the novel is typically described as futuristic, the attitudes and events
she depicts are really just magnifications and extrapolations of those that
existed in the world around her. "Isn't it obvious," is exactly the point
-- it *was* obvious, to Rand, where the prevailing ideas would lead, and AS
conveys these results to readers who may not share Rand's insight. Readers
are invited to recognize their own blindness and/or evasion in the form of
the non-striker characters, and (hopefully) disassociate themselves from
their misaprehensions (though if you can't be bothered to actually read the
book, there isn't much liklihood of that, I suppose).
Rand was much more than an excellent stylist: she was a great novelist.
Freedom
<68hkd9$gc0$1...@news.interlog.com>, ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com held us
> I find that Rand's mechanical style is extremely useful for expressing
> ideas, since it allows the admixture of a variety of "sub ideas" and
> examples in varying degrees of subordination to the whole.
>
> Also, it is just plain fun to create a highly complex, but gramatically
> correct, sentence that expresses an idea clearly, in all its subordinated,
> coordinated, compounded, conjunctive, and embedded parenthetical glory -- a
> briefer style wouldn't be nearly as fun (or challenging!); however
Brad, ya missed a comma!!! :-) It shoulda been between <however> and
<one>.
> one must
> always be on guard against overloading the reader's "crow" or appearing
> pompous or pretentious -- effective communication is only possible when the
> reader is motivated to comprehend.
and I don't think you need the spaces before and after the <--> double-
hyphen. Actually, I'm sure you don't. :-)
>
> :)
>
> BTW, for anyone who is interested, there is a good article on
> parentheticals in Fowler's Modern English Usage (a book Peikoff recommended
> in his grammar course.)
>
I agree with Brad that Rand's style is useful (excellent) for
communicating complex ideas. I am always, however, amazed at the number
of people who react against it--usually expressed as *it's too thick* or
*it's boring*. It _is_ an older style of writing, and I'll revert to my
earlier point about a comparison between the technical style in the mises
works and Rand's stuff, noting further that much of the reaction against
Rand's style comes from people who (I surmise) have little exposure to
turn of the century academic writing.
I miss the precision in the earlier styles.
I would also add that--if you want to see good writing on the Net, Brad's
posts are often excellent, but his articles (see his website) are
consistently terrific. As well, I think a lot of us would do well to
learn what we can from Billy Beck's very conversational, but extremely
articulate and creative mix of technical, academic and vernacular forms.
Ron
Ron
Freedom
<68hmfl$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com held
> Rand is sometimes accused, especially WRT _Atlas Shrugged_, of being too
> "heavy-handed" and repetitive. <snipped> I used to assume that this was
> a reaction to critics who had
> flagrantly misrepresented her earlier novels, and considered it a (minor)
> defect in the novel. But I have begun to think that the overt nature of her
> points was part of Rand's theme.
I'm not sure about the connection between style and theme. I think Rand
was a classical stylist, and a classical *teacher*. I think she used
repetition--albeit with subtle changes in focus or approach, generally--
as a standard pedagological technique, and also--as I usually put it--to
eliminate *weasle-room*. In other words, I think she was trying at times
to anticipate objections, misunderstandings or misapplications--and used
her repetitive style in a reasonable effort to deal with them.
As for economy: I'm not sure writing like this saved Rand time at the
writing stage, but I know that it's saved _me_ time that I have not had
to either spend belabouring the obvious, or developing an intellectual
defense that requires examples or elaborations she already presented. I
presume it saved her time the same way.
Ron
Tim Starr
In article <mike1-31129...@15-91.dynamic.visi.com>,
Michael Schneider <mi...@paidshillvisi.com> wrote:
>In article <1d24xy7.ri111x12r9p42M@[10.0.2.15]>, Amitai Schlair
><amitai....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> I know I've already been an English major once in the past week (and
>> don't let me see it again, McPeters! ;), but I just realized something
>> that's too potentially interesting to pass up.
>>
>> separate phrases for purposes of clarity and effect. This technique aids
>> in conveying the meaning and in many cases prevents misunderstanding,
>> but I've not seen it used in a comparable volume or manner by any other
>> writer before her.
>>
>> especially those who share, or are influenced by, her ideas. To wit:
>> Branden's style in the pieces he wrote for _The_Objectivist_Newsletter_,
>> _The_Objectivist_, _Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal_, etc., and of course
>> many of HPO's readers in their postings. (There are others, but I'm
>> simultaneously too lazy and too excited to look for them right now.)
>>
>> What, exactly, do I mean? Here's a perfect sample, concocted by the
>> Editor for your edification:
>>
>> "Those who use commas like this, have read and liked Rand's work."
>>
>> What to make of it? I'm not sure. I have some conjectures that relate
>> this non-essential quirk of writing style to essentials, but they're
>> just conjectures. Perhaps someone can shed some light on the subject?
>>
>> - Amitai
>
>
> Hmmm.....
>
Not when it comes to the text of posts you're replying to. (Proof above. :-)
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Amitai Schlair
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com> wrote:
> [I'm assuming that, despite the odd placement of quote symbols (the '>')
> in the article, most of what is quoted below was written by "gp." I have
> modified the nesting accordingly.
Correct as usual!
> "gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
> >Amitai Schlair <amitai....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Rand was an excellent stylist,......
> >
> >Judging by Galt's speech Rand was a terrible stylist. This is manifested
> >mainly in the form of ridiculously long sentences. <snip examples>
>
> The examples you give are only long sentences because of the way they are
> punctuated (the dashes that Mr. Schlair writes about elsewhere). The
> discrete thoughts within these are clearly indicated by that punctuation.
> Their length alone can hardly be held forth as an indication of "terrible"
> style.
Amen.
> >I have read only snippets of the narrative [...]
>
> Gee, I never would have guessed. :-/
Ditto.
> >[...] but enough to see that although her metaphors are imaginative and
> >intelligent, (very good, as a matter of fact) they are self conscious and
> >used to such an excess as to make for an overwrought style. I also detect
> >a tremendously self-indulgent approach which is disinterested in
> >efficiency, much less economy, and which puts the burden on the reader to
> >put up with whatever time she wants to take to get to the point.
>
> Rand is sometimes accused, especially WRT _Atlas Shrugged_, of being too
> "heavy-handed" and repetitive. "The message was obvious; she didn't have
> to be so tendentious," is basically what such critics say. (Ironically,
> this is often said in reviews where the writer apparently *didn't* get the
> point.)
Very good point. Here's some anecdotal evidence to back it up:
In my junior year of high school, I wrote an English paper on
_Atlas_Shrugged_. When I apprised my less-than-incisively-witty (to put
it nicely) English teacher of my choice of novel, she grimaced, noting
the aforementioned "heavy-handedness" and "repetitiousness" of Rand's
writing style. A friend of mine, also writing about _Atlas_, had just
previously met with this teacher -- at which point, he told me, she had
innocently asked him: "Isn't that the one about the lady and the train?"
I'm completely serious.
Later, during the course of fleshing out the paper's organization and
structure, she admonished me, "Be patient with me, I've never taken a
philosophy course before." Not wanting to make her feel small, but even
less willing to let it pass, I rejoindered honestly, "Neither have I."
(I didn't mention that one reading of _Atlas_Shrugged_ would have been
all the course she needed, because she told me that she had read it!)
My paper contrasted humanism with Objectivism in as much depth as was
possible within the framework of a short "research paper" about a novel.
I don't doubt that my teacher, in grading my paper, missed a goodly
portion of the point -- just as she had missed it when she read
_Atlas_Shrugged_ -- and in my case she did could not claim the excuse of
a "heavy-handed" writing style. (I was unusually terse due to the nature
of the points I was making and the space allowed, but my style was very
little like Rand's.)
In conclusion, you're precisely correct, but I'd reformulate your
formulation a bit: Those who call Rand's style "heavy-handed," then miss
the point, are even less intelligent than she could have anticipated.
> And looking at the progression of Rand's novels, I do get the impression
> that AS hammers her points home more strongly than her previous books.
Agreed.
> I used to assume that this was a reaction to critics who had flagrantly
> misrepresented her earlier novels, and considered it a (minor) defect in
> the novel.
I've always taken it in the reverse direction: that she wished to answer
her inevitable critics *in advance*. Taking her villains as those
critics, the prophetic accuracy of her characterizations and dialogue is
astounding. I've read _Atlas_ 25 times now (Argument From
Intimidation!), but I managed to see it in this light the first time
around -- and each time I go back to it with more experiential data, it
fits the calculated curve more precisely.
> And while the novel is typically described as futuristic, the attitudes
> and events she depicts are really just magnifications and extrapolations
> of those that existed in the world around her.
...the folly of which she wished to illustrate by means of those
villains. (It all comes together so nicely when you see the villains as
Rand's critics!)
> "Isn't it obvious," is exactly the point -- it *was* obvious, to Rand,
> where the prevailing ideas would lead, and AS conveys these results to
> readers who may not share Rand's insight. Readers are invited to recognize
> their own blindness and/or evasion in the form of the non-striker
> characters, and (hopefully) disassociate themselves from their
> misaprehensions
Yes indeed! I remember that during my first read, I couldn't pick a
"side" until about page 300: I thought Dagny was crude but brilliant,
and James stupid but kind. After page 300 or so, though, it was pretty
clear to me who was who. (I went so far as to switch the words "crude"
and "kind" so they'd refer to the proper characters.)
> (though if you can't be bothered to actually read the book, there isn't
> much liklihood of that, I suppose).
Indeed.
> Rand was much more than an excellent stylist: she was a great novelist.
Hear, hear!
(This message brought to you by AOL: "Me too!" ;)
- Amitai
DEFanyo
Freedom wrote:
> <68hkd9$gc0$1...@news.interlog.com>, ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com held us
> all spellbound around ye old campfire with...
>
> > I find that Rand's mechanical style is extremely useful for expressing
> > ideas, since it allows the admixture of a variety of "sub ideas" and
> > examples in varying degrees of subordination to the whole.
> >
> > Also, it is just plain fun to create a highly complex, but gramatically
> > correct, sentence that expresses an idea clearly, in all its subordinated,
> > coordinated, compounded, conjunctive, and embedded parenthetical glory -- a
> > briefer style wouldn't be nearly as fun (or challenging!); however
>
> Brad, ya missed a comma!!! :-) It shoulda been between <however> and
> <one>.
>
> > one must
> > always be on guard against overloading the reader's "crow" or appearing
> > pompous or pretentious -- effective communication is only possible when the
> > reader is motivated to comprehend.
>
> and I don't think you need the spaces before and after the <--> double-
> hyphen. Actually, I'm sure you don't. :-)
Mebbe not -- but they sure do leave lots of nice white space which
breaks up great hunks of writing...:)
(...'s are for informality...:)
--Dorothy
Freedom
<1d26r6d.lmm0fj1fo1gamM@[10.0.2.15]>, amitai....@usa.net held us all
Amitai:
Speaking only for myself, for whatever insight this gives you...
>
> Conjecture #1: THE SCHWARTZ COURSE
> ----------------------------------
> Peter Schwartz gives writing courses; perhaps the content he teaches
> consists of the essentials of Rand's method, which centers on clarity of
> expression, to which end he could certainly specifically mention the use
> of the comma and the dash.
>
> I like this conjecture a lot, but how do we explain those who punctuate
> like Rand without having taken a course from Schwartz? Mine is a case in
> point that one does not have to be a Schwartz student to be equipped to
> take notice of the varied and unusual ways in which Rand adorned her
> sentences.
>
I have not taken Schwartz's course, either. I do, however, like clarity
of expression.
>
> Conjecture #2: EMULATION
> ------------------------
> Often the readers of Rand's work strive to emulate her, for whatever
> reasons. Whether they take conscious notice of her writing style, or the
> noticing remains subconscious, it's almost certain that they notice it;
> it's hard to miss! In either case, I think it's a good bet that the
> desire to emulate a role model plays a part in the propagation of Rand's
> stylistic quirks.
>
This is possible in some cases, but my first editor--before I met with
Rand's works--commented that my first submissions were in a style he
termed *archaic* and he remarked on my use of dashes and colons as
specifics, although he commented also on vocabulary. I tried,
unsuccessfully, to drop the style--and I do writing jobs where I use a
much more *street* or *informally verbal* style, but it is not my
preference, and when I read Rand, I realized that my editor was
expressing an opinion on style, but not stating some new _rules_.
Happily, I can now use both--and mix them--when it's appropriate.
Still it's hard to say where emulation fits for me. I really like Rand's
style--partly because it is her's, and partly because it harkens back to
a day when form, precision and clarity were taken very seriously (when,
for instance, one did not get an *A* for creativity from a teacher who
felt that accepted spelling and punctuation were nice, perhaps, but
essentially less important than mere novelty). I am sure I have taken
some of Rand's style to my own, but I can say that for writers like Bruno
Leoni and Mises (and Pete Townsend, Howlin' Wolf, and Hank Williams,
too). I'm certainly not unhappy for the influence.
> I like this conjecture too, and I think it may be the better part of a
> full explanation. But what about Objectivists who *don't* punctuate this
> way? Might it be a visible means of distinguishing the Objectivist from
> the "Randroid"?
>
I'm not sure. I am greatly influenced by Objectivism, but certainly not
orthodox in my approach, understanding or application of it--and I have
strong disagreement with Rand in some (significant to some) areas. In my
view--and I know of many exceptions--one of the surest signs of Randroid
mentality is a decided nasty streak, and I'll take this moment to say
that this unecessary nastiness does the wider acceptance of Objectivism a
noticeable disservice.
Ron
gp
R Lawrence wrote in message <68hmfl$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>[I'm assuming that, despite the odd placement of quote symbols (the '>') in
>the article, most of what is quoted below was written by "gp." I have
>modified the nesting accordingly.
You are right. I am not sure why that happened.
>"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>>Amitai Schlair wrote:
>>
>>>Rand was an excellent stylist,......
>>
>>Judging by Galt's speech Rand was a terrible stylist. This is manifested
>>mainly in the form of ridiculously long sentences. <snip examples>
>
>The examples you give are only long sentences because of the way they are
>punctuated (the dashes that Mr. Schlair writes about elsewhere). The
>discrete thoughts within these are clearly indicated by that punctuation.
>Their length alone can hardly be held forth as an indication of "terrible"
>style.
>
The dashes might as well be semicolons or commas. They are still humongous
sentences. I think that they are intended to depict an argumentative style
of oratory.
>>I have read only snippets of the narrative [...]
>
>Gee, I never would have guessed. :-/
>
Your point and that Of Amitai is not well taken. Since I have read enough to
experience the style, your oimplication that I am uninformed on her style is
irrational. <g>
>
(Comments about subjects other than style)
>Rand was much more than an excellent stylist: she was a great novelist.
>
Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is that she
was a fine novelist.
Her writing from the stylistic point of view is not great writing. Her
strongest suit stylistically is the metaphor. Even then, she works too hard
at them, calling too much attention to the writer, and hits you with one top
of another in such a way as to make it heavy going. That is what I mean by
overwrought. Stylistically Galt's speech is something close to a disaster,
but that is not true for other portions of the book that I have sampled. The
waste of time is not due to repetition but in just taking as much time as
she pleases to get to the point. It is just plain self-indulgence, what you
expect from an egoist. A Gettysburg address is more difficult to write than
a Clinton filibuster.
Jerry
Michael Schneider
In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, Tim Starr
<tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > I'm of the "if in doubt, leave it out" school.
>
> Not when it comes to the text of posts you're replying to. (Proof above. :-)
I wasn't in doubt there, or *here*. <g>
R Lawrence
Freedom [her SO Ron, actually] <laissezfaire*nospam*@usa.net> wrote:
>This is possible in some cases, but my first editor--before I met with
>Rand's works--commented that my first submissions were in a style he
>termed *archaic* and he remarked on my use of dashes and colons as
>specifics, although he commented also on vocabulary. I tried,
>unsuccessfully, to drop the style--and I do writing jobs where I use a
>much more *street* or *informally verbal* style, but it is not my
>preference, and when I read Rand, I realized that my editor was
>expressing an opinion on style, but not stating some new _rules_.
>Happily, I can now use both--and mix them--when it's appropriate.
My style varies according to the "assignment" -- I often have to stop
myself from going overboard with dashes and parenthesis when writing for
HPO, but I never found this to be a problem when I wrote for newspapers
(meaning that I didn't use them in the first place, not that the editors
would have approved of writing that used them extensively).
My favorite writing assignment ever was for a class on Russian history. We
were assigned to read a particular book that was written in the late 1800s,
and write a review of it as if we were writing a review of it for a
literary journal of that period. I wrote the way I wanted to, with just a
little attention to historical details of the content (making sure I didn't
refer to events that hadn't happened yet, etc.). A classmate tried to
emulate what he thought was the style of the times ("with big words and all
that fucked up grammar and shit," was how he described it to me). I got an
'A'; he got an 'F'.
DSANDIN
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com> wrote:
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 1998 22:21 EST
Message-id: <68hmfl$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
>Rand is sometimes accused, especially WRT _Atlas Shrugged_, of being too
>"heavy-handed" and repetitive. "The message was obvious; she didn't have to
>be so tendentious," is basically what such critics say. (Ironically, this
>is often said in reviews where the writer apparently *didn't* get the
>point.) And looking at the progression of Rand's novels, I do get the
>impression that AS hammers her points home more strongly than her previous
>books. I used to assume that this was a reaction to critics who had
>flagrantly misrepresented her earlier novels, and considered it a (minor)
>defect in the novel. But I have begun to think that the overt nature of her
>points was part of Rand's theme. AS is a novel that focuses on the role of
>the mind, on the impact of metaphysics and epistemology. Rand set the novel
>in a world where the failure of the existing system were clear, and yet
>most of the people involved in that system refused to see this. And while
>the novel is typically described as futuristic, the attitudes and events
>she depicts are really just magnifications and extrapolations of those that
>existed in the world around her. "Isn't it obvious," is exactly the point
>-- it *was* obvious, to Rand, where the prevailing ideas would lead, and AS
>conveys these results to readers who may not share Rand's insight. Readers
>are invited to recognize their own blindness and/or evasion in the form of
>the non-striker characters, and (hopefully) disassociate themselves from
>their misaprehensions (though if you can't be bothered to actually read the
>book, there isn't much liklihood of that, I suppose).
>
>Rand was much more than an excellent stylist: she was a great novelist.
Thank you for this. What a contrast to the reported statement by a
libertarian speaker at the recent IOS/Cato AS 40th anniversary
gala -- that even though the influence of AS should be celebrated,
it's worth mentioning that the writing is embarassing. I can only
hope (if the quotation in the news report was accurate) that David
Kelley took this asshole aside and had the integrity to explain a
few things at the risk of (irony alert) offending or losing this vital
ally whom he seems to tolerate.
Yes, Rand was a great novelist. One of the hallmarks of a great
novelist is the powerful degree to which the elements of her work
are subsconciously integrated before they reach the page, so that
theme, style, idea, plot, character, leitmotif, action, etc. wind up
suggesting and illuminating one another -- not so much as a matter
of continuing calculation but of simple emergence into the light.
It's amazing how many people are so eager to proclaim their
smallness of understanding.
-- Dean
gp
DSANDIN wrote in message <19980102153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com> wrote:
> Date: Thu, Jan 1, 1998 22:21 EST
> Message-id: <68hmfl$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
>Thank you for this. What a contrast to the reported statement by a
>libertarian speaker at the recent IOS/Cato AS 40th anniversary
>gala -- that even though the influence of AS should be celebrated,
>it's worth mentioning that the writing is embarassing. I can only
>hope (if the quotation in the news report was accurate) that David
>Kelley took this asshole aside and had the integrity to explain a
>few things at the risk of (irony alert) offending or losing this vital
>ally whom he seems to tolerate.
>
Explain a few things such as what?
Jerry
Billy Beck
Freedom <laissezfaire*nospam*@usa.net> wrote:
>I agree with Brad that Rand's style is useful (excellent) for
>communicating complex ideas. I am always, however, amazed at the number
>of people who react against it--usually expressed as *it's too thick* or
>*it's boring*.
Me, too. (AuntiePatso is a great example of this syndrome, in
her screeching wails against my style, but we both know what *that's*
about.) In any case, I just write those people off as too stupid to
deal with, and carry on.
Billy
Anthology
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>R Lawrence wrote in message <68hmfl$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Rand was much more than an excellent stylist: she was a great novelist.
>>
>Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is that she
>was a fine novelist.
>Her writing from the stylistic point of view is not great writing. Her
>strongest suit stylistically is the metaphor. Even then, she works too hard
>at them, calling too much attention to the writer, and hits you with one top
>of another in such a way as to make it heavy going. That is what I mean by
>overwrought. Stylistically Galt's speech is something close to a disaster,
>but that is not true for other portions of the book that I have sampled. The
>waste of time is not due to repetition but in just taking as much time as
>she pleases to get to the point. It is just plain self-indulgence, what you
>expect from an egoist. A Gettysburg address is more difficult to write than
>a Clinton filibuster.
If you don't have it in you to read "Atlas" again, you could
definitely benefit from the "Journals". Compare, for instance, your
"self-indulgence" to Rand's standing order to herself to pare
adjectives (a constant, nagging, lurking, and insidious flaw in my own
style) to the essential bone.
As for her stature as a novelist, consider that there is a hell
of a lot more to a novel than just style. The *style* of "Atlas" is
unquestionably a consequence of Rand's individual selections of
several hundred-thousand words. (That's what style is all about:
discrimination and selection.) However, those selections ought really
be taken as the finish of a wall fixed to structural members standing
on a foundation according to a drawn plan. We're talking about a
literary *edifice* processed (note the root of the word) from a single
simply-stated idea, and executed to the last detail of word and comma
as concept and implication. More: the integration of narrative and
philosophy is so *tight* that it permits one as shallow as a high
school teacher to refer to it as being about "the woman and the train"
while others more thoughtful are also able to analyze it to general
principles and then sort of reverse-engineer it for a perspective on
the culture around them. That's philosophy. She knew she was doing
that. Ayn Rand knew - and was quite satisfied with the prospect -
that she was writing something which would precisely return the
investment of any given reader. People who dig train stories would
get a kick out it, while philosophy-heads would get a brain-full of
abstractions to chew on.
What's important about all of this is that it was an act of
conscious deliberation. Nothing about "Atlas" was accidental, which
is directly opposite of my estimation of something like Pynchon, for
instance, who (though I have no insight to *how* he worked as a
writer) I found just ghastly in his blurry and (dare I type the
phrase?) self-conscious smatterings of QWERTY. That guy is held out
as something stellar in 20th century literature. *I* say he's a chimp
with a keyboard, and it has not as much to do with "style" as with his
appalling lumps of formless *bullshit* sitting around next to Rand's
incisive *structures*.
A novel isn't really so much about "style" as about having
something to *say*, and saying it all. Style is fairly incidental.
You might not like Rand's style (I do, though, a lot), but there is no
question that her novels stand apart from everything in American
literature in their Apollonian incisions (a nod to Paglia, there) of
concept, as well as their scale. She carved out an historical harbor
in which the novel form could reside safe in this century from the
bloody nonsense raging all around it, and that's pretty important.
Yeah; I'd call it "great".
Billy
Anthology
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
gp
Billy Beck wrote in message <34ae7769...@news.mindspring.com>...
> A novel isn't really so much about "style" as about having
>something to *say*, and saying it all. Style is fairly incidental.
>You might not like Rand's style (I do, though, a lot), but there is no
>question that her novels stand apart from everything in American
>literature in their Apollonian incisions (a nod to Paglia, there) of
>concept, as well as their scale. She carved out an historical harbor
>in which the novel form could reside safe in this century from the
>bloody nonsense raging all around it, and that's pretty important.
>
> Yeah; I'd call it "great".
>
Billy, I commented strictly on the style based on less than one percent of
the book, plus something more than half of Galt’s speech. I have no reason
to doubt that the integration of her philosophy with the narrative as a
conscious and deliberate project was very successful and that it is a major
accomplishment. That is as much as I can say without reading the book. I
stand by my other comments.
Jerry
Tim Starr
In article <34ae7769...@news.mindspring.com>,
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
>...the integration of narrative and philosophy is so *tight* that it
>permits one as shallow as a high school teacher to refer to it as
>being about "the woman and the train" while others more thoughtful
>are also able to analyze it to general principles and then sort of
>reverse-engineer it for a perspective on the culture around them.
No, no, is Capitalist Realism. Socialist Realism is "Boy meets tractor,
boy loses tractor, boy gets tractor back & live happily ever after." Rand's
Capitalist Realism is "Girl meets railroad, girl loses railroad..."
Comrade Beck must be careful not to deviate from Politically Correct aesthetic
line in future.
Bill Riggins
> But while "Why did Rand write as she did?" is a fascinating question --
> and your post provides insight into the answer -- the question I find
> truly fascinating is "Why do Rand's devotees write that way too?" This
> is where I have a handful of conjectures, and where I'd like to see some
> facts against which to test them. Here we go...
It's true that many objective thinkers write in this manner, but I think
your conjectures--the influence of Schwartz & emulation of Rand--miss
the mark. I find it unlikely that the Schwartz's course effected the
change, as most readers of Rand have never even heard of P.S. (much less
this course). I tend to doubt the emulation angle too, as most who try
to think objectively are also generally independent in their thinking &
style.
So what is the primary reason for the proliferation of these literary
tools? I think the switch has more to do with how those who make an
above average effort to stay grounded in reality relate concepts. When
they attempt to communicate an idea they recognize that it is
inextricably interconnected to other ideas, and given today's level of
cultural irrationality they understand that these relationships
generally need to be conveyed intact to be understood. To accomplish
this effectively it is often necessary to relate attributes like
importance, order, relevance, etc. of ideas ~within the same
sentence~--which naturally generates a plethora of dashes, commas,
colons, etc.
This style, when used properly, can effectively highlight the essence,
meaning, and relationship of an idea with concision. Thus, all those
english mavens writing "run on" in red across sentences that ply the
point wonderfully well need to put down the pencil and pickup some Rand
non-fiction :>)
Bill R.
gp
gp wrote in message <68lqsb$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
this asshole under the circumstances that you describe. I can think of only
6 possibilities:
(1) Where do you get off trying to think for yourself, asshole?
(2) This is no place for objectivity, asshole.
(3) Don’t offend the fans, asshole.
(4) You are contradicting reality, asshole.
(5) Compromise, asshole.
(6) You are only free to hold the local consensus opinion, asshole.
(6) Asshole!
Jerry
DSANDIN
"gp" <gp...@usa.net> (Jerry) asks:
Date: Sat, Jan 3, 1998 12:01 EST
Message-id: <68lqsb$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>>[....] What a contrast to the reported statement by a
>>libertarian speaker at the recent IOS/Cato AS 40th anniversary
>>gala -- that even though the influence of AS should be celebrated,
>>it's worth mentioning that the writing is embarassing. I can only
>>hope (if the quotation in the news report was accurate) that David
>>Kelley took this asshole aside and had the integrity to explain a
>>few things at the risk of (irony alert) offending or losing this vital
>>ally whom he seems to tolerate.
>>
>Explain a few things such as what?
Oh, say, that you don't publicly celebrate the literary and
philosophical achievements of Ayn Rand (which was the
premise of the gala) with buffoonish, ignorant, disrespectful
off-hand remarks. That you don't embarrass your hosts with
same. That if you wish to associate with us in the future,
you should publicly apologize, and as a correctional measure
attend the next lecture at an Objectivist conference by a
literature professor discussing the qualities of AS.
-- Dean
Billy Beck
"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>Billy, I commented strictly on the style based on less than one percent of
>the book, plus something more than half of Galt’s speech. I have no reason
>to doubt that the integration of her philosophy with the narrative as a
>conscious and deliberate project was very successful and that it is a major
>accomplishment. That is as much as I can say without reading the book.
<blink>
Oh. I see. So, I guess I can safely dismiss *this*:
>Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is that she
>was a fine novelist.
You see, I didn't *know* that you didn't know what you were
talking about.
Nevermind.
Billy
Anthology
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
gp
Billy Beck wrote in message <34b10462...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>Billy, I commented strictly on the style based on less than one percent of
>>the book, plus something more than half of Galt’s speech. I have no reason
>>to doubt that the integration of her philosophy with the narrative as a
>>conscious and deliberate project was very successful and that it is a
major
>>accomplishment. That is as much as I can say without reading the book.
>
> <blink>
>
Uh?
> Oh. I see. So, I guess I can safely dismiss *this*:
>
Obviously.
>>Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is that
she
>>was a fine novelist.
>
> You see, I didn't *know* that you didn't know what you were
>talking about.
>
You did not understand that I made a remark about her style, and you
responded in terms of the novel. I simply said that I have not read it. You
see, Billy, __you__ did not know what __I __was talking about. Judging by
your level of understanding of the written word, can I dismiss your critique
of the book? <g>
> Nevermind.
>
Done.
Jerry
Billy Beck
"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote in message <34b10462...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>Billy, I commented strictly on the style based on less than one percent of
>>>the book, plus something more than half of Galt’s speech. I have no reason
>>>to doubt that the integration of her philosophy with the narrative as a
>>>conscious and deliberate project was very successful and that it is a
>>>major accomplishment. That is as much as I can say without reading the book.
>>
>> <blink>
>>
>Uh?
>
>> Oh. I see. So, I guess I can safely dismiss *this*:
>>
>Obviously.
>
>>>Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is that
>>she was a fine novelist.
>>
>> You see, I didn't *know* that you didn't know what you were
>>talking about.
>>
>You did not understand that I made a remark about her style, and you
>responded in terms of the novel.
Waitaminnit while I set the Wayback Machine:
From: "gp" <gp...@usa.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rand, commas, and you
Date: 2 Jan 1998 10:21:57 GMT
R Lawrence wrote in message <68hmfl$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>Rand was much more than an excellent stylist: she was a great novelist.
Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is
that she was a fine novelist.
<Now, stop right there, Jerry>
You see, this is a remark "in terms of the novel" (to coin a
phrase). It's a remark that you made. "In terms of the novel."
(i.e. - Rand as "novelist", and that is necessarily about the "novel",
'cause it ain't about the rutabaga.) Get it? That's the point from
which I took off on a look at the novel and the novelist in terms a
bit more comprehensive than simply matters of "style".
>I simply said that I have not read it.
Well, no, Jerry. Actually, you've said a bit more than that.
>You see, Billy, __you__ did not know what __I __was talking about.
Of course I did.
>Judging by your level of understanding of the written word, can I
>dismiss your critique of the book? <g>
Hell, man: you could do that *anyway*.
Billy
Anthology
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
gp
Billy Beck wrote in message <34b16d7e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>"gp" <gp...@usa.net> wrote:
>Although not qualified to judge her as a novelist my impression is
>that she was a fine novelist.
>
> <Now, stop right there, Jerry>
>
> You see, this is a remark "in terms of the novel" (to coin a
>phrase). It's a remark that you made. "In terms of the novel."
All right, Billy, I'll give some. You responded to my remark about the novel
itself. But my initial spontaneous remark was about style only. When Richard
responded in terms of the novel itself, I added the above remark, which
shows that I don't mind acknowledging any positive bias that I may have.
After you beat me black and blue I did a little bit of altruistic
retaliation.
Jerry