<p>
Oh yeah, she’s got it going on. And “the paragraph” in question needed some editing and/or had a typo. But my point was that the author FS was reading had a somewhat “florid” style himself, and that in writing about him, one shouldn’t be limited to the sterile “just the facts, Ma’am” style that some seem to recommend.</p>
<p>I take it Kluge, you are referring to me in your lightly valed snide remarks</p>
<p>I called the prose as I saw it. I also remember where FS made insults to those intellectuals she found blowhards for flaunting their education.</p>
<p>“No, its just that the Intellectuals–not the learned (whered that come from?)–blow harder and with such feigned eloquence they often appear to believe theyve composed a petite symphony while really doing no more than an intellectual burlesque you know, as opposed to those who simply toot away on their own horns before tucking it in for a good nights sleep.” FS</p>
<p>What goes around sometimes, comes back to bite you in the butt.</p>
<p>Would you describe her writing style intellectual?
I would and that is a compliment</p>
<p>
Yeah, Mudder, that’s what I thought at first, too – Xiggi, too, I bet. But it’s wrong, I think. You’ve got that tag end "the language of her literary realm which has no place to go unless it’s modifying English - which works grammatically, since English is a language as well as a nationality. But if English means English, the language, then those images of Shakespeare are spilling over… “what it was to be [the] English [language]” That gives the English language an existential element that I don’t think was intended. But I still think English is a language in this sentence, not a nationality. I think it was supposed to say something along the lines of: "images of the young Shakespeare spill … over the tender verdure of what was, and will be, English, the language of her literary realm - with “her” being Elizabethan England, properly recognized towards the beginning of the sentence as befits a subject. (To me, English as a language goes with tender verdure better than English as a nationality, as well.) </p>
<p>All of which is sort of beside the point, except for the lesson to be learned: writing like that is like juggling a dozen teacups with saucers, teaspoons and a chainsaw. Impressive as it is, it’s still hard to do without dropping an item or two, and it’s easy to not even notice the odd flatware that fell behind the couch. As much as I liked aspects of the piece I don’t think it’s best to simply gush like a Little League Mom over the effort put forth by a talented young woman without providing a word or two of - dare I say it - criticism. Theres a serious danger in this style of writing - that your editor and friends who may want to celebrate your efforts wont notice some things in the piece that you might rather had seen a red pencil before it was sent it out into the world. In a less densely written piece a sentence which stumbles over itself stands out, and will be addressed. (And Driver, that sentence is not the only teacup behind the sofa, by the way.) </p>
<p>Drivers right: the girl can write. But she can write better than this, and Id like to encourage her to do so - if I didnt, I wouldnt have bothered with it. Even the most elaborate juggling act gets stale - and remarkably quickly, at that. I still vote for a dose of Strunk & White twice a day until the swelling goes down, because writing for the limited target audiences which exist for a piece of this nature is a waste of FountainSiren’s talents, in my opinion. She should write for everyone.</p>
<p>CGM: I’m pretty sure I haven’t referred to you at all.</p>
<p>CGM (where appropriate),</p>
<p>You are willfully shooting at spirits in the dark. I havent really made any claims here, either about the quality of my writing, or the depth of my prose–neither regarding my wisdom nor intellectual dexterity. The Review gave me this book to review, I gave it a shot; I didnt solicit the assignment and dont make any claims about it. </p>
<p>And believe me-you, I have known intellectuals I have spent time with intellectuals and madam I am no intellectual. I lack the certain subtlety of mind and verbosity of self required and, unlike the Scarecrow, there have been no Wizards of Oz to present me with a PhD for exposing their little intellectual charades. </p>
<p>Naturally, I write as best I can. When I look back on what I have written I always see some things I wished Id said differently-- given the chance or time to do it I would have addressed such lines and phrases. Unfortunately, deadlines, studies, other writing assignments and the fact that it has already gone to print precluded the possibility in this particular caseI am currently a first-year student; I dont write for a living and likely never will. Over break I had two writing assignments, one for the Dartmouth Review and the other for the Dartmouth Undergraduate Review of Science (on infectious diseases its been edited and accepted for publication in Spring). I was busy and the Shakespeare piece was second in the pecking order.</p>
<p>Certainly, looking through my little piece on Shakespeare, I see a number of things I could have said better and wish I had. I have even solicited advice from others here on cc that have made serious offers of assistancebecause I prefer to write well and I believe I do have a lot to learn from those who do write well (and I believe I owe it to the occasional reader). In that spirit, I also recognize, as so many others here have, that there are places where clarity may have been sacrificed for style but I can assure you, it was done unwittingly and without intent, that is, I came by it honestly not artfully. </p>
<p>
<br>
Heres another:
</p>
<p>Oh no, now we’re dredging up the “intellectual” thread! But you guys jogged my memory. I knew there was this word that FS introduced me to that I just love, and I’ve been trying all day to remember it, and now I do “bloviating”–love that word. Tks. guys. You know how frustrating it is when you are trying to remember something!</p>
<p>as I was thinking about fountainSiren’s writing, and the pictures it brings into your mind, it reminded me of reading HP Lovecraft. Not the genre or anything, but the overwhelming detail and complexity of what I was reading. It certainly paints a beautiful picture, but I moreso tended to just gloss over all of it and get to the point. I often though HP Lovecraft’s stories could have been about a page long rather than a short story worth. But I am a technical writer for professional journals, just the facts maam. And when I try to add some emotion, they edit it out. go figure.</p>
<p>When I and my friends were to reading FS writing, it comes across as very intellectual. It does, do deny that just seems silly. Its denying what it is.</p>
<p>And it is so funny to deny being smart, and being intellectual. I do not understand that. </p>
<p>What is wrong with being smart? Giving intellectuals a bad name is just shallow and vapid. Its like calling liberals bad, which happens all the time.</p>
<p>There wrting is very smart, deep, thorough, and stretches the mind. Intellectual charades, my my, aren’t we brutal. </p>
<p>You attack intellectuals, while your writing IS INTELLECTUAL. Or what would be the point?</p>
<p>CGM, before criticizing the writing of others, should you not make a small effort to check yours before posting? </p>
<p>For starters, a minimum of grammar and cohesion would not hurt. </p>
<p>Could you explain what this froebelian mumbo-jumbo of strangely juxtaposed words might mean: "When I and my friends were to reading FS writing, it comes across as very intellectual. It does, do deny that just seems silly. Its denying what it is? " or “Its like calling liberals bad, which happens all the time.”</p>
<p>Speaking about charades, this would be a good time to stop your own politically-motivated and highly hypocritical one.</p>
<p>Amith, do your editors also routinely remove all capitalization and parallelism? Their influence seems to have left indelible marks on your own writing.</p>
<p>no, I just do it because as a mental vacation from the overwhelming awfulness of my job, I jump on here just to read what is going on. so in the little time I have, I rarely capitalize or add too much formality to what I write. It’s just a forum, just an exercise at talking to intelligent usually happy people. I call’s em how I see’s em. and I am hardly an expert, since I don’t know what parallelism is. There are some mighty good writers on this forum, that is for sure. and fountainsiren is one of them. but I will not say she is perfect, or that all that she stuffs into a sentence is necessary or purposeful, because it isn’t. and I was taken aback when she said she wasn’t going to make writing a career, because she has the potential to write the way not many others have. I would think being acquainted with HP Lovecraft would be a compliment, no matter how I stated it. What is the problem? does a lack of capitalization truly mean anything at all to anyone? let’s be constructive, which is what I think I have been. I do have 20 years of writing and research under my belt, and think I might have at least something to offer. I couldn’t care less about who’s liberal or intellectual or anything. I understand what CGM wrote, even if there were some errors. The point is, I don’t get all of what FS wrote, even with reading it many times, but that does not take away from the fact that she could/would be a great writer some day</p>