View Single Post
Old 04-07-2009, 02:08 PM   #45
Sabretooth's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 9,380
10 year veteran! 
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
One is a simple communication, the other is actual art.
I cannot agree with that. What makes the second sentence any greater than simple communication, or the first one not worthy of being called art? I myself find greater beauty in the first sentence than in the other, if only because it is less pretentious than the other.

Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
You said that "words get in the way and detract from the quality of writing", and that "useless content in a story dilutes the book/document". I feel that you couldn't be more wrong, and that the value of speed over beauty in modern society has caused a degradation of language as a whole.
A people's language reflects their society, at least to some measure. If our English has degraded, it isn't because people got stupid.

The intricately-written English of the 19th Century and before comes from a time when the language was restricted to the British Isles, then spread to the America, followed by the British Colonies. In each of these places, English developed its own dialects that refused to form entirely different languages. To communicate effectively between these dozens of dialects that exist today, and to keep pace with the extremely fast-paced world of today, the English language has had to evolve into a more simplistic, "degraded" variant that favours function over style, speed over "beauty".

I agree with Darth Yuthura's general opinion that the more pertinent, the better (but I do not agree with any of her specific statements, I'm afraid). What is important first and foremost, is to get your message clear, your words across.

Originally Posted by Sam
Writing is not limited to conveying ideas, you know, and not everything that is necessary for a piece of literature serves to transmit one.
I don't understand this at all. Every written word transmits some sort of an idea, so long as the word isn't made-up and unexplained. I can't think of any examples where writing doesn't transmit any idea whatsoever.

Originally Posted by D_Y
This is not accurate to my argument, however. If this were to describe what the movement of leaves on a tree reminded a viewer of, then the subject would not be that the tree's leaves fluttered with the wind. One is a literal description where the other is how the leaves were perceived by the viewer/reader.
She's right. Both sentences convey vastly different meaning, and these cannot be judged without context. I wouldn't even lay a concrete meaning on either sentence. The first sentence appears to be a literal description, but that may be how our protagonist or reader is intended to look at the tree; coldly and without any sense of beauty. The second sentence is more flowery, and it will be appropriate if our reader is supposed to contemplate the natural beauty of the tree, inappropriate if our reader is reading hardcore military fiction where said tree is spotted by a sniper robot.

Last edited by Sabretooth; 04-07-2009 at 02:28 PM.
Sabretooth is offline   you may: quote & reply,