5. The fule probably was convinced he was "improving" her text by taking a bald and direct statement and giving it some rhetorical polish. There's a powerful tendency in prose writing in Early Modern English to reach for what they thought were the elegancies and refinement of classical rhetoric, all too often to such an extent that you need a trained team of machete-wielding analysts to determine what the original sentence was supposed to be about. Straightforward, pithy English was somehow vulgar in its directness; it lacked that je ne sais quoi of Latinate elegance necessary for civilized discourse among persons of education and refinement. I mean, I'm a clause whore myself, and I can see how easy it is to succumb to the urge, but these people not only had no shame, they were convinced it was the right thing to do. (Why am I telling you this? You've seen the early stages of the debates among & about Shakespeare & co.) I don't think this was just a matter of he couldn't approve of the taste of the soup until he'd spit in it; he knew, based on received wisdom, that she wrote too plainly, and she didn't have the experience or the confidence to say "I like my way better." Of course, he had to spit in the soup, that's the way he was.
6. What?! Applies humanist values?! You mean, science fiction is supposed to somehow involve humans!?!?! That'll disappoint quite a few folks who keep claiming it's been ruined by all those mushy "soft" SF writers that dare to drag people into their stories, instead of letting it be all about The Hard Science (comment devolves into parody of overworked rant about how lack of hard science-SF is ruining the genre with especial emphasis on Why Women Can't Write Real Science Fiction.)
7. All writers have squids.
8. The fact that you've found so few who can do this well should be enough of a warning to others considering that angle. But it won't stop them. Alas.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 06:04 pm (UTC)5. The fule probably was convinced he was "improving" her text by taking a bald and direct statement and giving it some rhetorical polish. There's a powerful tendency in prose writing in Early Modern English to reach for what they thought were the elegancies and refinement of classical rhetoric, all too often to such an extent that you need a trained team of machete-wielding analysts to determine what the original sentence was supposed to be about. Straightforward, pithy English was somehow vulgar in its directness; it lacked that je ne sais quoi of Latinate elegance necessary for civilized discourse among persons of education and refinement. I mean, I'm a clause whore myself, and I can see how easy it is to succumb to the urge, but these people not only had no shame, they were convinced it was the right thing to do. (Why am I telling you this? You've seen the early stages of the debates among & about Shakespeare & co.) I don't think this was just a matter of he couldn't approve of the taste of the soup until he'd spit in it; he knew, based on received wisdom, that she wrote too plainly, and she didn't have the experience or the confidence to say "I like my way better." Of course, he had to spit in the soup, that's the way he was.
6. What?! Applies humanist values?! You mean, science fiction is supposed to somehow involve humans!?!?! That'll disappoint quite a few folks who keep claiming it's been ruined by all those mushy "soft" SF writers that dare to drag people into their stories, instead of letting it be all about The Hard Science (comment devolves into parody of overworked rant about how lack of hard science-SF is ruining the genre with especial emphasis on Why Women Can't Write Real Science Fiction.)
7. All writers have squids.
8. The fact that you've found so few who can do this well should be enough of a warning to others considering that angle. But it won't stop them. Alas.