See "
Prosody 1" at
his blog. It gives some real insight into things you may have noticed in v. I:
The harder part is (well, there have been several “harder parts,” but –) something that might be called “stylistic differences” in some aspects of what my sense is of what the prose ought to be like and my editor’s. This difficult process has shown me things about my own writing process that I may have been only faintly aware of before.
Over a period of forty-five years, I have developed certain stylistic devices, devices of intention, that have become habitual and very characteristic of my rather eccentric personal style.
My approach to “the paragraph,” for example, is highly “networked.” That is, I write paragraphs not only to express and develop an aspect of an idea — which is the pedagogical standard of what a paragraph is supposed to do — but also to relate this idea to the paragraph that preceded it and to prepare the way for the paragraph that will follow. In particular, the development points are organized so that the one which points most clearly in the direction the text is going to go is last. Often the last sentence of a paragraph will contain a word or an expression which will be repeated in the opening sentence of the next paragraph, or the next paragraph will back-reference material in the preceding paragraph.
The net effect of this technique is to give flow and impetus to the writing, so that it moves smartly along with logical force. Ideally you hit all the logical steps between one idea and the next so that the reader is not required to make logical jumps to cover, say, lack of evidence. On the evidence of what is said — and what is not said — in the reader reviews of the first volume, that technique did substantially what it is supposed to do. The book took hits for what might be called stylistic “elegance” but got points for being a fast read despite its size.
No comments:
Post a Comment