|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 30, 2023 12:49:13 GMT
Are sound-effects (like in comics), used to a moderate and tasteful (or perhaps it is never tasteful) degree, acceptable in prose? Letters put together to imitate a sound, instead of using a roundabout description of the specific sound. Or does that deviate from the principles of the short-story and novel literary format?
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Aug 31, 2023 19:48:57 GMT
Anything is acceptable in prose if it achieves the effect the writer wants. Whether or not its acceptable to the reader is down to them. Having said that, it wouldn't be my thing but I can see that it could have a good effect if used with some intelligence, as a surprise element and perhaps a comic (as in humorous) one.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 1, 2023 9:51:06 GMT
Anything is acceptable in prose if it achieves the effect the writer wants. Whether or not its acceptable to the reader is down to them. Having said that, it wouldn't be my thing but I can see that it could have a good effect if used with some intelligence, as a surprise element and perhaps a comic (as in humorous) one. Yes, as a sudden surprise or humorous effect, I agree. It might also be a good idea to present the sound-effect indirectly, either by a short presentation of the sound that prepares the reader for it so the sound is more or less already in the head, or perhaps by a character recollecting the sound second-hand. But to simply put the sound-effect within quotation marks, and tab it in as if part of a conversation, will likely be incomprehensible. ... Why of course it will, what was I thinking!
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Sept 1, 2023 15:45:40 GMT
Put like that, yes indeed it would look absurd! That's where the writer has to make decisions about what serves their purpose best. Personally, what techniques you use are dictated by the idea of clarity - having a clear idea of how you want to present the story to the reader, and then selecting the tools to make that work on the page. Which may differ from story to story, depending on the approach you have to the telling. Anything goes, as long as it has the clarity to say what the writer wants, how they want to say it. Whether that makes sense to the reader is another matter - everyone reads and sees things differently, and once someone else looks at it, it's out of the writer's hands.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 6, 2023 18:44:27 GMT
I was over at archive.org, looking at the 1797 edition of Matthew G. Lewis's The Monk. I figure, if I want to experience the right ghoulish atmosphere, I better read the original edition. But why did they, back then, use an 'f' to spell both s and f? Did they have a lisp? It makes reading difficult, slowes it down.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 6, 2023 19:23:32 GMT
I was over at archive.org, looking at the 1797 edition of Matthew G. Lewis's The Monk. I figure, if I want to experience the right ghoulish atmosphere, I better read the original edition. But why did they, back then, use an 'f' to spell both s and f? Did they have a lisp? It makes reading difficult, slowes it down. That is a "long s," not an "f." But I suspect you know that. THE MONK is not ghoulish; it is risible. And boring.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Sept 7, 2023 6:21:59 GMT
But why did they, back then, use an 'f' to spell both s and f? Did they have a lisp? It makes reading difficult, slowes it down. They are different - with the long lower case f the bar goes through the vertical line, with the long s the bar stops at the vertical line. The long s was pretty useless and went out of style at the end of the 18th century or thereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 8, 2023 1:17:32 GMT
Thank you - the usage of the long s was a mysterious practice. It might be fun to re-enact it, if not in writing then at least in reading, for old times sake, and to be transported back to ye olde days. I have seen it before, but never took the time and effort to unravel it. I never bothered to try to read those old musty books from my grandparents' shelves. Some of my old music records use it for heading, as a means of stirring up atmosphere. Before, it was uncomprehensible, now I can passably read it. Perhaps it might be a prosperous business scheme to reintroduce it into book publishing, as a novelty for a gullible audience hungering for the illusions of old - like myself.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 8, 2023 7:08:05 GMT
They are different - with the long lower case f the bar goes through the vertical line, with the long s the bar stops at the vertical line. Yes. Comparing 'f' and the 'long s' in the 1797 edition of The Monk, I see a slight difference if I really strain my eyes, and the upper curve of the 'long s' possibly being also somewhat more extended.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Sept 8, 2023 7:30:51 GMT
But crammed 19th century font, with all its encumbering decor, may be even more unreadable. It is analogous to the way people of that time hid behind all layers of clothing.
|
|