[lit-ideas] Re: Form in literature
- From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:55:35 -0700
Le 23 ao=FBt 04, =E0 22:14, Scribe1865@xxxxxxx a =E9crit :
> <snip>
>
> To say that form detracts from content is nonsense, in my opinion.=20
> Without
> form, no amount of fine writing or brilliant content will save a piece=20=
> of
> fiction--no matter whether you are talking about traditional narrative=20=
> forms or
> modern modular narrative forms.
M.C. I don't think anybody is arguing - certainly not Turner/Fauconnier=20=
- that we can simply "do without" form.
> Form and meaning are integral, so "form" cannot
> really be overemphasized.
M.C. Is this argument really valid=A0? We could state it schematically =
as=20
follows =A0: "If x (form) and y (content) are integral to something, =
then=20
it's impossible to overemphasize x or y=93. Yet surely it is at least=20=
*logically* possible for me (1) to agree that both oil and vinegar are=20=
integral to making salad dressing, and yet for me to also say (2) =93and=20=
you need at least one hundred times as much vinegar as you do oil to=20
make a good dressing". Surely in these statements I'm *both* admitting=20=
that oil and vinegar are integral to dressing, *and* overemphasizing=20
the importance of vinegar.
Turner-Fauconnier argue that form, although integral, has been=20=
overemphasized. This claim may be true, false, or exaggerated, but it's=20=
certainly not nonsense.
Read the book=A0; then you can tell us whether it's nonsense or =
not.
Best, Mike
>
>
>
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
