> Very much, and then it’s on me to paint the picture with words, as they say.
Dammit, woman … you’ve done it again!
There are a couple of pieces that I’ve been meaning to post but putting off for a while now because … well, I’m going to have to reformulate at least one, if not both, of them for stylistic/presentation purposes — and it’s going to be a pain in the arse to do … because it’ll mean actually doing it.
And I may even have to render them as images rather than simply text … even though they are both purely textual.
Which will be an even bigger pain in the posterior.
And now, thanks to that remark, I’m gonna have to do it — whilst they’re so hideously relevant to that remark.
Damn you.
<sigh>
> And that’s the core of the argument isn’t it? A writers style is very much about how he/she would describe a scene, what parts to highlight, what to leave out, what word exactly to use — because of that whole list of synonyms that mean the same thing, each still manages to give a distinct different feel.
Indeed.
> And then only to find out later that your reader got a completely different image from your words than you had when writing it down :)
The bastards!
Writing is wasted on readers, I tell you — they always ruin it with their own ideas! [1]
And neglect to even notice the significant things. [1][2]
—
[1] Reading comprehension is seldom their strong-point.
[2] Wot …. no recognition of all the effort I put into the footnotes? [3]
[3] I rest my case. <sigh>
;-D
