Re: 'Topic Sentences'

"Joann Zimmerman" <jzimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc80c57acfa1a74989ad8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <11lsjgobv99k05c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pwrede6492@xxxxxxx
> says...
>>
>> "Joann Zimmerman" <jzimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1dc7edb31212d9f6989ad7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> > My problem is not the reverse, but orthogonal: like Patricia with
>> > _Infamous Army_, I get so involved with things I read that analysis
>> > becomes impossible, no matter *how* badly I want to figure out how the
>> > author did whatever.
>>
>> 'S why I developed the habit of reading really good books that I *don't*
>> *like* every once in a while. If I don't like them, they don't grab me,
>> and
>> I can go back and figure out what the author is doing without getting
>> distracted. It's a bit tricky, though -- if I dislike what the author is
>> doing, then I don't *care* whether I learn how to do it or not (though
>> sometimes it's useful to figure out, as something I want to avoid). I
>> have
>> to find books where it's the content that I'm not terribly interested in,
>> rather than the storytelling techniques.
>
> In other words, I should be able to learn a lot from just about any late
> 20th-c "literary" work ...
>
> This would appear to conflict a little with the well-known desire to
> write that which one would want to read.

Hey, that's about what you *write*. I never heard anything about only ever
reading the stuff I want to *read*. Unfortunately.

Maybe you'll be lucky -- maybe it won't work for you.

Patricia C. Wrede


.

Relevant Pages
Loading