> When we use conjunctions instead of commas, it slows the reading down and bestows each action with a greater significance.
This is probably me being wrong, but I've always read polysyndeton the exact opposite. It goes and goes and gets faster and rushes and flies to the next phrase. To me, the polynsyndeton unites the whole sentence into one big fat action. It doesn't lend weight, it lends immediacy, a sort of simultaneity to whatever actions are all lumped together into one big AND. But that's just my own reading, and frankly its my own eyes glazing over a bunch of otherwise tiny actions.
But that might be my problem with McCarthy: I don't slow down enough. Curious for your thoughts.
I think you’re right - it can be used to speed up action, but it depends on the action. It can give a sense of hurrying from one action to the next, so if those are significant actions, then things are rushing along. But if they’re mundane and minute actions like opening the gate, stepping through the gate, closing the gate, it’s slowing things down and forcing us to concentrate on each particular action. Does that make sense?
Excellent analysis! Your contrast of the more straightforward narration - which was good in itself - with what McCarthy actually wrote was a good way to highlight where his style really pops and also serves a purpose. So much of it has to do with his wordchoice and imagery. “Stakerope” - an uncommon word or maybe even a neologism that prefigures the stake of agony in his heart at the end. And then “arc of the hemisphere” and “die in darkness”. So vivid!
And I can’t help but getting a different reference for that last bit: “Die in darkness” is a phrase used in The Expanse by Belters when they’re getting ready to put an enemy out of an airlock.
What an outstanding article, Thaddeus. As a teacher for over 43 years, one of goals was to teach 4th graders how to write. The first stage was giving them the grammar tools ( like an artist's palette) so they could control how something they wrote was read. The second was to fill them with wonderful writing that we enjoyed and discussed why it worked so well. It was joyful to watch 9 and 10 years old tear into this subject like a dog with sirloin steak. If they had been older, I would have used YOUR article to dig into the art of creating tension and releasing it, etc. You really should start your own writing magazine.
I wish I could like McCarthy (after all, he has a funny name also - Cormac sounds like a protective device of some sort.) But, his style grates on my nerves because I have an insatiable need to know things. Like who is speaking. When I read your Dracula ex-post facto short story, I did print it out, as I said, and as I read each line of dialog, marked 'him' or 'her' next to the line so I could keep the speakers straight. I could do that because A. the story was layered and written in a literary style/vocabulary, and B interesting and C. short. I can't do that with ol' Cormac when he provides no sign posts, street names, or warning signs. I suspect he really didn't want to be famous, and defeated his own success at being defeated by accidentally becoming famous. That won't keep me from reading and liking your analysis series, however, as they are interesting in themselves, and you provide context with examples. That is a beautiful Horsey habit.
> When we use conjunctions instead of commas, it slows the reading down and bestows each action with a greater significance.
This is probably me being wrong, but I've always read polysyndeton the exact opposite. It goes and goes and gets faster and rushes and flies to the next phrase. To me, the polynsyndeton unites the whole sentence into one big fat action. It doesn't lend weight, it lends immediacy, a sort of simultaneity to whatever actions are all lumped together into one big AND. But that's just my own reading, and frankly its my own eyes glazing over a bunch of otherwise tiny actions.
But that might be my problem with McCarthy: I don't slow down enough. Curious for your thoughts.
Anyway, still loving this series. Keep it up.
Thank you, and the difference in how techniques strike us is a good point!
I think you’re right - it can be used to speed up action, but it depends on the action. It can give a sense of hurrying from one action to the next, so if those are significant actions, then things are rushing along. But if they’re mundane and minute actions like opening the gate, stepping through the gate, closing the gate, it’s slowing things down and forcing us to concentrate on each particular action. Does that make sense?
Excellent analysis! Your contrast of the more straightforward narration - which was good in itself - with what McCarthy actually wrote was a good way to highlight where his style really pops and also serves a purpose. So much of it has to do with his wordchoice and imagery. “Stakerope” - an uncommon word or maybe even a neologism that prefigures the stake of agony in his heart at the end. And then “arc of the hemisphere” and “die in darkness”. So vivid!
And I can’t help but getting a different reference for that last bit: “Die in darkness” is a phrase used in The Expanse by Belters when they’re getting ready to put an enemy out of an airlock.
Interesting link between genres. Thank you Larry. You're always an encouragement and a friend.
What an outstanding article, Thaddeus. As a teacher for over 43 years, one of goals was to teach 4th graders how to write. The first stage was giving them the grammar tools ( like an artist's palette) so they could control how something they wrote was read. The second was to fill them with wonderful writing that we enjoyed and discussed why it worked so well. It was joyful to watch 9 and 10 years old tear into this subject like a dog with sirloin steak. If they had been older, I would have used YOUR article to dig into the art of creating tension and releasing it, etc. You really should start your own writing magazine.
That's really kind. I'm moved!
"How many techniques have I tried on like clothes, fancying their looks but unaware of the weather?"
If there is any one line that sums up the lessons of this series on style, it is this.
I am learning a lot with this series.
That's wonderful. I am too, but I'm glad to hear I'm not alone.
I wish I could like McCarthy (after all, he has a funny name also - Cormac sounds like a protective device of some sort.) But, his style grates on my nerves because I have an insatiable need to know things. Like who is speaking. When I read your Dracula ex-post facto short story, I did print it out, as I said, and as I read each line of dialog, marked 'him' or 'her' next to the line so I could keep the speakers straight. I could do that because A. the story was layered and written in a literary style/vocabulary, and B interesting and C. short. I can't do that with ol' Cormac when he provides no sign posts, street names, or warning signs. I suspect he really didn't want to be famous, and defeated his own success at being defeated by accidentally becoming famous. That won't keep me from reading and liking your analysis series, however, as they are interesting in themselves, and you provide context with examples. That is a beautiful Horsey habit.
Much obliged. The first time I read him, it was a library book, and the librarian felt the same way. Just couldn't get past the punctuation.