| Author |
Message |
Qp10qp
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:59 pm
Post subject: Does this ellipsis work |
|
|
I've been looking for a long time at the second sentence in this extract from a
Don Paterson article in this morning's Guardian, and I'm still not sure
whethertghe ellipsis works or not. What do you think?
'On the other side we have the avant-garde so desperate for transcendence they
see it everywhere: they are fatally in the grip of an adolescent sublime, where
absolutely anything will blow your mind, as your mind, in its state of
recrudescent virginity, is permanently desperate to be blown. The Norwich phone
book or a set of log tables would serve them as well as their Prynne, in whom
they seem able to detect as many shades of mindblowing confusion as Buddhists
do the absolute.'
For me, "*in* the absolute" would be better, if I understand the meaning
correctly (and I'm not sure I do, since the Norwich phone book or a set of log
tables, being epistemonically limited, do not strike me, on the face of it, as
comparable in indecipherability to either the inscrutable poet Prynne or the
Buddhist concept of the absolute - unless Paterson is saying that the last two
are emperors with no clothes).
Peasemarch.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Does this ellipsis work |
|
|
Qp10qp wrote:
| Quote: | I've been looking for a long time at the second sentence in this
extract from a Don Paterson article in this morning's Guardian, and
I'm still not sure whethertghe ellipsis works or not. What do you
think?
'On the other side we have the avant-garde so desperate for
transcendence they see it everywhere: they are fatally in the grip
of
an adolescent sublime, where absolutely anything will blow your
mind,
as your mind, in its state of recrudescent virginity, is
permanently
desperate to be blown. The Norwich phone book or a set of log
tables
would serve them as well as their Prynne, in whom they seem able to
detect as many shades of mindblowing confusion as Buddhists do the
absolute.'
For me, "*in* the absolute" would be better, if I understand the
meaning correctly (and I'm not sure I do, since the Norwich phone
book or a set of log tables, being epistemonically limited, do not
strike me, on the face of it, as comparable in indecipherability to
either the inscrutable poet Prynne or the Buddhist concept of the
absolute - unless Paterson is saying that the last two are emperors
with no clothes).
|
I'm for "in", because it seems to me that leaving it out suggests
that the "as many shades as" leads us to Buddhists, not to an
understood repetition of "shades". As it were, "They detect as many
shades as there are Buddhists who detect the Absolute". Even so, it
isn't crystalline.
I do, however, tend to think Prynne could do with (could have done
with? -- can't remember) some fleecy long Johns now the nights are
drawing in. But note the subtle, and apt, allusion to Alan Partridge.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Post subject: Re: Does this ellipsis work |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Qp10qp wrote:
I've been looking for a long time at the second sentence in this
extract from a Don Paterson article in this morning's Guardian,
and
I'm still not sure whethertghe ellipsis works or not. What do you
think?
[...] |
The piece has two or three signs of hasty editing, so I tried to find
it on line to see if it was unchanged. But it isn't there yet: do
they not put features up till the next day?
Not a bad piece, with some good flashes of anger. I'll read it again.
Tried to find an apt quotation from the one book of his I've got, but
nothing seemed to fit. (I must admit that I find him better than most
of our contemporaries, but am still often left uttering the profound
literary insight "So what?")
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qp10qp
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:26 am
Post subject: Re: Does this ellipsis work |
|
|
| Quote: | Subject: Re: Does this ellipsis work
From: "Mike Lyle"
Mike Lyle wrote:
Qp10qp wrote:
I've been looking for a long time at the second sentence in this
extract from a Don Paterson article in this morning's Guardian,
and
I'm still not sure whether the ellipsis works or not. What do you
think?
[...]
The piece has two or three signs of hasty editing, so I tried to find
it on line to see if it was unchanged. But it isn't there yet: do
they not put features up till the next day?
Not a bad piece, with some good flashes of anger. I'll read it again.
Tried to find an apt quotation from the one book of his I've got, but
nothing seemed to fit. (I must admit that I find him better than most
of our contemporaries, but am still often left uttering the profound
literary insight "So what?")
Mike.
|
I found it an interesting piece, incisive in places and flannelish in others. I
like the way he attacks the avant garde and the popularisers in one breath,
though he doesn't state clearly enough for me what the alternative should be.
I suspect the ellipsis is deliberate, rather than an editing error, because the
article reveals a tendency to miss out commonplace joining words.
"On the other side we have the avant-garde so desperate for transcendence they
see it everywhere . . ."
Most people would say "that they see", I suspect. But Paterson's a poet, and so
trims whatever he considers excess. Some people have cut off their little toes
for the same reason and then found it difficult to walk.
On the other hand, you may be right about the editing overall, because that
sentence in my opinion cries out for a comma after "avant-garde", though it's
not essential.
The Guardian books section received a complaint a few months ago from David
Lodge because in printing an extract from his novel about Henry James they'd
changed "Henry" to "James" throughout without consulting him - the right thing
to do for an article (with consultation, of course), but not for an extract
from a novel.
It's a wonderful supplement, though, the best of its kind in the country by
far.
Peasemarch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in