Una delle accuse rivolte alla letteratura moderna è quella di eccedere in affabulazione. Bersagli di queste affermazioni sono gli scrittori di genere rei di pensare troppo alla “trama” e troppo poco al linguaggio [6] . Nulla di più falso. As already Pasolini [7], the writer must use the "mimesis." The language must be subordinate to the plot. And that goes for any text, even among the oldest. The triplet
Dante is perhaps an example of mimicry? The dazzling stylistic insights Leopards are they not an example of a camouflaged language [8] in the plot and the plot are due [9]
The narration (that permeates every corner of our existence) requires by its very nature of a research language invisible. The more the author is aware, the more this kind of research is at its power, the less he understands more the language will not take off the plot. I realize that I seem more complicated than they are and try to simplify. If a writer has to describe a certain scene, a mood, a landscape or whatever you like, have to choose the exact language to evoke the emotion that the reader has in mind to explore (the books are travel , right?).
So why the "real language" so successful (critical)?
Why is reassuring.
[6] In fact these criminals are not even mentionned in Literature.
[7] Pasolini is not the only one to speak of "Mimesis" (I do in the ethological sense, actually - like the feathers of the quail for instance) but it is very true intellectual mention one of the most overrated thinkers of the twentieth century and since I know from experience that the notes at the bottom of the page read in four cats, I thought: why not?
[8] See how miss the quail! Do not you see? It means that mimesis works.
[9] I could argue (with some scandal) that in poetry there is no plot. Not being a critic I can afford to repeat with a "Oh yeah? And what about "A Silvia"? pure language in freedom, right? "
0 comments:
Post a Comment