Post History
Dr. Johnson is supposed to have said that you cannot reproduce the effects of dullness and garrulity without actually being dull and garrulous. Being slightly less 18th century (I'm more of a Victo...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Mark Baker
·
2020-01-14T04:50:01Z (almost 5 years ago)
- Dr. Johnson is supposed to have said that you cannot reproduce the effects of dullness and garrulity without actually being dull and garrulous. Being slightly less 18th century (I'm more of a Victorian, truth be told), I would say, just because it is true does not mean it isn't tedious.
I think writers fall into this trap a lot. They devote a lot of art and craft to trying to write something that is perfectly true to life, but forget that most of ordinary life is dull as ditchwater, and that people read books to get away from the dullness of ordinary life. And there are few things more dull and dreary in ordinary life than listening to a drunk. That is why most of the great drunks of literatur don't actually sound drunk at all. The sound uninhibited. They are often lyrical and bombastic and eloquent. They are seldom slurred and repetitive and stupid, because that is tedious and the cardinal sin of writing is to be tedious. Truth is no defence against tedium. Better to lie and fascinate than to tell the truth and bore.- So maybe don't do that.
- Dr. Johnson is supposed to have said that you cannot reproduce the effects of dullness and garrulity without actually being dull and garrulous. Being slightly less 18th century (I'm more of a Victorian, truth be told), I would say, just because it is true does not mean it isn't tedious.
- I think writers fall into this trap a lot. They devote a lot of art and craft to trying to write something that is perfectly true to life, but forget that most of ordinary life is dull as ditchwater, and that people read books to get away from the dullness of ordinary life. And there are few things more dull and dreary in ordinary life than listening to a drunk. That is why most of the great drunks of literature don't actually sound drunk at all. The sound uninhibited. They are often lyrical and bombastic and eloquent. They are seldom slurred and repetitive and stupid, because that is tedious and the cardinal sin of writing is to be tedious. Truth is no defence against tedium. Better to lie and fascinate than to tell the truth and bore.
- So maybe don't do that.
#2: Post edited
by
Mark Baker
·
2020-01-03T13:21:08Z (almost 5 years ago)
- Dr. Johnson is supposed to have said that you cannot reproduce the effects of dullness and garrulity without actually being dull and garrulous. Being slightly less 18th century (I'm more of a Victorian, truth be told), I would say, just because it is true does not mean it isn't tedious.
I think writers fall into this trap a lot. They devote a lot of art and craft to trying to write something that is perfectly true to life, but forget that most of ordinary life is dull as ditchwater, and that people read books to get away from the dullness of ordinary life. And there are few things more dull and dreary in ordinary life than listening to a drunk. That is why most of the great drunks of literatur don't actually sound drunk at all. The sound uninhibited. They are often lyrical and bombastic and eloquent. They are seldom slurred and repetitive and stupid, because that is tedious and the cardinal sin of writing it to be tedious. Truth is no defence against tedium. Better to lie and fascinate than to tell the truth and bore.- So maybe don't do that.
- Dr. Johnson is supposed to have said that you cannot reproduce the effects of dullness and garrulity without actually being dull and garrulous. Being slightly less 18th century (I'm more of a Victorian, truth be told), I would say, just because it is true does not mean it isn't tedious.
- I think writers fall into this trap a lot. They devote a lot of art and craft to trying to write something that is perfectly true to life, but forget that most of ordinary life is dull as ditchwater, and that people read books to get away from the dullness of ordinary life. And there are few things more dull and dreary in ordinary life than listening to a drunk. That is why most of the great drunks of literatur don't actually sound drunk at all. The sound uninhibited. They are often lyrical and bombastic and eloquent. They are seldom slurred and repetitive and stupid, because that is tedious and the cardinal sin of writing is to be tedious. Truth is no defence against tedium. Better to lie and fascinate than to tell the truth and bore.
- So maybe don't do that.
#1: Initial revision
by
Mark Baker
·
2020-01-03T03:58:41Z (almost 5 years ago)
Dr. Johnson is supposed to have said that you cannot reproduce the effects of dullness and garrulity without actually being dull and garrulous. Being slightly less 18th century (I'm more of a Victorian, truth be told), I would say, just because it is true does not mean it isn't tedious. I think writers fall into this trap a lot. They devote a lot of art and craft to trying to write something that is perfectly true to life, but forget that most of ordinary life is dull as ditchwater, and that people read books to get away from the dullness of ordinary life. And there are few things more dull and dreary in ordinary life than listening to a drunk. That is why most of the great drunks of literatur don't actually sound drunk at all. The sound uninhibited. They are often lyrical and bombastic and eloquent. They are seldom slurred and repetitive and stupid, because that is tedious and the cardinal sin of writing it to be tedious. Truth is no defence against tedium. Better to lie and fascinate than to tell the truth and bore. So maybe don't do that.