What do you think about an author/narrator being willfully vague in order to sound mysterious, or to suggest the speaker is at a loss for words, touching on subjects too profound to be fully uttered?
Or just to be cute.
Summer, sometimes the subjects ARE too profound for words. In the last piece I submitted "What She Remembers"(Annie). I started with the idea of writing a detailed account of Annie's experience. But that quickly changed when I realized that words cant do it justice. That sometimes the things unsaid, and the space between speaks louder than words.
What if approaching the "thing" is not enough?
But really, I do think there are two situations:
One when a writer knowingly glances off a subject, leaving space, as you said.
The second when there is nothing deeper to "this" and "that" and it's just a clever device.
Maybe sometimes it isnt enough, i guess each piece should be judged individually. I wouldnt use it as a device per se, it just feels "righter" sometimes. As for your second point, using it purely as a device, we would probably feel the untruth to it and not respond well instinctively. I guess anything too contrived would sound false.
I dunno. Seems like people are eating up the blasé writer thing, or the earnest "thingness" thing.
Summer, you seem to be a fearless writer. Stay your own course and don't fret the others. The cream always rises to the top.
Ah, Ms. Robinson, I see you're trying to foreshadow. It is a very high level artistic discipline to use. Be too vague, and no one will understand what you're talking about, be too obvious and the reveal at the end is deflated, like soufle. (I know I left out the accent)
Thanks, Susan. Deciding on a course is no easy thing.