On 10/12/06, biloxi andersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Please forgive me for this critique and disregard it if you wish; it's
> a wonderful, empathic idea; but I would try to make it much simpler,
> clearer and prettier. For example, here's perhaps how I'd do retaining
> much of your words
>
>
> On 10/11/06, andrew burke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > … shape of those bent shoulders
> > and the entire body language
> > speaks of resignation
> > this lady sweeping leaves away
> > under a weeping tree
>
> A leaf
> After leaf
> Is swept
> Under a tree that wept
I must clarify; I don't actually like the idea of "a weeping tree" or
"a tree that wept".
I think it's better to just tell how things are and leave it to people
to empathise however they want. If an emotion must be told then I
think it's better to be told by an actual character as a matter of
fact, not obliging others to agree with it.
Then, I think this is called the pathetic fallacy.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/P0110900.html
I don't abide by the notion that the pathetic fallacy must be avoid at
all times, but I think there's a good reason why the notion exists.
|