Cyun, Thus was used only once every other post, so I hardly see how you think it was overused, especially given its place in the English language as a submodifier. Abysmal was used only twice on the entire first page, so I am even more disheartened that you liken this to remarkable overuse. Again, sentiment was used only twice, so I question the basis of the criticism of definitive and inignorable overusage.
And of course I was inclined to use very long sentences — the very style and era of the piece dictates that I follow the precedent of the mood, lest I shatter it with the succinctity of nonchalance. Whereas I happily use sentences beyond five or six words, I doubt the impact on pace this has in an empirical context. No two subsequent sentences follow the same structure, so it is only natural that one reading for enjoyment of the piece — or at least with the intent to finish it — will encounter a pace that varies as much as Madame Gusteau's attitude.
In reference to your idea that this is synonymous with a nineteenth century book of law, I can categorically disqualify that supposition. I encourage you to read the highly partitioned and technical verbiage of such law before comparing my piece that is unseparated and far from technical. In fact, I think the only use of this analogy is to demonstrate how little you understood the piece, which, again, would be remedied by an intent to appreciate rather than denigrate.
As to your general literary philosophy, whilst I'm honored you will alter your habit of actually reading a story before criticising it, I want to point out that you are making an 'exception' here. If you had made an 'acception', you would have read the entire piece before belittling it.
14-Aug-2012 13:19:20
- Last edited on
15-Aug-2012 04:58:56
by
Yrolg
