The way she wrote protrayed a clear picture in your mind. There was no room for error on the part of the reader. Similar to the article we read on the first day of class, where we imagined the table covered in red cloth. The cage with a whiter rabbit in it, and even the number on its back. Sue Monk Kid left no room for error and painted the clear picture of the peach farm where the main character lived. She was very detailed in how she describbed everything she wrote. Her words were clear and unmuddy. She was very clear and very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Bees
I don't like those books that may be very well written but arnt descriptive enough so at the end you say "but what about this?!" because they author left holes. However i acctually own this book but just havent read it yet but now i've very excited for when i do.
ReplyDeleteDescription goes a long way, however the article we read by Steven King was more about how we can leave some things to the imagination. He never told us how the number was on the back, or what kind of cage it was in. But, instead he cleverly painted the parts and left out others in a way that would still give the readers all similar pictures. In reading," A Tale of Two Cities." By Charles Dickens I very often found myself drowning in detail. When Mrs. Seegmiller said that the writer of the Hunchback of Notre Dame made Dickens look like he was paraphrasing I immediately crossed it off my list. There is definitely such thing as too much detail.
ReplyDeleteI've heard of this book, and want to read it. It sounds really interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe authors that leave no holes are my favorite. Oftentimes, I find that these kind of writers are the ones who are also able to shatter my heart by the end of the book.
I love the way this woman writes. I love how there's no room for misinterpretation. She knows her story and gets it across in a powerful way.
ReplyDelete