> My meaning was, "it is true", but "it is not true all the time," hence the
> qualifier "to some good degree." Good meaning that I'm certain it is true
> in over 50% of samplings (although I could be wrong), but there are no
> studies I know of that I can cite so I have to leave room for correction in
> case someone comes along with evidence.
Thank you, Scotty. So Rusty, while you were assuming a cut-off of 80%, secure in the
knowledge that
you got his drift, Scotty was thinking the much different 50%, a figure that you say
you wouldn't be
comfortable with (except in certain UNDEFINED instances).
> I can be very brief and concise when I want to but when it comes to
> literature and language it is all a matter of interpretation. That is where
> all this started in "he hates" versus "he's posturing" debate.
> Interpretation "to a good degree" is based on a person's experience with
> language which will vary with another's. Leo is upset that we use imprecise
> language when Howard is cuttingly clear but that is his interpretation and I
> tend to follow Rusty's and Larry's line of reasoning. We've talked at length
> about Howard's expert use of language but expert use does not imply
> preciseness, it can also suggest vagueness and subtlety. To one person a
> word or phrase may have precise meaning but to another it expresses
> something else because of how you interpret the words and phrasing and
> sentence or paragraph structure. One of the beauties of language to me is
> that it can be both precise and vague at the same time, imparting a duality.
If "expert language" doesn't convey preciseness, then what is "expert use"? Howard is
precise even
when saying that something was "precisely" vague. He makes no bones about it, the
thing in question
is VAGUE, in shadows and out of your eyes' reach, and not subject to any "certain"
guess by you
concerning what it is lurking there. In other words, Howard is great at conveying the
precise level
of clarity or vagueness he wishes you to feel. He's not failing to get his point
across, he's doing
it in spades, even if only to say "this is vague". He precisely qualifies his level
of vagueness by
saying "the shadows obscured the creature like a curtain of black, allowing only beady
red eyes and
pale white teeth to show through". Not Howard's words, but they serve to show how he
would always
give you an example, an analogy, to feed off of. Your feet are firmly on the ground.
But the main point is that Howard never was purposely vague unless it served the
reader, instead of
confusing him/her. Like Larry says, he was so damn confident when doing this, that
frequently he
gets by with precious little description at all. A simple remark about blazing blue
eyes and
pantherish agility serves in Howard's hands to create a whole picture in your mind.
His lack of
detailed descriptions wasn't meant to confuse you or leave you uncertain, he does it
because he is
aware that the power words he uses need little else, they get the point across just
fine. That's
why I keep scoffing at the attempts to "tone down" Howard�[��ate. He didn't leave it
open to much
debate. He HATED.
Leo
