Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Opposite of Ernest Hemingway?

  1. Jul 20, 2012 #1
    What 20th/21st century writer would you say wrote in exact opposite style as hemingway. Hemingway wrote using the "iceberg theory" of writing: You write economically as possible, yet each sentence must convey as much meaning by means of intimation and allowing the reader to fill in the blanks (at least thats how i understand icerberg).. So what (well regarded) writer did the opposite of this, that is, tried to exert maximum control over the what the reader would imagine by being completely explicit and concise with no regard for verbosity or style. So almost like reading an instruction manual for a washing machine or something lol . Im thinking like old detective novels would sort of read like that, but by the nature of the genre have to leave the reader geussing all the time... Is it possible to write in the style of an instructional manual, or would readers be bored or think your a loon?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 20, 2012 #2

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    IMO Kim Stanley Robinson. Good stories by some accounts but frequently includes pages of exposition.
     
  4. Jul 20, 2012 #3

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Martin Caidin did a lot of that. He was my favourite author until he got really weird (and even then I read his stuff). In the opening of "Cyborg" (the basis for "The Six Million Dollar Man"), he spends about 3 pages describing the cacti in the desert where the crash occurs.
     
  5. Jul 20, 2012 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    The "classic" example is his contemporary William Faulkner, which is why colleges often have classes titled "Faulkner and Hemmingway".
     
  6. Jul 20, 2012 #5
    thats a stroke of genius to dedicate 3 pages to cacti rather than cyborg technology, which wouldve seemed dated in less than 10 years... but idk maybe thats a writers trick.
     
  7. Jul 20, 2012 #6
    Maybe not the exact opposite, but of the major writers, James Joyce went into a lot of detail about the thoughts and actions of his characters.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2012
  8. Jul 20, 2012 #7

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I always thought Tom Clancy was exceedingly verbose, especially in The Sum of All Fears. Opposite of Hemingway in pretty much every way, including notability, I suppose.
     
  9. Jul 20, 2012 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Conrad Blacks's writings are verbose and rarely readable.
     
  10. Jul 20, 2012 #9

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually, he went into incredible detail about both the technology and the medical procedures necessary to install it, even specifying the type of satellite stabilization system motors used in the limbs. Even by today's standards, it's believable and not at all out-dated, and it was written in 1972.

    (I should point out, to those who haven't read it, that the book is nothing like the watered-down kiddie show that they put on TV. Steve Austin was a bad-*** government assassin.)
     
  11. Jul 20, 2012 #10

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Marcel Proust.
     
  12. Jul 20, 2012 #11

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I can't help wondering how this discussion would apply to German writing. From translations that I've seen of things like car manuals, half of the bloody words are complete sentences.
     
  13. Jul 20, 2012 #12
    danger, i am interested in the back story to six million dollar man. Seeing as hes one of your fav authors and youve read the book, where, iyo, does he come up short with respect to cyborg technology, and where is he pretty accurate for the time period he was writing? The main implaisibilty people always point to is how the spine could never withstand the forces he puts himself through and how he could never breathe that fast if he was running 100mph --how was it explained in the original book??
     
  14. Jul 20, 2012 #13

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't want to wreck anything for people who might want to read it, so I'll issue a spoiler alert on this post.
    As to the "superhuman" aspects of the show, they weren't in the book. He couldn't run much faster than a normal person, but he could maintain his pace for as long as he could stay awake because the isotope-powered legs did all of the work. He was just "along for the ride". Also, his oxygen requirements were far lower, and his stamina far higher, than for a normal person because of the extreme amount of muscle in the legs and one arm that no longer needed an oxygenated blood supply. His swimming, however, was faster than human because the sheer power of the legs overcame the hydrodynamic drag that makes travel in water harder and because steel-mesh fins popped out of the balls of his feet. There was an oxygen cylinder inside one thigh, with a mask/hose assembly that was accessible via a camouflaged hatch, so he could remain submerged for hours.
    I can't remember whether or not the spine was reinforced in any way, but no actions took place that would damage a normal one. The ribs, however, were made of shape-memory vitallium metal, with wires strung amongst them to serve as an antenna for the radio in his other thigh.
    The left arm was used as much as a club as anything else (it was changed to the right for the show because Lee Majors is right-handed.) The backs of the knuckles and edge of the hand were armour plated, so he had a tendency to just punch his fist through someone's skull or "karate chop" his neck into a dozen pieces. If longer range was needed, his "bird finger" was hollow, locked into place when necessary, and connected to a compressed CO2 supply. It fired miniature darts tipped with shellfish toxin.
    The eye was simply a miniature camera that took a picture when he blinked and automatically advanced the film. I think that it had 20 exposures available, and there might have been IR sensitivity. After the series came out, he altered that in the sequels in that the fake eye was tied into the optic nerves so as to superimpose that "rangefinder" grid on the vision of his real eye. At that point, Caidin still didn't think that artificial vision would be possible within the immediate future, and he appears to have been right. We are just now beginning to make progress in that direction.
    The bionics in the book, as in the series, were permanent and neurologically controlled, as opposed to the state-of-the-art myoelectric strap-on devices that existed at the time. The cobalt steel "bones" were inserted into, and bonded with, the stumps of the original bone and the input wires were fused with the remaining neurons, so everything was literally thought controlled as biological limbs would be.
    About the only thing that really surpassed the stuff in the book was electronics technology. Computer chips barely existed at the time, and certainly nothing like what is available now. On the other hand, that isn't necessary for the mechanical systems involved. That sort of tech would be great, especially for power management and switching, but not essential.
    About the "obsolescence factor" of SF, Caidin himself pointed out something mind-boggling. He was one of the main official correspondents covering everything about the space programme, and was even named an honourary astronaut. His observation was that he and his friends had known for decades that humans would land on the moon, and even had an accurate idea of how it would be achieved. Not one of them, however, ever imagined that people would be watching it on TV.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Opposite of Ernest Hemingway?
  1. Equal and opposite? (Replies: 31)

  2. Opposite of light (Replies: 35)

  3. The Opposite of Light (Replies: 17)

Loading...