07-04-2012, 08:54 PM
" I am not making myself clear. Six feet down" no you are not. There is nothing I can point to that implies that in the lest. If you are going to use winter or summer as eon, then I think I would at least cap it, simply preceding it by an indefinite article only means you are not specifying which, not that it is meaning to represent an enormous time span.
"blinking-because it turns so fast in and out of days." There is nothing that clues the reader to this being what you meant. Metaphor in generally has to hold to the restrictions that are generally placed on that which the metaphor is using as it example. 1. The earth does not turn so fast that it blinks, and 2. a blinking effect could only be observed from earth's surface. You have not previously set up a mechanism (such as H. G. Wells does in the time machine) to explain why it would be perceived to happen, and and how one accounts for the physical impossibility of the earth spinning so fast that it would fly apart should such a thing actually occur. Certainly as we get older the perception is that time passes more quickly, and one could hypothesize that this process continues once we die, but here the implication would be that it continues on like this, and instead of a blinking, it rapidly progresses to a blur of light and dark, which quickly changes into a grey smear. The problem being that we are "six feet under" and could not see any of this if we had eyes to see, which we do not. This is not to mention the fact that whatever temperature change that occurs on the surface, would hardly be noted at that depth, as one is close, if not into the depth where a more or less constant 65 degrees F is generally maintained, this is beside the point that time is progressing so rapidly with the blinking and all, that we would be dust, and as such, lacking the necessary sense organs to perceive such a change in temperature, were it capable of being perceived.
Someone might ask, why is he making such a big deal about this? The answer is that a reader generally approaches a text with certain preconceived ideas, such as the laws of physics work as we are accustomed to them working unless otherwise noted with a corollary explanation (being transported to another dimension) that explains the change, and specifically defines what has and has not changed. To expect the reader to infer all of this from such things as the use of two indefinite articles, and the word "blinking" that he has entered into an indefinite time scale (whatever the hell that means) is to piss into the oncoming wind of a hurricane and expect not to get wet.
Best,
DT
"blinking-because it turns so fast in and out of days." There is nothing that clues the reader to this being what you meant. Metaphor in generally has to hold to the restrictions that are generally placed on that which the metaphor is using as it example. 1. The earth does not turn so fast that it blinks, and 2. a blinking effect could only be observed from earth's surface. You have not previously set up a mechanism (such as H. G. Wells does in the time machine) to explain why it would be perceived to happen, and and how one accounts for the physical impossibility of the earth spinning so fast that it would fly apart should such a thing actually occur. Certainly as we get older the perception is that time passes more quickly, and one could hypothesize that this process continues once we die, but here the implication would be that it continues on like this, and instead of a blinking, it rapidly progresses to a blur of light and dark, which quickly changes into a grey smear. The problem being that we are "six feet under" and could not see any of this if we had eyes to see, which we do not. This is not to mention the fact that whatever temperature change that occurs on the surface, would hardly be noted at that depth, as one is close, if not into the depth where a more or less constant 65 degrees F is generally maintained, this is beside the point that time is progressing so rapidly with the blinking and all, that we would be dust, and as such, lacking the necessary sense organs to perceive such a change in temperature, were it capable of being perceived.
Someone might ask, why is he making such a big deal about this? The answer is that a reader generally approaches a text with certain preconceived ideas, such as the laws of physics work as we are accustomed to them working unless otherwise noted with a corollary explanation (being transported to another dimension) that explains the change, and specifically defines what has and has not changed. To expect the reader to infer all of this from such things as the use of two indefinite articles, and the word "blinking" that he has entered into an indefinite time scale (whatever the hell that means) is to piss into the oncoming wind of a hurricane and expect not to get wet.
Best,
DT
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.