third person
|
|
Thread rating:  |
masahiko - 23 Jan 2004 08:37 GMT What kind of impression do you have if a narrator uses her name or " she" to refer to herself like a third person instead of " I "?
"I once had to learn how to operate an electric toaster, but I really didn't care for the work. There was no controlling the rye bread, and I never could get the bagels to fit into those narrow slots. Elizabeth always burned her fingers pulling them out, and the one time she tried to get them out with a fork, she caused to go out for five city blocks."
Donna Richoux - 23 Jan 2004 09:47 GMT > What kind of impression do you have if a narrator uses her name or " > she" to refer to herself like a third person instead of " I "? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > always burned her fingers pulling them out, and the one time she tried > to get them out with a fork, she caused to go out for five city blocks." My first impression is that "Elizabeth" is someone else, such as the speaker's wife or daughter. If you know that's impossible, then there must be some mistake. Perhaps there is supposed to be a quotation mark after "slots."
By the way, you appear to have lost "the electricity" or "the power" in the last sentence.
 Signature Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
masahiko - 23 Jan 2004 10:59 GMT I am sorry that I should put "lights" in the last sentence.
"I once had to learn how to operate an electric toaster, but I really didn't care for the work. There was no controlling the rye bread, and I never could get the bagels to fit into those narrow slots. Elizabeth always burned her fingers pulling them out, and the one time she tried to get them out with a fork, she caused the lights to go out for five city blocks."
I am sure Elizabeth is " I" herself, and this is her style," Elizabeth's "style of speaking. She often speaks in this way. What I want to know is what kind of person you would infer from her style of speaking. There is another example.
It's not that I'm asking for souvenirs, you see; that is too, too tacky for words. And Elizabeth does so hate to be tacky, but she needs the matches, darlings. She really does. Do you think you could lift a dozen books of matches for old Elizabeth?
Steffen Buehler - 23 Jan 2004 11:26 GMT > I am sure Elizabeth is " I" herself, and this is her style," Elizabeth's > "style of speaking. She often speaks in this way. What I want to know is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > matches, darlings. She really does. Do you think you could lift a dozen > books of matches for old Elizabeth? People who talk that way are thinking quite a lot about themselves at least. This can be (hopefully) harmless - like me murmuring "oh, stupid little Steffen has made a typo here" to myself. But it could as well be a sign of a neurosis or even psychosis like schizophrenia.
Best regards Steffen
Donna Richoux - 23 Jan 2004 11:33 GMT > I am sorry that I should put "lights" in the last sentence. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > matches, darlings. She really does. Do you think you could lift a dozen > books of matches for old Elizabeth? The first word that comes to mind is "precious," but maybe I'm influenced by the way that Gollum used to refer to himself as "my precious." Merriam-Webster's third meaning of "precious" is:
3 : excessively refined : AFFECTED
I find it a strange habit, like she's slightly unhinged. Like an old bag lady. But that's very little to judge by, of course.
Is she British? The rhythm of your last example sounds more British to me. Maybe that's part of the affectation. I hate to harp on it, but it's the rhythm of Gollum's sentences (Lord of the Rings). That may be where she got it from.
 Signature Best -- Donna Richoux
masahiko - 24 Jan 2004 00:58 GMT >>I am sorry that I should put "lights" in the last sentence. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the rhythm of Gollum's sentences (Lord of the Rings). That may be where > she got it from. Does Golum also use "Golum" to refer to himself? If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? Is it because this style of narrative appears in Medieval English or Shakespeare plays?
Donna Richoux - 24 Jan 2004 02:55 GMT > >>I am sorry that I should put "lights" in the last sentence. > >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Does Golum also use "Golum" to refer to himself? Yes, sort of. The way Tolkien explains it, the creature made this noise in his throat, and was given the name because of it. So, in the dialog, Gollum says "gollum," and it seems to be that he is saying his own name, because that's what everyone else calls him. I can copy out a few lines of typical dialog, if you don't have your own copy of "Lord of the Rings."
> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? I don't come across "precious" being used to describe writing very often, so I'm not sure; I suspect everyone has their own standards as to what constitutes it. Lapsing into baby-talk would do it, for me.
>Is it because this > style of narrative appears in Medieval English or Shakespeare plays? I don't associate it at all with medieval times or Shakespeare. I suppose now you are talking about the general idea of referring to yourself in the third person, not this particular passage. The only examples I can remember of that is some character in a Georgette Heyer novel, a self-made wealthy industrialist, who kept saying things like "It's not every day that someone gets the better of Jonas Weatherall" or whatever his name was. It was supposed to represent him being somewhat egotistical and uncultured. If someone in Dickens did it, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. I think I've seen indications somewhere that the British think (or thought) of this as an American habit.
 Signature Best -- Donna Richoux
masahiko - 24 Jan 2004 12:43 GMT >> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? > > I don't come across "precious" being used to describe writing very > often, so I'm not sure; I suspect everyone has their own standards as > to what constitutes it. Lapsing into baby-talk would do it, for me. Do you find it childish in both Gollum's and Elizabeth's cases? Will you tell me what makes you think something, which is childish, can be excessively "refined"? It seems to me that baby talk is exactly opposite to refinement. Is excessive refinement childish? Is it what you mean?
Donna Richoux - 24 Jan 2004 13:38 GMT > >> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Do you find it childish in both Gollum's and Elizabeth's cases? No, those aren't childish. I was trying to come up with examples of what might make some writing "precious", which is hard because it's not a word I use myself, really. You know, that difference between active vocabulary and passive vocabulary.
Maybe it's a more active word for someone else. Can anybody out there post a passage (quoted or invented) written in a style they would call "precious"? I would learn something.
>Will you > tell me what makes you think something, which is childish, can be > excessively "refined"?
>It seems to me that baby talk is exactly > opposite to refinement. Is excessive refinement childish? Is it what you > mean? The two concepts are quite different. Merriam-Webster said "refined," which didn't feel quite right to me. Maybe I picked up a wrong concept, or maybe their definition isn't broad enough.
I'm sorry I can't think of anything to make this all clearer. It's not a word that is used very much; I can find a few examples of someone saying that this movie or that book is "precious," in a negative sense, but without seeing the movie or the book, that is not enough to convey exactly what qualities they disliked.
I hope this Elizabeth is a fictional character, not a real person. I'm nervous that you are trying to gather ammunition in some flame war.
 Signature Best - Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham - 24 Jan 2004 14:07 GMT [ . . . ]
[about "precious" in a pejorative sense]
> I'm sorry I can't think of anything to make this all clearer. It's not a > word that is used very much; I can find a few examples of someone saying > that this movie or that book is "precious," in a negative sense, but > without seeing the movie or the book, that is not enough to convey > exactly what qualities they disliked. _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ (aka _W3NID_ on CD) has
3 a : PARTICULAR, FASTIDIOUS b : OVERNICE, OVERREFINED *divorced from the social instinct, thought ... tends to become finicky and precious Bertrand Russell* c : AFFECTED, POSING, HYPOCRITICAL *have made culture appear to be a power in whose service people could grow dry, intolerant, and precious Katharine F. Gerould*
Lars Eighner - 24 Jan 2004 15:45 GMT In our last episode, <8ku410dd2ie6pcfuvkdq6bpepa68tlqggg@4ax.com>, the lovely and talented Bob Cunningham broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> [ . . . ]
> [about "precious" in a pejorative sense]
>> I'm sorry I can't think of anything to make this all clearer. It's not a >> word that is used very much; I can find a few examples of someone saying >> that this movie or that book is "precious," in a negative sense, but >> without seeing the movie or the book, that is not enough to convey >> exactly what qualities they disliked.
> _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ (aka _W3NID_ on > CD) has
> 3 a : PARTICULAR, FASTIDIOUS > b : OVERNICE, OVERREFINED *divorced from the social [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people could grow dry, intolerant, and precious > Katharine F. Gerould* Bingo!
 Signature Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/ "Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it right, or doing it better." --John Updike
Bob Cunningham - 24 Jan 2004 22:53 GMT
> [ . . . ]
> [about "precious" in a pejorative sense]
> > I'm sorry I can't think of anything to make this all clearer. It's not a > > word that is used very much; I can find a few examples of someone saying > > that this movie or that book is "precious," in a negative sense, but > > without seeing the movie or the book, that is not enough to convey > > exactly what qualities they disliked.
> _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ (aka _W3NID_ on > CD) has
> 3 a : PARTICULAR, FASTIDIOUS > b : OVERNICE, OVERREFINED *divorced from the social [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people could grow dry, intolerant, and precious > Katharine F. Gerould* Maybe _Random House Webster's Unabridged_ says it better:
pre.cious [...], adj. [...] 4. affectedly or excessively delicate, refined, or nice: _precious manners_.
Skitt - 24 Jan 2004 23:18 GMT > Bob Cunningham said: >> (Donna Richoux) said:
>> [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 4. affectedly or excessively delicate, refined, or nice: > _precious manners_. Well, isn't that special!
 Signature Skitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/
Lars Eighner - 24 Jan 2004 15:39 GMT > The two concepts are quite different. Merriam-Webster said "refined," > which didn't feel quite right to me. Maybe I picked up a wrong concept, > or maybe their definition isn't broad enough. I too think M-W has missed the mark. The sense we are discussing, it seems to me, includes that which is too cute, too clever, highly mannered, excessively elevated for the situation, highly ornamented, and in the case of prose, largely overlapping with the sort we call "purple." I can think of a few expressions: toilet tissue (for toilet paper), dish cloth and dust cloth (for dish rag and dust rag) and the Victorian piano which had limbs rather than legs. These are excessively refined in the sense of being just a tad too delicate. My grandmother would have called some of these "nasty nice."
The best example of preciousness of this kind that I can think of occurs in Spanish. "Huevos" (literally, eggs) in vulgar speech may mean testicles (compare "nuts" in English). So in the diner for breakfast, the excessively refined person orders "blanquitas" (literally "little white ones") which is understood to mean eggs. But the effect is often not quite so refined as the customer might hope. After all, no sane person would suppose that in the context that "huevos" meant testicles (any more than a reasonable person would associate a piano leg with a human leg) -- but using the euphemism immediately reminds everyone of the double meaning and, moreover, indicates that the speaker knows it too.
Surely you get "Keeping Up Appearances." Mrs. Buckét is precious. But the show isn't. Or so it seems to me. While it takes a conscious and considerable effort to be precious, but you cannot achieve it deliberately. That is a little like hypercorrection. Except for a satiric effect or to create a character, no one aims to be hypercorrect, but only gets there by overshooting correctness.
That being said, the sense seems to be rare. "Precious prose" seems almost always to mean either very valuable writing or, ironically, writing not so valuable as the author might like to think.
> I'm sorry I can't think of anything to make this all clearer. It's not a > word that is used very much; I can find a few examples of someone saying > that this movie or that book is "precious," in a negative sense, but > without seeing the movie or the book, that is not enough to convey > exactly what qualities they disliked.
> I hope this Elizabeth is a fictional character, not a real person. I'm > nervous that you are trying to gather ammunition in some flame war.
 Signature Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/ Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so. -Bertrand Russell
Wood Avens - 24 Jan 2004 16:40 GMT > The sense we are discussing, >it seems to me, includes that which is too cute, too clever, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >legs. These are excessively refined in the sense of being just a >tad too delicate. A minor Pondian difference: the term dish cloth (probably spelt dish-cloth or even dishcloth) is usual in BrE: I've never heard dish rag here. (And we use a duster rather than either a dust cloth or a dust rag.)
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove number to reply
mUs1Ka - 24 Jan 2004 17:58 GMT >> The sense we are discussing, >> it seems to me, includes that which is too cute, too clever, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rag here. (And we use a duster rather than either a dust cloth or a > dust rag.) I remember when I was at Junior School and needed a cloth to wipe the dinner table. I couldn't remember the word cloth, so I asked for a rag. I got a severe telling-off from the Dinner Lady.
m.
Mickwick - 24 Jan 2004 20:57 GMT In alt.usage.english, Lars Eighner wrote:
[...]
>Surely you get "Keeping Up Appearances." Mrs. Buckét is precious. >But the show isn't. Or so it seems to me. While it takes a >conscious and considerable effort to be precious, but you cannot >achieve it deliberately. That is a little like hypercorrection. >Except for a satiric effect or to create a character, no one aims to >be hypercorrect, but only gets there by overshooting correctness. Bucket is plain old affected in my book. Precious is much less robust than Bucket. Precious includes an element of self-absorbed delicacy.
Your comment about 'overshooting correctness' highlights another important element: inappropriateness It might be wise and usual in some circumstances not to drink from a common cup or to insist on water being boiled. In other circumstances, coming over all funny at the thought of sharing a cup is precious.
For example, the water in my house comes from a well of unproven sanitude. One of my visitors will drink only bottled water here - which is fair enough - but she will drink it only if it has first been boiled. That is precious.
(Oh all right: it's me mum. Her mother-in-law - my paternal grandma [non-RP: nan] - once said to her: 'The trouble with you, --- , is that you are a hot-house plant.')
>That being said, the sense seems to be rare. "Precious prose" seems >almost always to mean either very valuable writing or, ironically, >writing not so valuable as the author might like to think. Anita Brookner. I haven't read much of her work, so perhaps I am being unfair, but for me Brookner is almost a synonym of preciousness when it comes to writing.
And yet last week she reviewed a new book by another author and her dislike of it came down to it being too precious (not sure if she used that word). If Anita Brookner says a book is precious ...
 Signature Mickwick
Laura F Spira - 24 Jan 2004 22:58 GMT > Anita Brookner. I haven't read much of her work, so perhaps I am > being unfair, but for me Brookner is almost a synonym of preciousness [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dislike of it came down to it being too precious (not sure if she > used that word). If Anita Brookner says a book is precious ... I don't like Brookner much, although I always hope I will, so I tend to read every other book she churns out. She seems to write the same book over and over again, with the same gloomy overtones, but I wouldn't describe her work as precious, although some of her characters are. A.S.Byatt is precious, IMO. And Dave Eggers.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Mickwick - 26 Jan 2004 11:30 GMT In alt.usage.english, Laura F Spira wrote:
>I don't like Brookner much, although I always hope I will, so I tend to >read every other book she churns out. She seems to write the same book >over and over again, with the same gloomy overtones, but I wouldn't >describe her work as precious, although some of her characters are. I'm sure you're right. I've only read half of one of her novels and I don't remember what her prose style is like. The impression of preciousness comes mostly from reading about her plots and characters in reviews. Repressed and particular people living tiny, exact lives is the impression I get.
>A.S.Byatt is precious, IMO. And Dave Eggers. I don't think I've read any Byatt but in interviews and so on she comes across as the old 'galleon in full sail' - a bit like Bucket in some ways, in fact.
 Signature Mickwick
masahiko - 25 Jan 2004 07:17 GMT >> The two concepts are quite different. Merriam-Webster said >> "refined," which didn't feel quite right to me. Maybe I picked up a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > immediately reminds everyone of the double meaning and, moreover, > indicates that the speaker knows it too. I think I understand the negative usage of "precious". If Elizabeth's narrative appears precious because she intends to sound delicate or fine by using her own name to refer to herself, but fails to do so, is there any general idea that third person speech is rather refined?
GEO - 25 Jan 2004 16:04 GMT >The best example of preciousness of this kind that I can think of >occurs in Spanish. "Huevos" (literally, eggs) in vulgar speech may [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >immediately reminds everyone of the double meaning and, moreover, >indicates that the speaker knows it too. Could you please tell me in what country is the word 'blanquitas' used this way? Spanish is spoken in many countries, and you comment makes it sound as if it used this way in all Spanish speaking countries.
Geo
Lars Eighner - 25 Jan 2004 18:17 GMT In our last episode, <4013e712.2459102@news.ucalgary.ca>, the lovely and talented "GEO" Me@home.here broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>The best example of preciousness of this kind that I can think of >>occurs in Spanish. "Huevos" (literally, eggs) in vulgar speech may [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>immediately reminds everyone of the double meaning and, moreover, >>indicates that the speaker knows it too.
> Could you please tell me in what country is the word 'blanquitas' > used this way? Spanish is spoken in many countries, and you comment > makes it sound as if it used this way in all Spanish speaking > countries. Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong. "Blanquitos." I should look these things up instead of relying on memory. And of course I mean Texas and parts of Mexico. I wonder if this is still current in Mexico, for in TexMex the word is now "eggs" -- as in "jamón and eggs" which pretty much obviates the problem.
 Signature Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/ Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so. -Bertrand Russell
Martin Ambuhl - 25 Jan 2004 19:05 GMT [...]
>> So in the diner for >>breakfast, the excessively refined person orders "blanquitas" >>(literally "little white ones") which is understood to mean eggs.
> Could you please tell me in what country is the word 'blanquitas' > used this way? Spanish is spoken in many countries, and you comment > makes it sound as if it used this way in all Spanish speaking > countries. I don't know about "blanquitas," but "blanquillos" is often used for eggs in Mexican Spanish.
 Signature Martin Ambuhl
Lars Eighner - 25 Jan 2004 19:24 GMT In our last episode, <isUQb.24239$q4.3620@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, the lovely and talented Martin Ambuhl broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> [...] >>> So in the diner for >>>breakfast, the excessively refined person orders "blanquitas" >>>(literally "little white ones") which is understood to mean eggs.
>> Could you please tell me in what country is the word 'blanquitas' >> used this way? Spanish is spoken in many countries, and you comment >> makes it sound as if it used this way in all Spanish speaking >> countries.
> I don't know about "blanquitas," but "blanquillos" is often used for eggs > in Mexican Spanish. Here is a review of a guide book in English with "blanquitos" (yes, blanquitas was an error, for to judge by google it means "porno site with little white girls*").
URL: <http://www.ralphmag.org/briefsC.html>
I'm not sure that a review of a travel guide is a sterling source for Mexican usage, but at least it is no figment of my imagination.
* which in porno web-site self-description language means few or none over 45 years of age.
 Signature Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/ "Love is the wisdom of the fool and the folly of the wise." --Samuel Johnson
John Dean - 24 Jan 2004 16:20 GMT >>>> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > post a passage (quoted or invented) written in a style they would call > "precious"? I would learn something. Do you ever lay your hands on 'Private Eye'? They have a regular feature - 'Pseuds Corner' - which often has examples of precious writing alongside downright pretentiousness, snobbery posing. From http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pseuds.htm I would pick for preciousness :
<< CHAPMAN – On Christmas Day 2003, to Janette (nee Cousins) and Richard, a daughter, Mistletoe Betty Berengaria, a darling sister for Thomas, Felicity and Araminta. Daily Telegraph birth announcements >>
And from the current dead-tree issue:
<< Fairy cakes. The fons et origo of my cupcake passion. Nigella Lawson - Sainsbury's magazine >> -- John Dean Oxford
Robert Bannister - 25 Jan 2004 00:09 GMT >>>>>If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > << Fairy cakes. The fons et origo of my cupcake passion. Nigella Lawson - > Sainsbury's magazine >> Slightly off-topic: have any of you looked at this site: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/goldenbull.html (question mark - I couldn't find a place for it above.)
 Signature Rob Bannister
Ben Zimmer - 24 Jan 2004 17:05 GMT > > >> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > post a passage (quoted or invented) written in a style they would call > "precious"? I would learn something. How about the passage that made Tonstant Weader fwow up?
"The more it snows, tiddely pom----" "Tiddely what?" said Piglet. "Pom," said Pooh. "I put that in to make it more hummy."
http://winnie-the-pooh.ru/stories/english/house/
Laura F Spira - 24 Jan 2004 17:16 GMT >>>>> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://winnie-the-pooh.ru/stories/english/house/ I don't think that it was this passage in particular that DP objected to - her words were:
"And it is that word 'hummy,' my darlings, that marks the first place in The House at Pooh Corner at which Tonstant Weader Fwowed up."
To me, this implies that at this point she could no longer bear the accumulated effect.
(I'm almost sure that should be "tiddley" but I haven't got my copy to hand as my mother is reading it alongside the Yiddish version...)
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
John Dean - 24 Jan 2004 19:49 GMT > > Donna Richoux wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > (I'm almost sure that should be "tiddley" but I haven't got my copy to > hand as my mother is reading it alongside the Yiddish version...) I suspect that Eeyore in Yiddish is quite an experience. -- John Dean Oxford
Tony Cooper - 24 Jan 2004 23:47 GMT >> (I'm almost sure that should be "tiddley" but I haven't got my copy to >> hand as my mother is reading it alongside the Yiddish version...) > >I suspect that Eeyore in Yiddish is quite an experience. Currently playing at the Jewish Community Center here is: The Gilbert & Sullivan Yiddish Light Opera Company of Long Island Present A new Yiddish/English Musical Comedy "Di Yam Gazlonim" based on "Pirates of Penzance"
John Dean - 25 Jan 2004 00:53 GMT >>>> If you find it "precious", can you tell me why ? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > post a passage (quoted or invented) written in a style they would call > "precious"? I would learn something. I also forgot to mention that Moliere wrote 'Les Precieuses Ridicules' as a satire on the trend for using a roundabout form of language instead of speaking plainly. -- John Dean Oxford
Donna Richoux - 25 Jan 2004 13:54 GMT > I also forgot to mention that Moliere wrote 'Les Precieuses Ridicules' as a > satire on the trend for using a roundabout form of language instead of > speaking plainly. That sent me to the ARTFL site, and yes, the French have had this "affected" meaning since at least the 1600s:
Dictionnaire de L'Académie française, 1st Edition (1694)
Precieux, signifie aussi, Affecté, & se dit principalement des manieres & du langage. Il a des manieres precieuses. un air precieux. il parle un langage precieux.
Precieuse. s. f. Femme qui est affectée dans son air, dans ses manieres, & principalement dans son langage. C'est une Precieuse. il n'est rien de plus incommode qu'une Precieuse. la comedie des Precieuses ridicules.
 Signature Best -- Donna Richoux
iwasaki - 24 Jan 2004 15:07 GMT "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> I don't associate it at all with medieval times or Shakespeare. I > suppose now you are talking about the general idea of referring to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > surprise me a bit. I think I've seen indications somewhere that the > British think (or thought) of this as an American habit. "Dobby is a bad elf!"
And wasn't "Chad" in _Charlie's Angels_ referring to himself as "the Chad"? He was described as not-a-brightest but a good-hearted person. I remember I wondered why he talked like that. (It sometimes happens in Japanese, but referring to yourself with your given name is considered to be childish.)
-- Nobuko Iwasaki
John Holmes - 23 Jan 2004 11:06 GMT > What kind of impression do you have if a narrator uses her name or " > she" to refer to herself like a third person instead of " I "? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to get them out with a fork, she caused to go out for five city > blocks." Does your question mean that you think that "I" and "Elizabeth" are the same person?
If so, I think you have misunderstood the passage. (However, it does not look like something written by a native speaker, so maybe anything's possible.)
-- Regards John
Don Phillipson - 23 Jan 2004 12:33 GMT > What kind of impression do you have if a narrator uses her name or " > she" to refer to herself like a third person instead of " I "? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > always burned her fingers pulling them out, and the one time she tried > to get them out with a fork, she caused to go out for five city blocks." The impression I get is that this person is writing about two different people, herself and someone called Elizabeth.
But there has been at least one error in transcription. We can guess it was the electricity that went out for five blocks: but this word does not appear.
The writer probably means to be ironical, cf. reference to someone attempting to put bagels into a bread slice toaster. Effective irony in print requires exceptiona skill. -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
|
|
|