You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: John the Barman. (Short story part 3.)
he shut out the image of the tramp getting hit by the bus and his dog becoming kebab meat.
Not a good image. LoL. Glad I don't eat kebabs, unless I make them. I guess even God deserves a night out every now and then.
The whole idea is that the divine and supernatural are just working jobs like people do, some like Lucifer hate their jobs but they all drop into the bar after work or at weekends to relax so they can unwind before having to face working with people again.
I beg to disagree. When it is related to literature, bad images are those that a reader has a hard time imagining. In this case, I can vividly imagine the dog becoming a kebab meat. It could be a disturbing image, but, under the circumstances, "disturbing" is not a synonym of "bad". )))
Sorry, but I really do not understand what you are disagreeing about. is it
I didn't use the term bad images at all, just not a good image, seeing a person get hit by a bus, then his dog snatched and cut up for a kebab - - I am a vivid image reader - - - I have no problem seeing that bus run over the tramp, and the kebab seller running over and grabbing and skinning and processing the dog into a kebab. "It was not a good image. LoL." When I read I see the story. I doubt I see it as the writer sees it but I literally see the story.
Yes. About that. It's funny how a word can have multiple connotations depending on the intended usage.
Your "not good image" is related to a life situation - unpleasant scenery, a disturbing thought. From the writer's point of view, this was the good image because it was able to ignite the feeling in a reader, regardless of the nature of this feeling: pleasant or unpleasant. The "not good" image would have been the one that wouldn't ignite any feelings, leave a reader indifferent.