| |
|
Using a word like unimaginable in a work of fiction, or indeed nonfiction, seems to me to be a little oxymoronic.
(Is that a word?)
A story, whether true or not, by it's very nature engages one's imagination. By using a word like this, or "unspeakable" or "indescribable", an author creates something of an imaginative loop. One reads the word and tries to imagine what unimaginable would be like, or tries to describe what undescribable would be like. I myself have done this, being a huge HPL fan. But to many this is the downfall of his style. His rampant use of this kind of technique weakens much of his fiction to the point of self-parody, even in my own opinion every now and then.
Now, having said that, I'm not sure I could come up with a better way of approaching this kind of description. What's a better way of saying "unimaginable horror"? Try as I might, I cannot rationalize what it would have been like to be in the top few floors of the WTC after the first plane hit. I can't. But when it's described (there's an over-used word in this post. Sorry) as unimaginable, I begin trying to imagine it. Is it instinctual reaction to try? Is that why horror that relies on the unseen or unspoken is so effective? Is that why people feel the need to try and convey the depth and enormity (redundant much?) of a tragedy, because something unimaginable is beyond our comprehension? This strikes me as the same sort fo feeling as trying to imagine non-existence. It's unimaginable, eh? 
Sorry, that's a little off the original question, but it just sparked something.
In a purely literary context, I'll agree with Rizla. The whole point is it's something we couldn't imagine, perhaps setting it outside the scope of human experience. And perhaps that's why it shouldn't apply to real events, because if someone went through it, then it is indeed imaginable, if only to that person.
Zoom.
[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Captain Zoom ] |
|
|
