<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>litfarm &#187; character</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.litfarm.com/tag/character/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.litfarm.com</link>
	<description>get writing. get published.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:00:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>in defense of sentimentality</title>
		<link>http://www.litfarm.com/2008/03/10/in-defense-of-sentimentality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.litfarm.com/2008/03/10/in-defense-of-sentimentality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[on writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[character]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentimentality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litfarm.com/2008/03/10/in-defense-of-sentimentality/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Irving takes another look at sentimentality in an ancient article from the NY Times that&#8217;s been kicking around the litfarm for a while (so long that I don&#8217;t remember who pointed it out to me originally). As someone who is still working out the line between drama and melodrama, emotion and sentimentality in my [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/15/lifetimes/irving-sentimentality.html?_r=2&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin">John Irving takes another look at sentimentality</a> in an ancient article from the NY Times that&#8217;s been kicking around the litfarm for a while (so long that I don&#8217;t remember who pointed it out to me originally). As someone who is still working out the line between drama and melodrama, emotion and sentimentality in my own work, it&#8217;s helpful to think about the subject in a generous light.</p>
<blockquote><p>It is surprising, however, how many readers reserve Dickens&#8211;and hopefulness in general&#8211;for Christmas; it seems that what we applaud in Dickens&#8211;his kindness, his generosity, his belief in our dignity&#8211;is also what we condemn him for (under another name) in the off-Christmas season.</p>
<p>The other name is sentimentality&#8211;and, to the modern reader, too often when a writer risks being sentimental, the writer is already guilty&#8230; A short story about a four-course meal from the point of view of a fork will never be sentimental; it may never matter very much to us, either. A fear of contamination by soap opera haunts the educated writer&#8230; [although] &#8220;Madame Bovary&#8221; would have been perfect material for daytime television and a contemporary treatment of &#8220;The Brothers Karamazov&#8221; could be stuck with a campus setting.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;d love to see Karamozov set in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O.C.">OC</a>. Genius, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.litfarm.com/2008/03/10/in-defense-of-sentimentality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
