In Death in the Afternoon, Hemingway’s nonfiction book on bullfighting, he describes his “theory of omission” or “iceberg principle”:
“If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of the iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. The writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.”
when a writer omits things in the story, they create a scene so you know what is happening. The Iceberg Theory means the reader gives you just enough so you can put the point together. For example, when the writer omits certain things from the writing they should be sure the scene they create is an easy abstract the reader can figure out, and get a clear picture of what the writer is trying to get across.
I agree with what Francesca is saying the Iceberg is this big mass floating on the water and you might think that’s all to it, but if one would only look for what’s underneath the iceberg you will see much more.Its like a good mystery book if the writer were to give you the play by play of the series of events that happened the reader would be bored with it in no time. By omitting certain information the reader could explore the different reasons and or events that led to revelation at the end of the story.Which in return would ask questions about these situations.
I think that this is a good theory to writing, for anyone. Because, when an author puts too much information into a story, it can take away from the whole point. For example, being overly descriptive. If you are being overly descriptive, it can really take away from the whole point or just sound annoying after a while. I know I’ve read stories that were WAY over descriptive and I found it very hard to keep reading.
SO, I like the idea of having only the “tip of the iceberg” information wise.
This qoute is very true in explaining the detailed work of narrators and their writers. Writers do need to thoroughly research the idea and thaught that they are going to protrude to the readers. The writer truly has to depict a state of feeling in their literary work further expressing a state of emotion in the reader. This creates a visual picture in the readers head developing a connection between reader and writer. Concluding only omit things you know because it decreases confusion for the reader and decreases the bond between reader and writer.
This quote is very helpfully to writing, it suggests us to put something underneath the iceberg. which allows the reader to use their wisdom and imagination to pursue main idea during the reading. Also I think it is cheerful when we discover what is the beneath the iceberg, and we definitely found the reading more interesting than what we think it was. Actually most of time I just put everything that I want the reader to understand on the surface. which makes the reading flat and boring.
That is so true I do the same I just put everything that I want the reader to understand on the surface which makes the reading flat and boring, but more of an inconspicuous so I can make it a little interesting. Most of the literature that we read for this class is very interesting when we do read between the lines and find the author’s main idea or point of view of the story. It is truly amazing (Kanye West and Young Jeezy get up on that)!!!…lol
I most certainly agree with what Kellon that many authors always put there stories to be like 1/8 what the story is truly about . I also notice that most of the time the part of the story they give out to you is boring . One thing I did manage to catch on is that there is always a more deeper meaning behind that certain passage within the story and that it is like an iceberg. It may only show 1/8 of itself but there is more that lies beneath the surface and it was like that in almost ever story we read this year;and yes Kellon It is Amazing .