Talk:Contrast (literary)

From VfD:

Non-encyclopedic substub. I would be delighted if someone could contradict me and make something useful out of this, but right now I can't fathom how this can be elaborated meaningfully, or described as a discrete literary device. It seems strangely like an illustration of a dicdef, almost below a dicdef in that regard. Postdlf 17:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If it weren't on VfD, I'd never have allowed myself to write the expansion that I just did. Literary contrast is an important concept in poetry (not prose, much).  It also has roots in rhetoric and gave rise to the common schoolboy task of "compare and contrast" essays.  I.e. "see differences" has been an oratorial task since the days of the trivium, so the topic needs to stay.  As for the lumpen junk I wrote to try to save it, I appeal to all kind hearted folks full of Wikilove to help. Geogre 17:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wonderful job&mdash;not junk at all. Thanks for contradicting me!  Do you have any thoughts on the article title?  I'm not satisfied with it, but I don't know if there is an alternative.  Postdlf 19:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The name is iffy at best. This is how the term would appear in a literary dictionary/glossary or encyclopedia, but in a general knowledge encyclopedia, it's going to be lost, guaranteed.  I also think we can rewrite a bit more, since Shakespeare's use is really playing with the device, so he's kind of a bad example of the topos & should be the last thing mentioned.  I'll try to think of a title.  Hopefully, someone with fresh eyes will have an idea. Geogre 21:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Care to tackle Conflict (narrative) now? : )  Same author as this original stub. Postdlf 18:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article looks fine now.  --Ardonik 03:33, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother looking at history to see how it was originally, but as of now, it looks fine to me. My vote: Keep Skyler 19:22, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion