06-27-2023, 11:31 PM
Well, isn't this fun! Word of Troy that launched a thousand opinions. At least 3, anyway.
Quix illustrated best what I was trying to convey- the light/dark quality of light shining into wavy water like light passing through moving tree canopies and the way is seems to move or ripple. I'm going to take my turn at being pedantic. In water, this happens due to refraction of the light at the surface. And, importantly, because the water's surface isn't flat and is moving. The light coming into the water is traveling in parallel rays. If there is no refraction or the water is flat, there is no rippling because the angle of incidence is constant. The waves cause constantly changing incident angles which varies the trajectory of the rays through the water resulting in summation and cancellation(brighter/darker), ergo the observed rippling on the ocean floor and even in the water itself as the light is reflected (Oooh, new word) off particulate matter in the water. Thus, 'refracted' is an appropriate word to use in this situation. (There is also diffraction going on too but we'll leave that for another day).
If we want to get really nerdy, the phrase "the deepest sea" is even more problematic. As the light travels further the divergent light dilutes as the rays get further apart resulting in now majority parallel light and the ripple effect diminishes. Not to mention there is no light in the deepest parts of the ocean. so there's that.
The real issue is one of syntax around 'refracted', which I agree isn't great. BUT the syntax in this situation hasn't seemed to obscure the image intended, as most commenting readers didn't misunderstand the meaning. (I have been ruminating on adding the 'is' but honestly don't like the way it reads). Which, I think, brings up the real issue, that of the continuum between clarity, ambiguity and obscurity and how this interacts with language rules. We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed and reasonable people can, will and have argued ad nauseam whether this is good or not. I certainly don't know the answer.
I have run out of steam. I'm maybe being a little cheeky but I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions.
I love all the activity lately. I'm having trouble finding the time to keep up!
Write on,
Bryn
Quix illustrated best what I was trying to convey- the light/dark quality of light shining into wavy water like light passing through moving tree canopies and the way is seems to move or ripple. I'm going to take my turn at being pedantic. In water, this happens due to refraction of the light at the surface. And, importantly, because the water's surface isn't flat and is moving. The light coming into the water is traveling in parallel rays. If there is no refraction or the water is flat, there is no rippling because the angle of incidence is constant. The waves cause constantly changing incident angles which varies the trajectory of the rays through the water resulting in summation and cancellation(brighter/darker), ergo the observed rippling on the ocean floor and even in the water itself as the light is reflected (Oooh, new word) off particulate matter in the water. Thus, 'refracted' is an appropriate word to use in this situation. (There is also diffraction going on too but we'll leave that for another day).
If we want to get really nerdy, the phrase "the deepest sea" is even more problematic. As the light travels further the divergent light dilutes as the rays get further apart resulting in now majority parallel light and the ripple effect diminishes. Not to mention there is no light in the deepest parts of the ocean. so there's that.
The real issue is one of syntax around 'refracted', which I agree isn't great. BUT the syntax in this situation hasn't seemed to obscure the image intended, as most commenting readers didn't misunderstand the meaning. (I have been ruminating on adding the 'is' but honestly don't like the way it reads). Which, I think, brings up the real issue, that of the continuum between clarity, ambiguity and obscurity and how this interacts with language rules. We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed and reasonable people can, will and have argued ad nauseam whether this is good or not. I certainly don't know the answer.
I have run out of steam. I'm maybe being a little cheeky but I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions.
I love all the activity lately. I'm having trouble finding the time to keep up!
Write on,
Bryn