Ellipsis without dots

[Paul Mackin]

Another kind of "ellipsis" IJ uses is kind of nifty.  The narrator
will parenthetically answer certain imagined (anticipated) responses
from the reader to what is being said. The reader reactions
will not be supplied in typescript of course. They don't need to be. We 
know they are there, because we are having them. 

(It's a form of self-reflexivity too but, what the hay foax, this is
1996.)

Seriously: Isn't this just good, efficient and exceedingly  graceful 
writing style. Same as with other uses of ellipsis noted in recent
posts. Carrying only one side of a conversation. Or omitting the Q. when 
the A. tells all.

All of which is decidedly odd (paradoxical).  If any writer is  
prolix in continuing on and on with something, it is David Foster 
Wallace. To use a hopefully apt sports metaphor, you sometimes feel 
like penalizing the guy fifteen yards (or half way to the goalline) for 
piling on.


					P.