Ellipsis without dots

[Bonnie Surfus ENG]

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Paul Mackin wrote:

> 
> 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.
I disagree.  I find the "piling on" is exceedingly entertaining.  And I 
would be surprised to find that DFW had not been institutionalized, what 
with the breadth of AA knowledge, etc.  BEsides, who hasn't?