Randy sez: The example works because the Motivations and Reactions are actually separate entities, so that it’s POSSIBLE to color-code them as I did. Compare that to the Jane Austen example, where no color-coding is possible. I think the MRUs would be slightly clearer if they were each broken out into a separate paragraph, but very few published authors do this. I believe it’s better to use separate paragraphs, for the same reason that dialogue reads better when each speaker gets a new paragraph–it’s just clearer. But this is not yet the standard. When I have converted the whole world to using MRUs, then maybe it’ll be the standard, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Also, while I could empathise with the Longbourn party’s discomfort at overstaying their welcome (in this example we seem to be given the motivations, perhaps Jane Austen expected her readers to provide the emotional reactions) I felt that the lack of the man’s emotional reaction to the obstinacy of his camel made the Follett extract feel flat in comparison. I was left wondering whether his stabbing the camel was an old Bedouin technique to get camels moving (potentially a good idea, and heightening the tension because it didn’t work), or whether it was an act of anger/frustration further complicating his position (a bad idea, but again a good authorial device). Makes a big difference to how we react. Could Follett have involved/informed us more by showing the man’s internal responses (reactions) that drove his overt actions of tugging, kicking and stabbing?

She didn’t have to show as much because she didn’t have to compete with movies. I’m guessing her main competition was nonfiction and personal correspondence.

I believe I have offended by mentioning Austen and Dickens and the Brontes (not Shelley)! My apologies! I won’t do it again! I’ll keep my mouth firmly shut from now on!

Ann