- 786
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen Oct 22, 2016
Well obviously. If a literary device was defined strictly by use of technique, than there'd be no context... Both elements and techniques can "rightly be called literary devices" simply because they're both aspects of literary devices.To quote the site:
Literary devices refers to specific aspects of literature, in the sense of its universal function as an art form which expresses ideas through language, which we can recognize, identify, interpret and/or analyze. ... Both literary elements and literary techniques can rightly be called literary devices.
It is not necessarily how you use a literary element but rather also the element itself.
What? There's parts of a story that can't be analyzed?As in, a literary technique is a part of a story that can be analyzed, period.
So, as per the bolded text, a literary device is exactly what I said it was?This could refer to the elements such as plot, character, et cetera (the definition of element), or it can refer to the style that the author is using (the definition of technique). Or, in clearer terms, the term "device" covers everything, not just one or the other or how one is used, which goes back to the argument I was making against your statement that techniques and devices are considered to be the same thing by everyone.
Also, what's with you labeling this an argument? All I did was try to define something and ease some confusion, and you come back and argue it? Okay, fine, you can put in your thoughts because I welcome discussion, but if this is an argument to you please stop.
Finally, no. I'm not assuming anything. I never said that literary device excluded elements or technique; I said that it was the application of both.In other words, you're looking at the definition of device here and assuming it's not actually referring to the definition for elements when it actually is.