Will you say I am mad?

Let’s look at the second half of the original snippet.

True!—nervous—very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad?

What’s the difference between this quality and the previous quality?

The second quality is much more simple. It has no repetition, no describers and no intensifiers.

Why did Poe keep it simple in this instance?

What if Poe had written something like the next example?

Nervous — very, very, dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but I am not fearsomely, terribly mad.

What is the effect of describing and intensifying the word “mad” in this way?

If we add more qualities to the word mad:

  • The sentence starts to feel cluttered.
  • The extra description starts to sound like deliberate exaggeration, which makes you wonder if the narrator is making fun of the listener. (It’s almost like he’s going to giggle at the end.)
  • It sounds like the narrator is saying that he is mad, just not fearsomely or terribly so.

By keeping it simple and by putting it right at the end of the sentence, Poe makes the word “mad” cut through, and helps emphasise the narrator’s denial.

Let’s write some variations on our simplified version. Have a character admit to one extreme state of mind, but reject another.

True! Nervous — very, very, dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but I am not mad.

Writelike

Of course! Sad — so, so, deeply sad I had been and am, but I am not miserable.

Yes! Angry — very, very, violently angry I had been and am, but I am not murderous.

Have a character admit to one state of mind, but reject a more extreme state.
Write another version.