The more I think about it, the more I think perhaps sentimentalizing has to do less with style and more with treatment of the subject matter and what aspect you choose to concentrate on. Maybe it's the persistent grafting of nostalgia onto events or themes. But a great story greatly told should oughta be both intellectually and emotionally engaging so clinically ignoring the feelings that stem from a situation and the characters that inhabit it is not a desirable way to write. IMO. As you suggest, Jo, it could all be a matter of degree.
Here's a for instance: say you're describing a scene in which a child holds a dying puppy. By its very nature, very little embellishment is required to wring emotion from this (unless of course you have no sympathy for children and animals!). But what if the story is an elderly man walking through the neighborhood he grew up in and we learn he was just released from prison after serving time for grisly murder. Dwelling on his memories of his childhood home -- is that sentimental? Or is dwelling on his regrets sentimental? A shade of a difference in treatment, with the second sounding more sentimental because it spells out emotion rather than allowing it to be subtext. Which brings us right back to showing vs. telling. (*sigh*)
The whole point of my question, though, comes from my impression that sentimentality is a second-rate form of writing. Am I wrong that this is an accepted opinion? No one would look askance at crafting a story that emotionally engages but at what point does it descend into soppiness? I'm looking for a clearly marked line in the sand, people!
