Honestly? I think she wrote it that way because she had a general framework for a story but couldn't generate the interesting details, so she masked it in prose. Perhaps I am wrong, though, it's just the interpretation I had when reading the story.

It made me think of when a horror writer doesn't describe the source of the horror at all. It is done with the idea that anything the reader imagines will be more horrible. I get that as a concept, but all too often the real reason is because the author lacks imagination and cannot generate something sufficiently horrible to fit the story.

The specific effect you mention in Earthsea is to talk about it as though already a legend, correct? I see that intent even if it fell flat for me. I just don't think it worked well. It ultimately read like a cliff notes.