August 18th, 2010 / 3:10 pm
Power Quote
Jimmy Chen
Power Quote
How soon one discovers that, however much one is in the ordinary sense ‘interested in other people,’ this interest has left one far short of possessing the knowledge required to create a character who is not oneself. — Iris Murdoch (1919 – 1999)
As evasive her “one” pronoun dance is, Murdoch rings clear a concern and problem for many writers (concern for the cognizant, problem for the oblivious), that the writer, at the height of their creation, is not creating, but merely transcribing their experience veiled as character.
Tags: Iris Murdoch
Some of Murdoch’s thoughts on “the Good” are pretty interesting. She was a clear thinker whom I connect with Emmanuel Levinas. Her best novel for me is “Under the Net.”
why would this be a concern for a writer?
I really think we are missing out by not making more use of “one”.
when things don’t work out, it causes concern, like if a writer wants to write a good story and it sucks, or if there’s mold on bread, of if one’s check bounces.
oh i see. so like if my novel is shitty than inherently i’m a shitty person.
i would give anything to be able to “merely transcribe” my experience veiled as a character
no, if your novel is shitty then you’re a shitty writer. i never mentioned anything about a person’s character. also, ‘shitty’ can’t be qualified.
where did you come up with that? that’s not what anyone’s saying at all
well if i am not creating, but merely transcribing, and those experiences are deemed shitty, doesn’t that make the writing and the writer shitty?
isn’t that the distinction between creating/transcribing?
no clue man, i don’t think anyone is shitty
‘shitty’ can’t be qualified
Jimmy, do you mean good ‘shitty’ can’t be distinguished from bad ‘shitty’? useful ‘shitty’ from futile? [and so on]
Or do you mean “quantified” – that is, ‘”shitty” is too subjective a hat honorably to put on a person’?
hey nietzsche, nice html skillz
It’s a tricky circularity of understanding: is all experience intelligible in the ways that perception is already structured, and all perception already-‘veiled’ experience? Or does intractable matter transform one’s understanding of it even as one imposes the anticipations that previous experience embeds in understanding on that ‘matter’?
—
I think writers make stories up – even stories they copy – , and being good at pretending, the pretense made present with technical expertise, means being good at telling stories.
Just keepin’ it real!! [smiley face]
Some of Murdoch’s thoughts on “the Good” are pretty interesting. She was a clear thinker whom I connect with Emmanuel Levinas. Her best novel for me is “Under the Net.”
why would this be a concern for a writer?
I really think we are missing out by not making more use of “one”.
when things don’t work out, it causes concern, like if a writer wants to write a good story and it sucks, or if there’s mold on bread, of if one’s check bounces.
oh i see. so like if my novel is shitty than inherently i’m a shitty person.
i would give anything to be able to “merely transcribe” my experience veiled as a character
no, if your novel is shitty then you’re a shitty writer. i never mentioned anything about a person’s character. also, ‘shitty’ can’t be qualified.
where did you come up with that? that’s not what anyone’s saying at all
well if i am not creating, but merely transcribing, and those experiences are deemed shitty, doesn’t that make the writing and the writer shitty?
isn’t that the distinction between creating/transcribing?
no clue man, i don’t think anyone is shitty
‘shitty’ can’t be qualified
Jimmy, do you mean good ‘shitty’ can’t be distinguished from bad ‘shitty’? useful ‘shitty’ from futile? [and so on]
Or do you mean “quantified” – that is, ‘”shitty” is too subjective a hat honorably to put on a person’?
hey nietzsche, nice html skillz
It’s a tricky circularity of understanding: is all experience intelligible in the ways that perception is already structured, and all perception already-‘veiled’ experience? Or does intractable matter transform one’s understanding of it even as one imposes the anticipations that previous experience embeds in understanding on that ‘matter’?
—
I think writers make stories up – even stories they copy – , and being good at pretending, the pretense made present with technical expertise, means being good at telling stories.
Just keepin’ it real!! [smiley face]
Solution:
1. We all decide on a protagonist name that we should all use.
2. We all use this name in our next work.
3. Nobody reading any of these works can figure out whether we’re talking about one another, the same person, or ourselves in disguise.
even if this was true I’d be ok with it.
But anyhow, there’s nothing new to any of this, of course, and no matter how much writers and teachers and editors wring their hands over it, they’ll never find any way to change the fact that art is, by necessity, an act of self-description.
self-description
Yes, all expression, all action, every movement.
But it’s also true that one expresses what’s not knowingly intended, and also true that the world-which-is-not-oneself impinges into expression.
Art is, also “by necessity”, not only self-reflection. It’s a conversation, or a battle, or some other entwinement between self/ves and world (or other or so on).
Solution:
1. We all decide on a protagonist name that we should all use.
2. We all use this name in our next work.
3. Nobody reading any of these works can figure out whether we’re talking about one another, the same person, or ourselves in disguise.
even if this was true I’d be ok with it.
But anyhow, there’s nothing new to any of this, of course, and no matter how much writers and teachers and editors wring their hands over it, they’ll never find any way to change the fact that art is, by necessity, an act of self-description.
self-description
Yes, all expression, all action, every movement.
But it’s also true that one expresses what’s not knowingly intended, and also true that the world-which-is-not-oneself impinges into expression.
Art is, also “by necessity”, not only self-reflection. It’s a conversation, or a battle, or some other entwinement between self/ves and world (or other or so on).
Even if you can say that one’s self is effectively defined by one’s interaction with, and response to, and manner of dealing with, one’s environment and other people?
That would mean that art is a struggle/conversation/battle with one’s self.
Even if you can say that one’s self is effectively defined by one’s interaction with, and response to, and manner of dealing with, one’s environment and other people?
That would mean that art is a struggle/conversation/battle with one’s self.