March 4th, 2010 / 11:17 am
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
“For an author to write as he speaks is just as reprehensible as the opposite fault, to speak as he writes; for this gives a pedantic effect to what he says, and at the same time makes him hardly intelligible.” Schopenhauer
I disagree with Herr Schopenhauer.
I disagree with Herr Schopenhauer.
I disagree with Herr Schopenhauer.
What if one spoke and wrote in an intentional mix of registers? Wouldn’t that be intelligent and welcoming and…fun?
What if one spoke and wrote in an intentional mix of registers? Wouldn’t that be intelligent and welcoming and…fun?
“There are writers who, by representing the impossible as possible and speaking of morality and genius as though both were merely a matter of wanting them, a mere whim and caprice, evoke a feeling of a high-spirited freedom, as though man were standing on tiptoe and compelled to dance for sheer joy.”
NIetzsche
“There are writers who, by representing the impossible as possible and speaking of morality and genius as though both were merely a matter of wanting them, a mere whim and caprice, evoke a feeling of a high-spirited freedom, as though man were standing on tiptoe and compelled to dance for sheer joy.”
NIetzsche
What if one spoke and wrote in an intentional mix of registers? Wouldn’t that be intelligent and welcoming and…fun?
“There are writers who, by representing the impossible as possible and speaking of morality and genius as though both were merely a matter of wanting them, a mere whim and caprice, evoke a feeling of a high-spirited freedom, as though man were standing on tiptoe and compelled to dance for sheer joy.”
NIetzsche
If one never writes as one (or anyone) speaks, or never speaks as one has written, isn’t one untrue to oneself two times over?
If one never writes as one (or anyone) speaks, or never speaks as one has written, isn’t one untrue to oneself two times over?
If one never writes as one (or anyone) speaks, or never speaks as one has written, isn’t one untrue to oneself two times over?
such a writer, speech and written word ever sundered, has made the mistake of believing that the quality of writing could ever be objective
such a writer, speech and written word ever sundered, has made the mistake of believing that the quality of writing could ever be objective
The first part is bullshit. The second part I get, but only if you write like an asshole.
The first part is bullshit. The second part I get, but only if you write like an asshole.
such a writer, speech and written word ever sundered, has made the mistake of believing that the quality of writing could ever be objective
The first part is bullshit. The second part I get, but only if you write like an asshole.
“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” — Mark Twain
“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” — Mark Twain
“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” — Mark Twain
Who the shit gives a flying fuck?
(You would never hear words like that coming out of my mouth. I wanted to see how it would feel to write them. It was awesome.)
Just kidding, I talk like that all the time.
No I don’t.
Just kidding.
Who the shit gives a flying fuck?
(You would never hear words like that coming out of my mouth. I wanted to see how it would feel to write them. It was awesome.)
Just kidding, I talk like that all the time.
No I don’t.
Just kidding.
Who the shit gives a flying fuck?
(You would never hear words like that coming out of my mouth. I wanted to see how it would feel to write them. It was awesome.)
Just kidding, I talk like that all the time.
No I don’t.
Just kidding.
“I’m the only black god!”
-Ol’ Dirty
“I’m the only black god!”
-Ol’ Dirty
This.
This.
Also, Emerson: “A man’s style is his Mind’s voice. Wooden minds, wooden voices. Truth is shrill as a fife, various as a postharmonicon.”
Also, Emerson: “A man’s style is his Mind’s voice. Wooden minds, wooden voices. Truth is shrill as a fife, various as a postharmonicon.”
“I’m the only black god!”
-Ol’ Dirty
This.
Also, Emerson: “A man’s style is his Mind’s voice. Wooden minds, wooden voices. Truth is shrill as a fife, various as a postharmonicon.”
“Say, what’s with the hammer?” — Leon Trotsky in Mexico
“Say, what’s with the hammer?” — Leon Trotsky in Mexico
“Say, what’s with the hammer?” — Leon Trotsky in Mexico
not sure if you’re supporting blake’s position or not. if so, pretty sure mark twain wasn’t above writing how he or other people speak, but more the opposite (nor was joyce & every other great author ever). before one can encourage others to become great, too, one must himself already be great. schopenhauer was pretty great, but he was a philosopher. do you want to write like a pessimistic philosopher? or do you want to write like a writer with a belief in everyday communication, in all its myriad flavors, banal to metaphysical.
not sure if you’re supporting blake’s position or not. if so, pretty sure mark twain wasn’t above writing how he or other people speak, but more the opposite (nor was joyce & every other great author ever). before one can encourage others to become great, too, one must himself already be great. schopenhauer was pretty great, but he was a philosopher. do you want to write like a pessimistic philosopher? or do you want to write like a writer with a belief in everyday communication, in all its myriad flavors, banal to metaphysical.
not sure if you’re supporting blake’s position or not. if so, pretty sure mark twain wasn’t above writing how he or other people speak, but more the opposite (nor was joyce & every other great author ever). before one can encourage others to become great, too, one must himself already be great. schopenhauer was pretty great, but he was a philosopher. do you want to write like a pessimistic philosopher? or do you want to write like a writer with a belief in everyday communication, in all its myriad flavors, banal to metaphysical.
basically, is this artifice you’re building a marble statue of yourself intended for others to gawk at in envy, befuddlement, and wonder, or is it a museum forever open to the public?
basically, is this artifice you’re building a marble statue of yourself intended for others to gawk at in envy, befuddlement, and wonder, or is it a museum forever open to the public?
Is that you nom de plume?
Is that you nom de plume?
basically, is this artifice you’re building a marble statue of yourself intended for others to gawk at in envy, befuddlement, and wonder, or is it a museum forever open to the public?
Is that you nom de plume?
*your*
oops
*your*
oops
*your*
oops
“Somewhere, I’m hiding, in a quote”
—Anon
“Somewhere, I’m hiding, in a quote”
—Anon
“Somewhere, I’m hiding, in a quote”
—Anon
I don’t support the quote here at all. I think it’s a load of prescriptive poppycock. I align myself with Twain, a man who, as you rightly point out, captured natural voice and transcribed speech quite well (invaluably so, if you’re actually interested in the way that human beings speak; too many so-called “literary” practitioners aren’t and wonder why their hard efforts are received like resistant castor oil) and, by all reports, wrote in the same manner as he spoke, and vice versa — thus nullifying the position proffered by Schopenhauer. Granted, not all writers are Twain. And not all writers SHOULD write as they speak. Some need hard editorial nudges. Others require cups of tea and hugs. But for the most part, a writer’s ability to tap into habits formed by the subconscious should be as familiar to him as his shoe size. So I support your polyglot preference, which is often predicated on ambition and, in the right hands, encouraging in the manner Twain was pointing to.
I don’t support the quote here at all. I think it’s a load of prescriptive poppycock. I align myself with Twain, a man who, as you rightly point out, captured natural voice and transcribed speech quite well (invaluably so, if you’re actually interested in the way that human beings speak; too many so-called “literary” practitioners aren’t and wonder why their hard efforts are received like resistant castor oil) and, by all reports, wrote in the same manner as he spoke, and vice versa — thus nullifying the position proffered by Schopenhauer. Granted, not all writers are Twain. And not all writers SHOULD write as they speak. Some need hard editorial nudges. Others require cups of tea and hugs. But for the most part, a writer’s ability to tap into habits formed by the subconscious should be as familiar to him as his shoe size. So I support your polyglot preference, which is often predicated on ambition and, in the right hands, encouraging in the manner Twain was pointing to.
I don’t support the quote here at all. I think it’s a load of prescriptive poppycock. I align myself with Twain, a man who, as you rightly point out, captured natural voice and transcribed speech quite well (invaluably so, if you’re actually interested in the way that human beings speak; too many so-called “literary” practitioners aren’t and wonder why their hard efforts are received like resistant castor oil) and, by all reports, wrote in the same manner as he spoke, and vice versa — thus nullifying the position proffered by Schopenhauer. Granted, not all writers are Twain. And not all writers SHOULD write as they speak. Some need hard editorial nudges. Others require cups of tea and hugs. But for the most part, a writer’s ability to tap into habits formed by the subconscious should be as familiar to him as his shoe size. So I support your polyglot preference, which is often predicated on ambition and, in the right hands, encouraging in the manner Twain was pointing to.
You can have a pretty good conversation with a nom de plume. I say, stet.
You can have a pretty good conversation with a nom de plume. I say, stet.
You can have a pretty good conversation with a nom de plume. I say, stet.
Oh sweet, then =) You are the Champion, bro
Oh sweet, then =) You are the Champion, bro
Oh sweet, then =) You are the Champion, bro
lol @ “resistant castor oil”
lol @ “resistant castor oil”
lol @ “resistant castor oil”
I know the habits formed by my subconscious, and how to tap into them, way more better than my shoe size. ‘Every time’ I go to the shoe store to try on shoes a ‘different’ size fits. It seems that shoe brands can vary widely in their sizing/fit, because I don’t think it’s my feet.
I know the habits formed by my subconscious, and how to tap into them, way more better than my shoe size. ‘Every time’ I go to the shoe store to try on shoes a ‘different’ size fits. It seems that shoe brands can vary widely in their sizing/fit, because I don’t think it’s my feet.
I don’t write as I speak.
I frequently wish that I could speak like I write.
Though realistically, I realise that if I did I would end up stabbing myself between the eyes with a kitchen knife, in order to put myself out of my own self-induced misery.
I don’t write as I speak.
I frequently wish that I could speak like I write.
Though realistically, I realise that if I did I would end up stabbing myself between the eyes with a kitchen knife, in order to put myself out of my own self-induced misery.
I know the habits formed by my subconscious, and how to tap into them, way more better than my shoe size. ‘Every time’ I go to the shoe store to try on shoes a ‘different’ size fits. It seems that shoe brands can vary widely in their sizing/fit, because I don’t think it’s my feet.
I don’t write as I speak.
I frequently wish that I could speak like I write.
Though realistically, I realise that if I did I would end up stabbing myself between the eyes with a kitchen knife, in order to put myself out of my own self-induced misery.
is your Mind’s voice the same as your mouth’s voice?
i believe this quote backs Schopenhauer
is your Mind’s voice the same as your mouth’s voice?
i believe this quote backs Schopenhauer
is your Mind’s voice the same as your mouth’s voice?
i believe this quote backs Schopenhauer
I can have a pretty good conversation with my own nom de plume, all by my lonesome in my own little room.
I can have a pretty good conversation with my own nom de plume, all by my lonesome in my own little room.
I can have a pretty good conversation with my own nom de plume, all by my lonesome in my own little room.
mimi needs to stop effing around on the internet and go get ready for work.
mimi needs to stop effing around on the internet and go get ready for work.
“i scream fuck the world with a long dick.”
-lil wayne
“i scream fuck the world with a long dick.”
-lil wayne
One’s voice, Mind and otherwise, is, necessarily, as elusive and shapeshifting as the Language itself.
One’s voice, Mind and otherwise, is, necessarily, as elusive and shapeshifting as the Language itself.
“Dr. Carter to the rescue
Excuse me if I’m late, but like a thief it takes time to be this great.
Honestly, just wait.
Your style is a disgrace, your rhymes are fifth place, and I’m just Grace
One, Uno, Ace, and I’m tryin to make your heart beat like bass,
but you’re sweet like cake, and I come to fix whatever you shall break.
Where is your originality? You are so fake
So picture me like a gallery
Capture what I say
All I need is one mic. All I need is one take.”
—Lil Wayne
“Dr. Carter to the rescue
Excuse me if I’m late, but like a thief it takes time to be this great.
Honestly, just wait.
Your style is a disgrace, your rhymes are fifth place, and I’m just Grace
One, Uno, Ace, and I’m tryin to make your heart beat like bass,
but you’re sweet like cake, and I come to fix whatever you shall break.
Where is your originality? You are so fake
So picture me like a gallery
Capture what I say
All I need is one mic. All I need is one take.”
—Lil Wayne
Writing in the same register that you speak if fucking really super hard. It takes a lot of practice and revision. So I don’t agree with The Schope. I know he was, like, really smart and stuff, and probably a lot smarter than I ever will be, but I don’t care. He was wrong. Not all smart people are right about everything all the time.
have a good day, mimes
Writing in the same register that you speak if fucking really super hard. It takes a lot of practice and revision. So I don’t agree with The Schope. I know he was, like, really smart and stuff, and probably a lot smarter than I ever will be, but I don’t care. He was wrong. Not all smart people are right about everything all the time.
have a good day, mimes
Any Schopenhauer quote evokes The Pugilist at Rest so thanks Blake.
Yep.
Any Schopenhauer quote evokes The Pugilist at Rest so thanks Blake.
Yep.
but what if you *are* an asshole?
but what if you *are* an asshole?
it just sounds funny when people speak in ‘good writing,’ like the end (2:55 sec) of tom hank’s oscar speech for philadelphia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBuDMEpUc8k
it just sounds funny when people speak in ‘good writing,’ like the end (2:55 sec) of tom hank’s oscar speech for philadelphia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBuDMEpUc8k
Nabokov: “I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child.”
Nabokov: “I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child.”
you think you talk like you write, Gian?
you think you talk like you write, Gian?
haha
haha
@nabokov: sweeet
@nabokov: sweeet
“I’m overchargin niggas for what they did to the Cold Crush.” —Jay-Z
“I’m overchargin niggas for what they did to the Cold Crush.” —Jay-Z
I think the point is maybe don’t write or talk like an asshole anymore. But then, ‘asshole’ is very subjective. Even dead letters on a page are going to be vulnerable to social biases. Seems like a good time to pull out “A Radically Condensed History of Postindustrial Life.”
And the conclusion: “One never knew, after all, now did one now did one now did one.”
I think the point is maybe don’t write or talk like an asshole anymore. But then, ‘asshole’ is very subjective. Even dead letters on a page are going to be vulnerable to social biases. Seems like a good time to pull out “A Radically Condensed History of Postindustrial Life.”
And the conclusion: “One never knew, after all, now did one now did one now did one.”
this is some other ‘anon,’ just for the record. jay-z is fresh, tho
this is some other ‘anon,’ just for the record. jay-z is fresh, tho
Two writers I like who write like they speak: Stephen Dixon and Barry Hannah.
Two writers I like who write like they speak: Stephen Dixon and Barry Hannah.
The random dropping of rap lyrics is fascinating me.
The random dropping of rap lyrics is fascinating me.
hey, this might be a good test, for real:
When you read your work out loud in front of others, do you feel like a jackass, a little bit, if you’re honest with yourself? Does it sound less ‘beautiful, profound” and more “angsty-bullshit-I-pulled-out-of-my-ass-and-passed-off-as-Literature”? Then, even if it passes that test, does it “mean” anything to you, or does it “say” anything? If not, you might wanna think it over. Because Joyce and Beckett, for example, wrote plenty of sentences that weren’t “as they would speak,” but if you read it aloud, it’s beautiful, rhythmic—it qwails and shivers.
hey, this might be a good test, for real:
When you read your work out loud in front of others, do you feel like a jackass, a little bit, if you’re honest with yourself? Does it sound less ‘beautiful, profound” and more “angsty-bullshit-I-pulled-out-of-my-ass-and-passed-off-as-Literature”? Then, even if it passes that test, does it “mean” anything to you, or does it “say” anything? If not, you might wanna think it over. Because Joyce and Beckett, for example, wrote plenty of sentences that weren’t “as they would speak,” but if you read it aloud, it’s beautiful, rhythmic—it qwails and shivers.
AND beckett and joyce’s work always says and means things dear to an actual man’s heart, however deeply buried in words and obfuscated by gaellows humor & puns.
there is only one anon
AND beckett and joyce’s work always says and means things dear to an actual man’s heart, however deeply buried in words and obfuscated by gaellows humor & puns.
there is only one anon
word, actually. very true.
word, actually. very true.
“Yes
Hey young world
Its young Natasha
with her big bro,
Young Weezy, right beside her
and you kno i got her
like i got her
girl, it’s your turn
and you’re the driver
and whenever you lost
all you do is follow
the road signs
lead you to a goldmine
how do i know??
because i just moved
Got a new crib
on goldmine avenue
So that why i got this rich boy attitude
you prolly see me in the caddy with some d’s on that bitch
ridin down goldmine avenue…..
In the lane like im gonna get a alley oop…
oops! that-was-a-coupe
pass your ass like lightnings flash
cut that light down now
and turn you to a Darkchild [Ed. Note: Darkchild is the producer on this song]
my thoughts wild
my ideas are scattered
and we are Young Money but age doesnt matter”
—Lil Wayne, “Sidekick”
“Yes
Hey young world
Its young Natasha
with her big bro,
Young Weezy, right beside her
and you kno i got her
like i got her
girl, it’s your turn
and you’re the driver
and whenever you lost
all you do is follow
the road signs
lead you to a goldmine
how do i know??
because i just moved
Got a new crib
on goldmine avenue
So that why i got this rich boy attitude
you prolly see me in the caddy with some d’s on that bitch
ridin down goldmine avenue…..
In the lane like im gonna get a alley oop…
oops! that-was-a-coupe
pass your ass like lightnings flash
cut that light down now
and turn you to a Darkchild [Ed. Note: Darkchild is the producer on this song]
my thoughts wild
my ideas are scattered
and we are Young Money but age doesnt matter”
—Lil Wayne, “Sidekick”
i wonder if translated authors write like they speak. i like to think bernhard writes as he speaks (the dixon reference made me think of bernhard)
i wonder if translated authors write like they speak. i like to think bernhard writes as he speaks (the dixon reference made me think of bernhard)
“If you gonna call him Weezy, then you must say the baby. If you don’t say the baby, then just don’t say it at all.” —Nikki (ghostwrote by Weezy F. Baby?)
Lipsyte comes close too. Reds his interviews.
No, they spoke in other languages.
“If you gonna call him Weezy, then you must say the baby. If you don’t say the baby, then just don’t say it at all.” —Nikki (ghostwrote by Weezy F. Baby?)
Lipsyte comes close too. Reds his interviews.
No, they spoke in other languages.
Yes, I do talk like I sometimes write. Like with pieces on here or on Vice, yeah, that’s how I talk. I do not, however, talk like any of the (very few) pieces of fiction I have written. But I guess I kind of do, sometimes, if I’m drunk.
Yes, I do talk like I sometimes write. Like with pieces on here or on Vice, yeah, that’s how I talk. I do not, however, talk like any of the (very few) pieces of fiction I have written. But I guess I kind of do, sometimes, if I’m drunk.
I’m surprised at the backlash to this quote. Unless you are the kind of person who sounds like a crazy genius every time you talk (a few have been mentioned above), wouldn’t you WANT your writing to be more, well, written than your speaking? Wouldn’t you want it to be more crafted for whatever effects you want to achieve?
Writing isn’t transcription, right?
I’m surprised at the backlash to this quote. Unless you are the kind of person who sounds like a crazy genius every time you talk (a few have been mentioned above), wouldn’t you WANT your writing to be more, well, written than your speaking? Wouldn’t you want it to be more crafted for whatever effects you want to achieve?
Writing isn’t transcription, right?
At least if we are talking fiction.
At least if we are talking fiction.
“the F is for family,friends,and fans……….thank u………..your love and prayers are felt.”
Lil Wayne, on http://twitter.com/liltunechi
“the F is for family,friends,and fans……….thank u………..your love and prayers are felt.”
Lil Wayne, on http://twitter.com/liltunechi
“but he was a philosopher. do you want to write like a pessimistic philosopher? ”
This is absolutely exactly how I want to write! 100% serious. Someone teach me to write like EM Cioran please!
“but he was a philosopher. do you want to write like a pessimistic philosopher? ”
This is absolutely exactly how I want to write! 100% serious. Someone teach me to write like EM Cioran please!
Could you elaborate here? I’m not sure what you are getting at. Philosophy, or pessimistic philosophy, is a vain statue but simple talk fiction is a museum to the public? Or what is the museum to the public?
Could you elaborate here? I’m not sure what you are getting at. Philosophy, or pessimistic philosophy, is a vain statue but simple talk fiction is a museum to the public? Or what is the museum to the public?
Good points, Lincoln. I imagine ppl were sensing other implications in the quote, and Blake picking it, and (very) pessimistically assumed that what was “actually” being stated was:
“Your plainspoken, or verbal, or funny/enjoyable, dialect-laced, or non-Doomed Artist In The Pits Of The Hell That Is My Linty, Sweaty Figurative Navel work is SO not cool, you sad little nothings, but I mean, in a passive-aggressive kind of way, I’m not saying I’m just saying, here’s a Schopenhauer quote, without comment”
Could be that’s not what was meant at all, in which case you’re super-right.
Good points, Lincoln. I imagine ppl were sensing other implications in the quote, and Blake picking it, and (very) pessimistically assumed that what was “actually” being stated was:
“Your plainspoken, or verbal, or funny/enjoyable, dialect-laced, or non-Doomed Artist In The Pits Of The Hell That Is My Linty, Sweaty Figurative Navel work is SO not cool, you sad little nothings, but I mean, in a passive-aggressive kind of way, I’m not saying I’m just saying, here’s a Schopenhauer quote, without comment”
Could be that’s not what was meant at all, in which case you’re super-right.
Perfecting the everyday dialects of different people to use in your fiction is not the same as writing like you speak.
aha– i was just about to mention david antin and kenneth goldsmith:)
Perfecting the everyday dialects of different people to use in your fiction is not the same as writing like you speak.
aha– i was just about to mention david antin and kenneth goldsmith:)
I guess it depends on the interpretation. In a pedantic sense, no one writes like they talk though, because their writing is not full of pauses, ums, likes, verbal gaffes and so on.
I guess it depends on the interpretation. In a pedantic sense, no one writes like they talk though, because their writing is not full of pauses, ums, likes, verbal gaffes and so on.
I’m not saying philosophy is a vain statue, Lincoln. Or that simple talk fiction is necessarily a museum to the public. I’m talking about a philosophy of writing. You are plumbing your depths, trying to, every time, yes? You are trying to be artful, trying to record your inner voice and your unconscious words, but then to shape. You can’t think of an audience. But is your heart open? Is your heart embedded in those words? Would it be a thrill to you if these words comforted, if they excited, if they re vitalized Some Reader out there? It’d be so wonderful, so in tune, for the answer to be Yes.
I’m not saying philosophy is a vain statue, Lincoln. Or that simple talk fiction is necessarily a museum to the public. I’m talking about a philosophy of writing. You are plumbing your depths, trying to, every time, yes? You are trying to be artful, trying to record your inner voice and your unconscious words, but then to shape. You can’t think of an audience. But is your heart open? Is your heart embedded in those words? Would it be a thrill to you if these words comforted, if they excited, if they re vitalized Some Reader out there? It’d be so wonderful, so in tune, for the answer to be Yes.
I humbly attempt to write for the gladiators, the men who know that everything is over and done with, except the time in which the thought of their end unrolls…
I humbly attempt to write for the gladiators, the men who know that everything is over and done with, except the time in which the thought of their end unrolls…
how about a pessimistic philosopher with love in his heart and busters in his gut?
how about a pessimistic philosopher with love in his heart and busters in his gut?
Haha, paging Norman Mailer (jk)…. I just got a call from Cormac, Lincoln. You’ve been offered a junior membership in the I’m A Real Man And Real Men Write Sentences And Live Life Like Real Men Society.
Haha, paging Norman Mailer (jk)…. I just got a call from Cormac, Lincoln. You’ve been offered a junior membership in the I’m A Real Man And Real Men Write Sentences And Live Life Like Real Men Society.
I do dig your work, though, Lincoln, judging from your website stuff, so getcha gladiator on, I guess. It’s all love
I do dig your work, though, Lincoln, judging from your website stuff, so getcha gladiator on, I guess. It’s all love
thanks stephen. Just to clarify, I’m paraphrasing E.M. Cioran with that gladiator quote!
thanks stephen. Just to clarify, I’m paraphrasing E.M. Cioran with that gladiator quote!
Lincoln: Like anon said, a fair point. And the benefits of reading work aloud to see if it flows are innumerable. But Schopenhauer wasn’t a fan of crazy geniuses or baroque banter. Here’s some more from “The Art of Literature”:
“When a right thought springs up in the mind, it strives after expression and is not long in reaching it; for clear thought easily finds words to fit it. If a man is capable of thinking anything at all, he is also always able to express it in clear, intelligible, and unambiguous terms. Those writers who construct difficult, obscure, involved, and equivocal sentences, most certainly do not know aright what it is that they want to say: they have only a dull consciousness of it, which is still in the stage of struggle to shape itself as thought.”
So goodbye Joyce, Mathews, Sorrentino, DFW, Davis, Dixon, Sterne, many of the writers mentioned in this thread. All “dull consciousness” from the Schopenhauer perspective. But then Schopenhauer was a pretty unimaginative guy on the lit front. He was better off railing against Hegel.
Lincoln: Like anon said, a fair point. And the benefits of reading work aloud to see if it flows are innumerable. But Schopenhauer wasn’t a fan of crazy geniuses or baroque banter. Here’s some more from “The Art of Literature”:
“When a right thought springs up in the mind, it strives after expression and is not long in reaching it; for clear thought easily finds words to fit it. If a man is capable of thinking anything at all, he is also always able to express it in clear, intelligible, and unambiguous terms. Those writers who construct difficult, obscure, involved, and equivocal sentences, most certainly do not know aright what it is that they want to say: they have only a dull consciousness of it, which is still in the stage of struggle to shape itself as thought.”
So goodbye Joyce, Mathews, Sorrentino, DFW, Davis, Dixon, Sterne, many of the writers mentioned in this thread. All “dull consciousness” from the Schopenhauer perspective. But then Schopenhauer was a pretty unimaginative guy on the lit front. He was better off railing against Hegel.
to understand Schopenhauer’s quote you have to look at the writing that was being done at the time. Writers were often paid by word so they would very often writes as pompously as possible. To speak with the full force of your accessible vocabulary to most people would make you a pompass asshole – not just an asshole. I try to speak to the audience so they can understand and am an asshole because of what I say not how I say it. I write in such a way that you can hear me in it but not necessarily how I speak – I cannot post edit my verbalization but I can revise revise revise my writing for better effect.
If you don’t revise your work you probably suck most of the time.
to understand Schopenhauer’s quote you have to look at the writing that was being done at the time. Writers were often paid by word so they would very often writes as pompously as possible. To speak with the full force of your accessible vocabulary to most people would make you a pompass asshole – not just an asshole. I try to speak to the audience so they can understand and am an asshole because of what I say not how I say it. I write in such a way that you can hear me in it but not necessarily how I speak – I cannot post edit my verbalization but I can revise revise revise my writing for better effect.
If you don’t revise your work you probably suck most of the time.
Hmm, Schopenhauer doesn’t know his literature then. However “clear” the thought, if it is complicated enough, and if the artist is interested in using colors and not just lines and figures, it will not necessarily be put down “easily.” The only unfortunate difficulty is that which has no ends. Joyce and DFW knew what they were trying to say, and their consciousnesses were far from dull. On the other hand, if you write difficult, obscure, involved, and equivocal sentences, or just ugly/bad prose “on purpose,” and you are not even trying to say anything, well then you’re just wacking off in hell.
Hmm, Schopenhauer doesn’t know his literature then. However “clear” the thought, if it is complicated enough, and if the artist is interested in using colors and not just lines and figures, it will not necessarily be put down “easily.” The only unfortunate difficulty is that which has no ends. Joyce and DFW knew what they were trying to say, and their consciousnesses were far from dull. On the other hand, if you write difficult, obscure, involved, and equivocal sentences, or just ugly/bad prose “on purpose,” and you are not even trying to say anything, well then you’re just wacking off in hell.
yes I wouldn’t agree with that, but I guess what I mainly take the first quote to say is that speech and writing are different and different techniques and habits work differently in each, so one shouldn’t expect to write like one speaks or vice versa.
yes I wouldn’t agree with that, but I guess what I mainly take the first quote to say is that speech and writing are different and different techniques and habits work differently in each, so one shouldn’t expect to write like one speaks or vice versa.
just to get a piece of the green but she’s an undertaker
Now you know the Paper is an around the world heart-breaker
just to get a piece of the green but she’s an undertaker
Now you know the Paper is an around the world heart-breaker
and yet if Joyce, Mathews, Sorrentino, etc. wrote as they talked, they would not have written anything they ever wrote.
and yet if Joyce, Mathews, Sorrentino, etc. wrote as they talked, they would not have written anything they ever wrote.
Why are we giving Schop any credence at all? Dude is nigh irrelevant.
why is that exactly
Why are we giving Schop any credence at all? Dude is nigh irrelevant.
why is that exactly
“Yo, wack MCs, it’s O-V-E-R. I be R, the nigga who killed your P.R. For the brothers with skills who can’t get a record deal, remain anonymous…” —Ras Kass
“Yo, wack MCs, it’s O-V-E-R. I be R, the nigga who killed your P.R. For the brothers with skills who can’t get a record deal, remain anonymous…” —Ras Kass
words are words
words are words
oh snap, talking trash about the schop. is that because dude’s dead a century and then some? the quote makes sense whether you historically contextualize as baker did above, or even if you recognize that twain didn’t write as he spoke, but wrote how other people spoke, as lincoln pointed out per perfecting dialects. if you want to break it down further, you can make the distinction between talk qua information/communication and literature qua expression/sublimation. you’re smart alec, how many ways do we need to break it down before some semblance of shine is dusted off the dead man’s words?
you even quoted nietzsche yourself. nietzsche is not nietzsche without schop. ask him, he’ll tell you. the two are nearly identical inverses of each other: flip that coin and entire microcosms shoot off each end over end over end of the rotation.
oh snap, talking trash about the schop. is that because dude’s dead a century and then some? the quote makes sense whether you historically contextualize as baker did above, or even if you recognize that twain didn’t write as he spoke, but wrote how other people spoke, as lincoln pointed out per perfecting dialects. if you want to break it down further, you can make the distinction between talk qua information/communication and literature qua expression/sublimation. you’re smart alec, how many ways do we need to break it down before some semblance of shine is dusted off the dead man’s words?
you even quoted nietzsche yourself. nietzsche is not nietzsche without schop. ask him, he’ll tell you. the two are nearly identical inverses of each other: flip that coin and entire microcosms shoot off each end over end over end of the rotation.
S considered aesthetic experience a negation of desire. Nietzsche again: “[Schopenhauer] says of [aesthetic contemplation] that it counteracts precisely sexual ‘interestedness’ … he never grew tired of glorifying this breaking free from the ‘will’ as the greatest merit and use of the aesthetic condition.” It seems natural that he would want to oppose speech and writing. Writing as such would take on a disinterested form, impersonal, apart from the writer’s voice or voice in general.
Like Edward said above, S didn’t really have an eye for lit. He considered music to be the highest art form.
S considered aesthetic experience a negation of desire. Nietzsche again: “[Schopenhauer] says of [aesthetic contemplation] that it counteracts precisely sexual ‘interestedness’ … he never grew tired of glorifying this breaking free from the ‘will’ as the greatest merit and use of the aesthetic condition.” It seems natural that he would want to oppose speech and writing. Writing as such would take on a disinterested form, impersonal, apart from the writer’s voice or voice in general.
Like Edward said above, S didn’t really have an eye for lit. He considered music to be the highest art form.
oh, thanks, lincoln, i didn’t realize that.
oh, thanks, lincoln, i didn’t realize that.
yes, reds them
yes, reds them
i don’t think quoting Nietzsche interpreting Schopenhauer is ever meant to do the original much justice. dudes arguing. all things on their own terms.
i like ideas outside of lit. his ‘not having an eye for lit’ makes him more persuasive to me, not less.
i’m still surprised people are having such a hard time accepting that voice in the head or in a work are, or should be, distinct from one’s own speaking voice, out of the mouth. have you heard yourself speak? have you read your words? if i wrote how i talk, i’d be considered of a mind in kindergarten. not that i’m not, or that there is anything wrong with kindergarteners. but still: aiming your voice does not mean speaking in a grandiose or blown way. it’s considered. it’s something else. that it isn’t, enough, is maybe some part of the reason so many books now are TV.
i don’t think quoting Nietzsche interpreting Schopenhauer is ever meant to do the original much justice. dudes arguing. all things on their own terms.
i like ideas outside of lit. his ‘not having an eye for lit’ makes him more persuasive to me, not less.
i’m still surprised people are having such a hard time accepting that voice in the head or in a work are, or should be, distinct from one’s own speaking voice, out of the mouth. have you heard yourself speak? have you read your words? if i wrote how i talk, i’d be considered of a mind in kindergarten. not that i’m not, or that there is anything wrong with kindergarteners. but still: aiming your voice does not mean speaking in a grandiose or blown way. it’s considered. it’s something else. that it isn’t, enough, is maybe some part of the reason so many books now are TV.
I blame bourbon.
I blame bourbon.
a little early for the bottle, eh?
a little early for the bottle, eh?
Well no, I know that quoting Nietzsche is not the same as quoting Schopenhauer, and obviously the quote from N is embedded in a network of other disputes, but he’s arguing with S no less and no more than anyone else here in this comment thread is.
I agree with you, and I’ve heard you criticize your own speaking voice, and clearly speaking and writing are distinct in terms of vocabulary, rhythm, the abstraction we call “voice,” i.e. in terms of aesthetics. I guess I’ve sort of lost an idea of what the main thread of argument is here.
Well no, I know that quoting Nietzsche is not the same as quoting Schopenhauer, and obviously the quote from N is embedded in a network of other disputes, but he’s arguing with S no less and no more than anyone else here in this comment thread is.
I agree with you, and I’ve heard you criticize your own speaking voice, and clearly speaking and writing are distinct in terms of vocabulary, rhythm, the abstraction we call “voice,” i.e. in terms of aesthetics. I guess I’ve sort of lost an idea of what the main thread of argument is here.
No, of course Nietzsche wouldn’t be Nietzsche without the Schop–his polemic emerges from S and stays in conversation with S’s work for a while, if not for N’s entire career.
But I have to disagree with the idea that talk = representation, and is opposed to literature qua expression. In speaking we express, constitute and present the same way that we do in literature. Conversely, we can represent in speech the same way we can represent in literature, cf. Sarte’s What is Literature? But that’s a completely different set of issues.
No, of course Nietzsche wouldn’t be Nietzsche without the Schop–his polemic emerges from S and stays in conversation with S’s work for a while, if not for N’s entire career.
But I have to disagree with the idea that talk = representation, and is opposed to literature qua expression. In speaking we express, constitute and present the same way that we do in literature. Conversely, we can represent in speech the same way we can represent in literature, cf. Sarte’s What is Literature? But that’s a completely different set of issues.
fair point, blake. guess your quote was harmless. still think one can’t abandon the verbal, whether it’s snatched from the air, the imagination, or the person next to you. joyce included lots of overheard dialogue, imitated many voices. hard to say just how his own talking voice sounded. i don’t think one’s writing voice should be strictly a persona all the time. a great writing voice could be like an embellished speaking voice, thrown into the ocean, retrieved, laid out on a rock and painted.
fair point, blake. guess your quote was harmless. still think one can’t abandon the verbal, whether it’s snatched from the air, the imagination, or the person next to you. joyce included lots of overheard dialogue, imitated many voices. hard to say just how his own talking voice sounded. i don’t think one’s writing voice should be strictly a persona all the time. a great writing voice could be like an embellished speaking voice, thrown into the ocean, retrieved, laid out on a rock and painted.
Do you think Twain really spoke the way his narrators did? Hey, maybe he did. I don’t know. But do you know, or is that just an assumption?
Do you think Twain really spoke the way his narrators did? Hey, maybe he did. I don’t know. But do you know, or is that just an assumption?
i think the idea i draw from the idea is that the essence of great writing is spirit, and not flesh, and crossing the two between the two is largely what results in shitty art.
i think the idea i draw from the idea is that the essence of great writing is spirit, and not flesh, and crossing the two between the two is largely what results in shitty art.
And Beckett’s later work is all speech, all disembodied speakers. It may not be his own speaking voice, but part of what is so haunting about the work is that this bare, haunting landscape is populated by these voices, these people half-there, half-nowhere
And Beckett’s later work is all speech, all disembodied speakers. It may not be his own speaking voice, but part of what is so haunting about the work is that this bare, haunting landscape is populated by these voices, these people half-there, half-nowhere
word
word
Music IS the highest art form. It is invisible, ineffable, irreducible,
nowhere without no
Music IS the highest art form. It is invisible, ineffable, irreducible,
nowhere without no
if good music is happy, or is sad, it doesn’t ‘evoke’ the emotion, it ‘is’ the emotion
if good music is happy, or is sad, it doesn’t ‘evoke’ the emotion, it ‘is’ the emotion
Fair point, Matt. One nice thing is, Twain decided to render and give dignity to the voices of “regular” people, “other” people. And then, with a wink, undermined the political gesture with his epigraph or what-have-you, “anyone looking for a moral will be shot” (i’m paraphrasing) Good man, that Twain.
Fair point, Matt. One nice thing is, Twain decided to render and give dignity to the voices of “regular” people, “other” people. And then, with a wink, undermined the political gesture with his epigraph or what-have-you, “anyone looking for a moral will be shot” (i’m paraphrasing) Good man, that Twain.
without a doubt. i don’t agree with schop’s philosophy entirely (although i am heavily influenced by it, if only less so than by nietzsche’s) and so the distinction he’s making between speech and writing is neither that clean nor absolute. as you said, it’s motivated by a whole metaphysical system, but at face-value it does provide a relative orientation from which to guage and engage your intentions and technique.
i suppose i was most surpised (given your post about ethics and dfw) that you seemed willing to dismiss a man entirely (schop) whose primary concern was to overcome suffering by dismantling egoism and thus resolving the subject/object dichotomy in a moment of awareness (however transitory) in which we recognize ‘tat tvam asi’ (‘thou art that’, no matter how minor even in instances of breaking out of one’s personal tower to be able to identify with another person). because it doesn’t strike me as so radically different from dfw’s ‘this is water’. which is not to say there aren’t huge differences between the two, but at times their heartbeats do seem to sync up.
without a doubt. i don’t agree with schop’s philosophy entirely (although i am heavily influenced by it, if only less so than by nietzsche’s) and so the distinction he’s making between speech and writing is neither that clean nor absolute. as you said, it’s motivated by a whole metaphysical system, but at face-value it does provide a relative orientation from which to guage and engage your intentions and technique.
i suppose i was most surpised (given your post about ethics and dfw) that you seemed willing to dismiss a man entirely (schop) whose primary concern was to overcome suffering by dismantling egoism and thus resolving the subject/object dichotomy in a moment of awareness (however transitory) in which we recognize ‘tat tvam asi’ (‘thou art that’, no matter how minor even in instances of breaking out of one’s personal tower to be able to identify with another person). because it doesn’t strike me as so radically different from dfw’s ‘this is water’. which is not to say there aren’t huge differences between the two, but at times their heartbeats do seem to sync up.
Oh, I’m not dismissing S entirely. I didn’t mean my post about his irrelevance to be taken seriously. I don’t understand what you mean by “thou art that,” though–could you elaborate? I’m sure there is a sameness between S and DFW. They both took up Kant, although in radically different ways–DFW’s ethos is so extraordinary to me precisely because he was deeply familiar with all of the “postmodern” rereadings of Kant (and, more broadly, humanism), yet took a pointedly Kantian position, as someone pointed out in the comments thread of my DFW post.
Oh, I’m not dismissing S entirely. I didn’t mean my post about his irrelevance to be taken seriously. I don’t understand what you mean by “thou art that,” though–could you elaborate? I’m sure there is a sameness between S and DFW. They both took up Kant, although in radically different ways–DFW’s ethos is so extraordinary to me precisely because he was deeply familiar with all of the “postmodern” rereadings of Kant (and, more broadly, humanism), yet took a pointedly Kantian position, as someone pointed out in the comments thread of my DFW post.
my bad. humor, sarcasm, you know how it goes: lost in internet translation.
re: ‘thou art that’, schop was into the eastern philosophies, to a large degree his metaphysics was a westernization of eastern stuff. here’s one passage:
‘we see in it the manifold grades and modes of manifestation of the will that is one and the same in all beings and everywhere wills the same thing. this will objectifies itself as life, as existence, in such endless succession and variety… but if we had to convey to the beholder, for reflection and in a word, the explanation and information about their inner nature, it would be best for us to use the sanskrit formula which occurs so often in the sacred books of the hindus, and is called mahavakya, i.e., the great word: ‘tat tvam asi,’ which means ‘this living thing art thou.’
here’s another awesome passage that’s related by theme:
“If that veil of Maya, the principium individuationis, is lifted from the eyes of a man to such an extent that he no longer makes the egotistical distinction between himself and the person of others, but takes as much interest in the sufferings of other individuals as in his own, and thus is not only benevolent and charitable in the highest degree, but even ready to sacrifice his own individuality whenever several others can be saved thereby, then it follows automatically that such a man, recognizing in all beings his own true and innermost self, must also regard the endless sufferings of all that lives as his own, and thus take upon himself the pain of the whole world.”
he gets a bad rap for being a pessimist, although technically he is, but as neither a pessimist nor optimist i see much beauty and compassion in his ideas, regardless of whether he embodied them in life.
i didn’t know about the kant-dfw connection. i don’t know dfw at all except for a few prose pieces, but he’s spoken volumes to me so far. is there anywhere that highlights his thoughts or implementation of kant?
my bad. humor, sarcasm, you know how it goes: lost in internet translation.
re: ‘thou art that’, schop was into the eastern philosophies, to a large degree his metaphysics was a westernization of eastern stuff. here’s one passage:
‘we see in it the manifold grades and modes of manifestation of the will that is one and the same in all beings and everywhere wills the same thing. this will objectifies itself as life, as existence, in such endless succession and variety… but if we had to convey to the beholder, for reflection and in a word, the explanation and information about their inner nature, it would be best for us to use the sanskrit formula which occurs so often in the sacred books of the hindus, and is called mahavakya, i.e., the great word: ‘tat tvam asi,’ which means ‘this living thing art thou.’
here’s another awesome passage that’s related by theme:
“If that veil of Maya, the principium individuationis, is lifted from the eyes of a man to such an extent that he no longer makes the egotistical distinction between himself and the person of others, but takes as much interest in the sufferings of other individuals as in his own, and thus is not only benevolent and charitable in the highest degree, but even ready to sacrifice his own individuality whenever several others can be saved thereby, then it follows automatically that such a man, recognizing in all beings his own true and innermost self, must also regard the endless sufferings of all that lives as his own, and thus take upon himself the pain of the whole world.”
he gets a bad rap for being a pessimist, although technically he is, but as neither a pessimist nor optimist i see much beauty and compassion in his ideas, regardless of whether he embodied them in life.
i didn’t know about the kant-dfw connection. i don’t know dfw at all except for a few prose pieces, but he’s spoken volumes to me so far. is there anywhere that highlights his thoughts or implementation of kant?
Richard Powers uses voice recognition software these days…I wonder if this is more than superficially relevant. I sense that in his later work there are rhythms and formulations that ensue from this shift in medium. It’s hard to imagine The Gold Bug Variations being dictated. I know it’s different from everyday speaking voice, but I think when writers do tap into that kind of technology there is a spokenness that permeates. Like Nicholson Baker’s latest, too, wherein he spoke into mics around his house (maybe even videotaped himself, from what I vaguely recall). A different prose style than in The Mezzanine, say. Typing is different from speaking is different from handwriting, too, no–rhythmically, sonically…things come out different when scrawled for me, more diagonal. In the end I can’t help but think of that Moliere character who one day discovers that he’s been speaking in prose all his life.
Who really knows how they talk, anyway? Unless you see yourself on film or hear yourself often. Always a bit jarring, the body language as well as the pure voice.
My daughter, five, is in a phase where she’s walking around a lot narrating like crazy. “Chapter Four: The Power Outage” and such. She goes in and out of such modes like a hundred times a day. Wish I could do that.
Richard Powers uses voice recognition software these days…I wonder if this is more than superficially relevant. I sense that in his later work there are rhythms and formulations that ensue from this shift in medium. It’s hard to imagine The Gold Bug Variations being dictated. I know it’s different from everyday speaking voice, but I think when writers do tap into that kind of technology there is a spokenness that permeates. Like Nicholson Baker’s latest, too, wherein he spoke into mics around his house (maybe even videotaped himself, from what I vaguely recall). A different prose style than in The Mezzanine, say. Typing is different from speaking is different from handwriting, too, no–rhythmically, sonically…things come out different when scrawled for me, more diagonal. In the end I can’t help but think of that Moliere character who one day discovers that he’s been speaking in prose all his life.
Who really knows how they talk, anyway? Unless you see yourself on film or hear yourself often. Always a bit jarring, the body language as well as the pure voice.
My daughter, five, is in a phase where she’s walking around a lot narrating like crazy. “Chapter Four: The Power Outage” and such. She goes in and out of such modes like a hundred times a day. Wish I could do that.
Actually, Blake, though I’m not so crash hot on this particular quote (I’m thinking Warhol: he spoke how he wrote and made and made and wrote how he spoke), I’m one of the few here with you on the turn back to writing as spirit. Not Hegelian world-moving spirit, not ‘spirituality’, but aesthetics and abstraction, the words made word. For some reason, we have this idea that aesthetics cannot be polemical, abstraction cannot be fleshy, that spirit cannot fuck. They are, they can and they do.
Actually, Blake, though I’m not so crash hot on this particular quote (I’m thinking Warhol: he spoke how he wrote and made and made and wrote how he spoke), I’m one of the few here with you on the turn back to writing as spirit. Not Hegelian world-moving spirit, not ‘spirituality’, but aesthetics and abstraction, the words made word. For some reason, we have this idea that aesthetics cannot be polemical, abstraction cannot be fleshy, that spirit cannot fuck. They are, they can and they do.
one of my students this past summer used voice recognition software to write his papers. he showed me how it worked in my office, his whole setup and everything. i thought it was interesting, but i would have a hard time writing like that. im stuck on needing the fingers typing on the keys.
that bit about your daughter is really funny.
one of my students this past summer used voice recognition software to write his papers. he showed me how it worked in my office, his whole setup and everything. i thought it was interesting, but i would have a hard time writing like that. im stuck on needing the fingers typing on the keys.
that bit about your daughter is really funny.
“You kiss your mother with that mouth?”
– Austin Powers
“You kiss your mother with that mouth?”
– Austin Powers
eggs are eggs, as they said on seinfeld
eggs are eggs, as they said on seinfeld
what i’m interested in is spirit made flesh, flesh made spirit. “no ideas but in things,” william carlos williams said. i agree with you, blake, that there is a mighty spirit in great writing, but spirit passes through and between human beings, and that’s what so moving about it.
what i’m interested in is spirit made flesh, flesh made spirit. “no ideas but in things,” william carlos williams said. i agree with you, blake, that there is a mighty spirit in great writing, but spirit passes through and between human beings, and that’s what so moving about it.
Yeah, I like those quotes, and I see what you’re talking about. He definitely had a sense of style, weirdly enough.
I’m not sure whether DFW ever directly addresses Kant, but his ethic strikes me as deeply Kantian in a lot of ways–though maybe Kantian in the way Deleuze is “Kantian.” I’m too tired to make fun of myself for the absolute bone-headedness of that sentence.
Yeah, I like those quotes, and I see what you’re talking about. He definitely had a sense of style, weirdly enough.
I’m not sure whether DFW ever directly addresses Kant, but his ethic strikes me as deeply Kantian in a lot of ways–though maybe Kantian in the way Deleuze is “Kantian.” I’m too tired to make fun of myself for the absolute bone-headedness of that sentence.
I’m Not So Crash Hot would be a good name for a band…
I’m Not So Crash Hot would be a good name for a band…
probably though no one would listen to it after the initial novelty wore out
probably though no one would listen to it after the initial novelty wore out
“I thought the most fair thing for him was to print it exactly as it was. Here’s everything that’s said for five days while we were in cars and hotel rooms and at bookstores. There’s a part in the introduction where a really good friend of his is talking about how great it was just to hang around him. I thought, ‘Here’s the best way of getting that across — just let the reader have the experience that I had.’ And it’s great because he talks the way he writes. For me, reading this was like reading one more great thing by him.”
From this: http://boulderweekly.com/article-1881-david-foster-wallace-an-american-literary-great-revealed.html
“I thought the most fair thing for him was to print it exactly as it was. Here’s everything that’s said for five days while we were in cars and hotel rooms and at bookstores. There’s a part in the introduction where a really good friend of his is talking about how great it was just to hang around him. I thought, ‘Here’s the best way of getting that across — just let the reader have the experience that I had.’ And it’s great because he talks the way he writes. For me, reading this was like reading one more great thing by him.”
From this: http://boulderweekly.com/article-1881-david-foster-wallace-an-american-literary-great-revealed.html