In Chapter 1 of The 9 Rights of Every Writer, Vicki Spandel writes about the importance of silence, of reflection, of deep thinking. I agree with her that this practice is an asset to anyone and that it is becoming a lost art. My great-grandfather used to fall asleep while working on crossword puzzles. His crosswords naps would typically not last more than five minutes. When he would wake, he would immediately begin to fill in an answer without even needing to re-acclimate himself. I always considered these naps to be his reflective times. The brain, isolated from the business happening around him was able to breath, consider, ponder.
I also agree that there is nothing quite as great as the smell of a book, especially of an old book. (I too am a sniffer, Christine, as was my father before me.)
However, I do not agree with Spandel’s assessment that only “real” books provide encouragement to reflect. Spandel’s attitude reminds me of the attitude taken so many times by the establishment. There is nothing intrinsically inferior about newer technology that places it in a lower rung of culture. (I imagine people took much the same stance when books began to replace scrolls.) Any material thing can be misused or mistreated but that does not make the thing itself bad. We too often condemn what we do not understand or are not comfortable with. I would be greatly saddened to see the demise of books, but Spandel has made an idol of books. The point of books is not the object themselves but the wisdom, creativity, challenges, and inspiration contained in and elicited by the text. Reflection is encouraged by the text, not by the book.
One thing that Smith said in Chapter 4 of Writing and the Writer leapt off the page. “… By writing we find out what we know, what we think. Writing is an extremely efficient way of gaining access to that knowledge that we cannot explore directly. It is more efficient than speaking in many respects because of its relative permanence and because we can stand back and examine it as an independent entity.” This has been true for me. Not only this but writing is how I learn. I think this passage brings some light to Smith’s whole premise of we don’t know how we know what things mean or why we even thought of it in the first place. Or not. I think Smith just might understand the art of being reflective.
I am conflicted about the Nelson piece. On the one hand I think that many people have become desensitized to language or perhaps rather that we have in some ways emasculated language. On the other hand I do not believe that language is dead, I see a vibrant activity to language; nouns have become verbs, adjectives have morphed into one another creating entirely new words, people take notice of poetically phrased texts. I think Nelson’s point may be a conglomeration of Spandel’s and Smith’s theses, with a little of his own thrown in.
Just a side note: Writing a thank you note to classmates seems a little bit too touchy feely for my tastes.
Another side note: Since I have never heard of G. Lynn Nelson I kept picturing Craig T. Nelson while reading.
I also agree that there is nothing quite as great as the smell of a book, especially of an old book. (I too am a sniffer, Christine, as was my father before me.)
However, I do not agree with Spandel’s assessment that only “real” books provide encouragement to reflect. Spandel’s attitude reminds me of the attitude taken so many times by the establishment. There is nothing intrinsically inferior about newer technology that places it in a lower rung of culture. (I imagine people took much the same stance when books began to replace scrolls.) Any material thing can be misused or mistreated but that does not make the thing itself bad. We too often condemn what we do not understand or are not comfortable with. I would be greatly saddened to see the demise of books, but Spandel has made an idol of books. The point of books is not the object themselves but the wisdom, creativity, challenges, and inspiration contained in and elicited by the text. Reflection is encouraged by the text, not by the book.
One thing that Smith said in Chapter 4 of Writing and the Writer leapt off the page. “… By writing we find out what we know, what we think. Writing is an extremely efficient way of gaining access to that knowledge that we cannot explore directly. It is more efficient than speaking in many respects because of its relative permanence and because we can stand back and examine it as an independent entity.” This has been true for me. Not only this but writing is how I learn. I think this passage brings some light to Smith’s whole premise of we don’t know how we know what things mean or why we even thought of it in the first place. Or not. I think Smith just might understand the art of being reflective.
I am conflicted about the Nelson piece. On the one hand I think that many people have become desensitized to language or perhaps rather that we have in some ways emasculated language. On the other hand I do not believe that language is dead, I see a vibrant activity to language; nouns have become verbs, adjectives have morphed into one another creating entirely new words, people take notice of poetically phrased texts. I think Nelson’s point may be a conglomeration of Spandel’s and Smith’s theses, with a little of his own thrown in.
Just a side note: Writing a thank you note to classmates seems a little bit too touchy feely for my tastes.
Another side note: Since I have never heard of G. Lynn Nelson I kept picturing Craig T. Nelson while reading.
2 comments:
I was conflicted by how in the world Coach Fox would have hired Luther and Dobber to be football coaches, they seemed like idiots. Good commentary on the post.
That's a good call there, Coach.
Post a Comment