E.A. Bucchianeri's Blog: Books, Babble and Blarney - Posts Tagged "writing"
In the good old days of the printing press when texts were set by hand letter by letter, it was easy to make typos as all the type had to be set backwards like the image in a mirror to ensure it would print correctly on the velum or paper. Whenever a mistake would show up in the printed work, it was always blamed on the ‘printer’s devil’ similar to our ‘gremlins’ today. Eventually the poor apprentices in the print shop were stuck with the title as they carried out a considerable amount of typesetting and were blamed when type went missing. They were usually covered in black ink, which didn't help, giving them the appearance of devilish imps.
However, why are we still stuck with typos when we have electronic equipment with keyboards to handle the typesetting and spell-checking? No longer do printers have to envision sentences backwards in order to print a book or newspaper. Perhaps the two paragraphs below may help solve this annoying riddle:
“Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.”
Stargne, ins’t it?
Now take a look at the poem below, (it might help if you read it out loud):
“Spell Check Poem”
Also known as…
“The Pullet Surprise Can Did Ate”
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea,
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight for it two say,
Weather eye and wring oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long,
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should bee proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaw's are knot aloud.
Eye have run this poem threw it
Your sure reel glad two no,
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
-Sauce unknown
In this electronic age, perhaps ‘Printer’s Devils’ have evolved into ‘Spell Checker Spirits’?
We accept writers love to write, others assert it's a compulsion, even when the dreaded curse of “Writer's Block” threatens to charge out of the murky recesses of the mind at times and seize control, until held at bay once more by the Knight of Inspiration with his sword—the mighty pen.
But changing genres? That is a daunting step to take. Until now, I have written non-fiction books and have felt quite comfortable in this familiar sphere, that is, until I completed Volume 2 on “Faust”, which literally wore me out. So much data to process! A break was needed to cool the over-heated mind and a novel was the perfect solution.
At first, easier said than done; the last fictional works I wrote, other than a short story in college, were my English compositions for high school. Was it possible for me to switch back after all this time? Why not? If I dared to analyse other authors, it was high time I wrote my first book. While working on “Brushstrokes of a Gadfly” I discovered many of the old clichés and quotes by famous authors about writing were true, or half true, and thought I would share them.
* “The scariest moment is always just before you start.” ~ Stephen King
True. There are many doubts, or at least, niggling insecurities that try to hold you back, especially with a first novel. Stephen King no longer has to worry about building a fan base, but for a new novelist, staring at a blank page can be intimidating, even when you have a story just waiting to be put on paper, or the hard drive, whatever the case may be. Can I write an entire book people will find interesting to read? Develop believable characters? Construct a decent plot? Write scenes that have action and movement, even if the book is not a crime novel or a thriller? Set my story in a city I have never visited past the airport during flight changes and rely on research? You can only try, there comes a time you have to stop worrying what people might think, and concentrate on what is important for your story. If you try and please the readers first, or write just what you think will sell, the story will not ring true. Deep down people want something truthful, believable, perhaps just entertaining, or something that makes them observe life in a way they didn't before. They can tell if something is geared for their pocketbook rather than their sensibilities. Even if they don't like your book or agree with everything you have written, at least they may have read something new. Reading is supposed to broaden horizons, not narrow them.
* Your opening paragraph or scene must be a “Grabber” and hook your readers at the very beginning.
This I would say is half or two-thirds true. Yes, it is important to write a vivid introduction to draw the reader into your story, but it is only an introduction after all. In a few of the old classics, I've read some opening paragraphs or first chapters that seem pretty boring in my view, it's after those sections we really see the tale and characters unfold that in the end made these books classics. Today, some writers are so adamant on hooking the reader with searing barbs that it smacks of desperation. “Read me!” “Read me!” It's like being introduced to someone, and instead of a nice firm handshake, they grab your hand and crunch your knuckles while screaming their name, just to make sure you know who they are. Or, authors put so much information into their opening chapter with a bewildering amount of graphic description they can't continue the momentum and the action slows to a crawl until you reach some pivotal moments of the plot. That nearly turns me off a book! In answer to this, I tried to achieve a balance between introducing several of my key characters at an important event that I could carry through the rest of the novel, yet not do anything so shocking in the first opening paragraphs that I've completely assaulted my readers. I wanted my first novel to blossom into a majestic oak, not shoot up like a weed only to be stepped on.
* The characters tend to write themselves. They become like living, breathing people.
So true, it's scary. How can people you invent in your imagination become so lifelike? Because authors draw their characters from life around them. Perhaps not exact characters, authors also experiment in combining different character traits, but authors use what they observe, and before long, characters do feel like real people that you have known all your life. I used to be sceptical of this old cliché until it felt like all my characters wanted to run away and do their own thing, and I had to lasso them back into place when and where I needed them at times! It became so natural to find myself saying, “No, Steves wouldn't say that, he would do this instead,” when I really wanted him to say something, but it didn't suit him. Or “I know what Aunt Martha's going to say when she finds this out! She'll have Katherine and the family in knots...”, thus the characters helped write the story and fill the blanks, I didn't have too much to say in the matter. One character refused to go in the direction I had originally planned for him, he rebelled entirely. The story completely changed course because of it, I can't give details without ruining the book for you, but if I forced him to go the way I had envisioned, it literally wouldn't have worked, the story would have sounded “artificial” if it wasn't true to the way the character had eventually developed. It went beyond my control, which leads us to another observation ...
* Dorris Lessing said in an interview that none of her books turned out the way she expected them to.
Well, it happened with this novel, but that is a topic for another blog post. To be continued!
Authors, have you experienced any of the above? Comment if you feel so inclined.
But changing genres? That is a daunting step to take. Until now, I have written non-fiction books and have felt quite comfortable in this familiar sphere, that is, until I completed Volume 2 on “Faust”, which literally wore me out. So much data to process! A break was needed to cool the over-heated mind and a novel was the perfect solution.
At first, easier said than done; the last fictional works I wrote, other than a short story in college, were my English compositions for high school. Was it possible for me to switch back after all this time? Why not? If I dared to analyse other authors, it was high time I wrote my first book. While working on “Brushstrokes of a Gadfly” I discovered many of the old clichés and quotes by famous authors about writing were true, or half true, and thought I would share them.
* “The scariest moment is always just before you start.” ~ Stephen King
True. There are many doubts, or at least, niggling insecurities that try to hold you back, especially with a first novel. Stephen King no longer has to worry about building a fan base, but for a new novelist, staring at a blank page can be intimidating, even when you have a story just waiting to be put on paper, or the hard drive, whatever the case may be. Can I write an entire book people will find interesting to read? Develop believable characters? Construct a decent plot? Write scenes that have action and movement, even if the book is not a crime novel or a thriller? Set my story in a city I have never visited past the airport during flight changes and rely on research? You can only try, there comes a time you have to stop worrying what people might think, and concentrate on what is important for your story. If you try and please the readers first, or write just what you think will sell, the story will not ring true. Deep down people want something truthful, believable, perhaps just entertaining, or something that makes them observe life in a way they didn't before. They can tell if something is geared for their pocketbook rather than their sensibilities. Even if they don't like your book or agree with everything you have written, at least they may have read something new. Reading is supposed to broaden horizons, not narrow them.
* Your opening paragraph or scene must be a “Grabber” and hook your readers at the very beginning.
This I would say is half or two-thirds true. Yes, it is important to write a vivid introduction to draw the reader into your story, but it is only an introduction after all. In a few of the old classics, I've read some opening paragraphs or first chapters that seem pretty boring in my view, it's after those sections we really see the tale and characters unfold that in the end made these books classics. Today, some writers are so adamant on hooking the reader with searing barbs that it smacks of desperation. “Read me!” “Read me!” It's like being introduced to someone, and instead of a nice firm handshake, they grab your hand and crunch your knuckles while screaming their name, just to make sure you know who they are. Or, authors put so much information into their opening chapter with a bewildering amount of graphic description they can't continue the momentum and the action slows to a crawl until you reach some pivotal moments of the plot. That nearly turns me off a book! In answer to this, I tried to achieve a balance between introducing several of my key characters at an important event that I could carry through the rest of the novel, yet not do anything so shocking in the first opening paragraphs that I've completely assaulted my readers. I wanted my first novel to blossom into a majestic oak, not shoot up like a weed only to be stepped on.
* The characters tend to write themselves. They become like living, breathing people.
So true, it's scary. How can people you invent in your imagination become so lifelike? Because authors draw their characters from life around them. Perhaps not exact characters, authors also experiment in combining different character traits, but authors use what they observe, and before long, characters do feel like real people that you have known all your life. I used to be sceptical of this old cliché until it felt like all my characters wanted to run away and do their own thing, and I had to lasso them back into place when and where I needed them at times! It became so natural to find myself saying, “No, Steves wouldn't say that, he would do this instead,” when I really wanted him to say something, but it didn't suit him. Or “I know what Aunt Martha's going to say when she finds this out! She'll have Katherine and the family in knots...”, thus the characters helped write the story and fill the blanks, I didn't have too much to say in the matter. One character refused to go in the direction I had originally planned for him, he rebelled entirely. The story completely changed course because of it, I can't give details without ruining the book for you, but if I forced him to go the way I had envisioned, it literally wouldn't have worked, the story would have sounded “artificial” if it wasn't true to the way the character had eventually developed. It went beyond my control, which leads us to another observation ...
* Dorris Lessing said in an interview that none of her books turned out the way she expected them to.
Well, it happened with this novel, but that is a topic for another blog post. To be continued!
Authors, have you experienced any of the above? Comment if you feel so inclined.
I promised to resume the thread of my last post on the subject, if the old clichés about writing and the observations made by famous authors are true. Now it's time to keep that promise, so without further ado, I shall continue with Dorris Lessing's observation, which I had left dangling in mid air:
* None of her books turned out the way she expected them to.
This was amazing to hear from a Nobel Laureate of Literature, that her books did not develop the way she intended! I had often assumed that a professional writer or author were in full command of their subject, especially fiction. If stories and situations are a product of your imagination and creativity, surely you can bend the narrative and plot to your every whim?
I soon learned that this was artistic ego … now, I grovel before the wisdom of authors before me. My novel, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly did not follow the road map that I had laid out. I laugh when I remember what I wanted to write, and compare it with the book that now sits majestically on the coffee table. I confess I had the great ambition to write an action-packed mystico-thriller.
Instead, my action-pack thriller became an expressive, romantic and entertaining Kunstlerroman novel, a distance cousin or descendent of Goethe's Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship. Not that I could equal Goethe, but how on earth did that happen? The characters in the book can be blamed, once they were created, their lives and personalities dictated the story 95% of the time. The way I first envisioned the plot did not work with the characters that emerged, I couldn't kill them off or change them, they were too strong to alter, so I had to relinquish my original concept.
For instance, there is one character I had planned to make completely diabolical, a character who would literally make your flesh creep. However, I was halfway through the manuscript when it felt like the character in question was literally on his knees begging me not torture him, he did not want to be evil incarnate and would rather be killed off than be made commit the atrocities I had planned. I couldn't throttle him, so there was nothing for it, I had to give in, which completely changed the ending for the book! I won't tell you who, how or why, it would ruin the ending for you if you ever decide to read it, but to come to the point, I quickly discovered that The Book is more important than your plans for it. You have to go with what works for The Book ~ if your ideas appear hollow or forced when they are put on paper, chop them, erase them, pulverise them and start again. Don't whine when things are not going your way, because they are going the right way for The Book, which is more important. The show must go on, and so must The Book.
You may ask if the plot can suddenly veer in the opposite direction, are any of your original ideas left intact? Yes, surprisingly, but not in the way I first envisioned. There are very fine traces of my original concept, but it would take a keen eye to spot them. Many of the subjects I wanted to explore also survived the chopping block, without all the murder mysteries and car chases.
Am I disappointed with the end result? No, I must say I'm not! Instead of the dark, brooding, evil personalities and plots, it changed direction and the story is far more entertaining with humorous characters and events while still retaining the reflective sections, and a little human tragedy for good measure.
The moral of the story: accept the possibility your plans may change despite all your best efforts to keep your ideas on track, don't get frustrated, embrace the changes, and you may be very happy with the finished product. Remember, The Book is the master of its own destiny.
Brushstrokes of a Gadfly
Visit E.A. Bucchianeri's Website ~Free Chapter Previews and more!
* None of her books turned out the way she expected them to.
This was amazing to hear from a Nobel Laureate of Literature, that her books did not develop the way she intended! I had often assumed that a professional writer or author were in full command of their subject, especially fiction. If stories and situations are a product of your imagination and creativity, surely you can bend the narrative and plot to your every whim?
I soon learned that this was artistic ego … now, I grovel before the wisdom of authors before me. My novel, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly did not follow the road map that I had laid out. I laugh when I remember what I wanted to write, and compare it with the book that now sits majestically on the coffee table. I confess I had the great ambition to write an action-packed mystico-thriller.
Instead, my action-pack thriller became an expressive, romantic and entertaining Kunstlerroman novel, a distance cousin or descendent of Goethe's Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship. Not that I could equal Goethe, but how on earth did that happen? The characters in the book can be blamed, once they were created, their lives and personalities dictated the story 95% of the time. The way I first envisioned the plot did not work with the characters that emerged, I couldn't kill them off or change them, they were too strong to alter, so I had to relinquish my original concept.
For instance, there is one character I had planned to make completely diabolical, a character who would literally make your flesh creep. However, I was halfway through the manuscript when it felt like the character in question was literally on his knees begging me not torture him, he did not want to be evil incarnate and would rather be killed off than be made commit the atrocities I had planned. I couldn't throttle him, so there was nothing for it, I had to give in, which completely changed the ending for the book! I won't tell you who, how or why, it would ruin the ending for you if you ever decide to read it, but to come to the point, I quickly discovered that The Book is more important than your plans for it. You have to go with what works for The Book ~ if your ideas appear hollow or forced when they are put on paper, chop them, erase them, pulverise them and start again. Don't whine when things are not going your way, because they are going the right way for The Book, which is more important. The show must go on, and so must The Book.
You may ask if the plot can suddenly veer in the opposite direction, are any of your original ideas left intact? Yes, surprisingly, but not in the way I first envisioned. There are very fine traces of my original concept, but it would take a keen eye to spot them. Many of the subjects I wanted to explore also survived the chopping block, without all the murder mysteries and car chases.
Am I disappointed with the end result? No, I must say I'm not! Instead of the dark, brooding, evil personalities and plots, it changed direction and the story is far more entertaining with humorous characters and events while still retaining the reflective sections, and a little human tragedy for good measure.
The moral of the story: accept the possibility your plans may change despite all your best efforts to keep your ideas on track, don't get frustrated, embrace the changes, and you may be very happy with the finished product. Remember, The Book is the master of its own destiny.
Brushstrokes of a GadflyVisit E.A. Bucchianeri's Website ~Free Chapter Previews and more!
While searching the Internet one day, I came across a funny little widget that caught my attention:
“Check which famous writer you write like with this statistical analysis tool, which analyzes your word choice and writing style and compares them with those of the famous writers.”
Perhaps this is not such a good idea as writers are supposed to find their own voice, but out of curiosity, naturally, I had to see which illustrious master of the pen it would assign me.
I tried various pieces, first chapters of all my books, paragraphs from my blog posts and received the following results:
H.P. Lovecraft came up the most.
David Foster Wallace, was second.
Then James Joyce, Margaret Atwood, and Douglas Adams
Of course, I am not that gullible, trusting in an Internet widget! I wanted to see what would happen if I deliberately made up a few lines that sounded like those by a well known author. Dr. Seuss was in the widget's list of authors, so I plonked in the following made-up lines:
I will not eat them on a mat,
I will not eat them with a hat,
I will not eat them with a cat,
I will not eat them with a rat.
The result? Margaret Atwood!
Aha! As expected, widgets cannot think or really analyze anything, but to give it a fair chance, I inserted real lines from “Green Eggs and Ham”:
“Do you like green
eggs and ham?” “I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like green
eggs and ham!”
"Would you like them
here or there?"
"I would not like them
here or there.
I would not like them
anywhere."
“I do so like green
eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am!”
What did I get? Ernest Hemingway.
I decided to do one last experiment, and just let a whole line of a's run across in to paragraph, like this:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
And, a whole paragraph of e's:
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
And lo and behold~I write like J.D. Salinger.
The moral of the story: don't trust an internet widget to understand your unique style of writing.
And, the inventors of the widget want me to sign up for their newsletter to teach me how to write better?
Here's the link if you wish to try your own experiments: I Write Like ....
*****
Visit my page?
E.A. Bucchianeri
“Check which famous writer you write like with this statistical analysis tool, which analyzes your word choice and writing style and compares them with those of the famous writers.”
Perhaps this is not such a good idea as writers are supposed to find their own voice, but out of curiosity, naturally, I had to see which illustrious master of the pen it would assign me.
I tried various pieces, first chapters of all my books, paragraphs from my blog posts and received the following results:
H.P. Lovecraft came up the most.
David Foster Wallace, was second.
Then James Joyce, Margaret Atwood, and Douglas Adams
Of course, I am not that gullible, trusting in an Internet widget! I wanted to see what would happen if I deliberately made up a few lines that sounded like those by a well known author. Dr. Seuss was in the widget's list of authors, so I plonked in the following made-up lines:
I will not eat them on a mat,
I will not eat them with a hat,
I will not eat them with a cat,
I will not eat them with a rat.
The result? Margaret Atwood!
Aha! As expected, widgets cannot think or really analyze anything, but to give it a fair chance, I inserted real lines from “Green Eggs and Ham”:
“Do you like green
eggs and ham?” “I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like green
eggs and ham!”
"Would you like them
here or there?"
"I would not like them
here or there.
I would not like them
anywhere."
“I do so like green
eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am!”
What did I get? Ernest Hemingway.
I decided to do one last experiment, and just let a whole line of a's run across in to paragraph, like this:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
And, a whole paragraph of e's:
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
And lo and behold~I write like J.D. Salinger.
The moral of the story: don't trust an internet widget to understand your unique style of writing.
And, the inventors of the widget want me to sign up for their newsletter to teach me how to write better?
Here's the link if you wish to try your own experiments: I Write Like ....
*****
Visit my page?
E.A. Bucchianeri
It is constantly stressed that writing can be learned, developed, mastered; that if you have a talent, it can be made to shine. However, there are writers who were destined for greatness from the beginning, whose star seemed to blaze the minute they appeared on earth similar to Mozart and his musical genius. In the case of writing, I am thinking of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), German poet, dramatist, scientist and statesman.
Naturally, we can recognise his great talent with famous works from his adult years such as Faust: Part One, The Sorrows of Young Werther and Egmont A Tragedy in Five Acts to name a few, but like Mozart, he had a unique gift that manifested at an early age. Goethe was passionate about history, languages and art, and I thought I would share a little known scribbling he wrote when about eight years old, the last colloquy from a set of three featuring a conversation with his father about the wax figurines he was shaping, imitating the great artists and their model-making:
“Father: What are you doing there, my son?
Son: Making wax figures.
Father: I thought so. Oh, when will you ever put nuts aside?” ('Nuts': Goethe was playing on a Latin pun with the word 'nuces', which means 'nuts' and 'childish play'.)
Son: Why, I'm not playing with nuts, I'm playing with wax.
Father: Ignoramus, can it be that you don't know the meaning of 'nuts' in this connection?
Son: Now I remember. But see how well I have learned in a short time to model wax.
Father: To spoil wax, you mean.
Son: I beg your pardon. Am I not creating rather clever things?
Father: Yes indeed. Show me some of your malformations.
Son: Among other animals I have made, with special success, a cat with a long moustache, and a city mouse and a field mouse to illustrate one of Horace's satires, (i.e., an ancient Roman satirist), translated by Drollinger into pure German doggerel.
Father: I like this reminiscence better than the beasts themselves. But have you made nothing else which shows your alleged art more advantageously?
Son: Yes, indeed, here is a whale, with mouth wide open as if to swallow us, and two chamois, which Emperor Maximilian was so found of hunting that he is said to have been unable to find his way out of the declivitous rocks till an angel in human form showed him the path.
Father: Why, you apply your scraps of history so aptly that one must pardon your misshapen figures. And is that all?
Son: By no means; for all my models the ones to be especially admired are: the crocodile shedding false tears, the monstrous war elephant of the ancients, the lizard, friend of man, the croaking frog announcing spring, all of which lack nothing but life.
Father: Nonsense! Who would be able to recognise them without the labels?
Son: Alas! Is not every man the best interpreter of his own works?
Father: This statement is quite true, but not apropos.
Son: Pardon my ignorance and deign to look at this sleighing party. There are just a dozen in it, all different, partly creeping and partly flying creatures, of which the swan, the stag, the walrus, and the dragon seem to be the most natural.
Father: You may think so, if you like, but it is perfectly apparent that you make no real distinction between beautiful and ugly.
Son: Dear father, will you be so kind as to teach me the difference?
Father: Certainly, but everything in season. Your power of observation must first be more mature.
Son: Oh fiddlesticks! Why will you postpone it? Tell me about it today rather than tomorrow and I will listen to you while I play.
Father: I have already said it cannot be done now—some other time. Put aside your childish nonsense now and go to your work.
Son: I will. Good bye.”
(From “The Life Of Goethe: Albert Bielschowsky)
Amazing when you think an eight year old wrote this piece on aesthetics ~ Playdoh time rendered into a miniature work of art!
E.A. Bucchianeri
Naturally, we can recognise his great talent with famous works from his adult years such as Faust: Part One, The Sorrows of Young Werther and Egmont A Tragedy in Five Acts to name a few, but like Mozart, he had a unique gift that manifested at an early age. Goethe was passionate about history, languages and art, and I thought I would share a little known scribbling he wrote when about eight years old, the last colloquy from a set of three featuring a conversation with his father about the wax figurines he was shaping, imitating the great artists and their model-making:
“Father: What are you doing there, my son?
Son: Making wax figures.
Father: I thought so. Oh, when will you ever put nuts aside?” ('Nuts': Goethe was playing on a Latin pun with the word 'nuces', which means 'nuts' and 'childish play'.)
Son: Why, I'm not playing with nuts, I'm playing with wax.
Father: Ignoramus, can it be that you don't know the meaning of 'nuts' in this connection?
Son: Now I remember. But see how well I have learned in a short time to model wax.
Father: To spoil wax, you mean.
Son: I beg your pardon. Am I not creating rather clever things?
Father: Yes indeed. Show me some of your malformations.
Son: Among other animals I have made, with special success, a cat with a long moustache, and a city mouse and a field mouse to illustrate one of Horace's satires, (i.e., an ancient Roman satirist), translated by Drollinger into pure German doggerel.
Father: I like this reminiscence better than the beasts themselves. But have you made nothing else which shows your alleged art more advantageously?
Son: Yes, indeed, here is a whale, with mouth wide open as if to swallow us, and two chamois, which Emperor Maximilian was so found of hunting that he is said to have been unable to find his way out of the declivitous rocks till an angel in human form showed him the path.
Father: Why, you apply your scraps of history so aptly that one must pardon your misshapen figures. And is that all?
Son: By no means; for all my models the ones to be especially admired are: the crocodile shedding false tears, the monstrous war elephant of the ancients, the lizard, friend of man, the croaking frog announcing spring, all of which lack nothing but life.
Father: Nonsense! Who would be able to recognise them without the labels?
Son: Alas! Is not every man the best interpreter of his own works?
Father: This statement is quite true, but not apropos.
Son: Pardon my ignorance and deign to look at this sleighing party. There are just a dozen in it, all different, partly creeping and partly flying creatures, of which the swan, the stag, the walrus, and the dragon seem to be the most natural.
Father: You may think so, if you like, but it is perfectly apparent that you make no real distinction between beautiful and ugly.
Son: Dear father, will you be so kind as to teach me the difference?
Father: Certainly, but everything in season. Your power of observation must first be more mature.
Son: Oh fiddlesticks! Why will you postpone it? Tell me about it today rather than tomorrow and I will listen to you while I play.
Father: I have already said it cannot be done now—some other time. Put aside your childish nonsense now and go to your work.
Son: I will. Good bye.”
(From “The Life Of Goethe: Albert Bielschowsky)
Amazing when you think an eight year old wrote this piece on aesthetics ~ Playdoh time rendered into a miniature work of art!
E.A. Bucchianeri
Books, Babble and Blarney
Whatever strikes my fancy on any given day gets posted for posterity and your critical analysis, and who knows, maybe your reading pleasure. We can but hope! Your comments be they good bad or indiffer...more
- E.A. Bucchianeri's profile
- 9 fans
