I do, intuitively, a lot of stuff he talks about: for example, I vary the length of my sentences, and I craft myOne of the best books on writing ever.
I do, intuitively, a lot of stuff he talks about: for example, I vary the length of my sentences, and I craft my long ones as a series of short sentences, separated by commas and dashes. I try to write texts which can be read aloud and sound natural (although I know writing is not natural - a point Klinkenborg makes too). I revise while reading aloud, too. I also believe the only honest form of writing is witnessing - writing what you notice and what you think.
But a lot of stuff he talks about is really new for me. And runs contrary to what I've been trying to do lately - that is, to create the habit of writing daily, thinking while scribbling row after row in a notebook. He says good writing is done, first of all, in the head (I remember Rousseau wrote like that - polishing a paragraph for hours in his head, and only afterwards writing it, with a minimum of revision on paper - and I think a lot of classics wrote that way too). You create a sentence about what interests you - try to make it as good as possible, and then write it. And then think about the next sentence - the sentence the previous one makes possible. This seems to be the approach he recommends.
I tried, lately, to do the opposite. Write, and only then look closely at what I have written. And revise. But, anyway, he also says that research (which includes note-taking) is a different process than writing. And revision is indispensable anyway. I'll try to write 'his way' and see what changes.
Anyway, I'm ranting now. The book is beautifully written and as clear and vivid as it can get, the sentences are cut as verse - in order to emphasize his points about rhythm - and the feeling I had about the text is that of a personal letter written by a highly intelligent friend....more
Gurwitsch argues that, at every moment, at least 2 of these coherent sets of phenomena are marginally present for the consciousness, regardless of itsGurwitsch argues that, at every moment, at least 2 of these coherent sets of phenomena are marginally present for the consciousness, regardless of its explicit theme:
1. the 'stream of consciousness' - its acts. 2. bodily feelings - sensations, breathing, etc. 3. the perceived world.
If one takes as a theme an atemporal object - a mathematical formula, for example - all three are present in the background; we are aware of them without explicitly focusing on them. But if one takes an aspect belonging to either of these three, the other two are co-present with it. Especially the body and the world are present as a persistent background for the life of consciousness. Gurwitch doesn't delve to deep in the relationship between all of them (just between the embodied ego and the perceptual world), especially as the text is just a first draft of a chapter he planned to include in another work, but, anyway, it is a pretty insightful piece of constitutive phenomenology....more
one of the best novels i've ever read. masterfully written - the lexical choices are wonderful, the tone, the way he plays with first person plural andone of the best novels i've ever read. masterfully written - the lexical choices are wonderful, the tone, the way he plays with first person plural and second person singular, the change from a very affective tone to a neutral one - i wish i could write like that. for me, the thread of the whole novel was Ivan Denisovich's craving for a few minutes of doing nothing - of being by himself, without being involved in someone else's projects, without having to do anything. and his appreciation of these moments. i kept highlighting these passages on my kindle, maybe i'll write an article some day about the phenomenology of time experience in solzhenitsyn....more