Isn`t the opus enough? - On being a wordsmith...

Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

PostFri Dec 17, 2010 3:24 pm » by Tertiusgaudens

There are two unfoldings which connect people.

Love and hate.

The opposite of love is never hate but ignorance.

For this reason it might be true: ignorance is bliss.

Love and hate come from the same source: movement and passion.

Both are expressions of moving forces but go different directions.

Even in Rev 3:16 this rememberence is still vivid: So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth...

Each creativity is born of love and hate.

And love and hate do mostly come around together, hand in hand...

Heaven and hell all together, snake pit and house of the rising sun, ecstacy and groundless pain..

Every wordsmith is coming from this. Every art emanates from it. Every writer needs the words to cry and to escape.

Against silence and noise I invent the word, said Octavio Paz.

This is the deepest reason such art can be a social glue: it rises from the unsolvable conflict of having love and hate always together, of sweetness and pain, of hope and desparation.

Every art emanation is thus able to heal and speaks of the conflict, giving it expression, helping to deal with it.

Yes, this could be happen. As social glue it could be connecting - from people and tribes to subjects and mentalities.

We experience the opposite. Even art is part of a program which I call atomozation - all members and parts of a society fall into pieces, all sciences fall into highly specialized subscience departments, and nobody is able to be a real Jack of all trades. We see an army of highly specializesd nerds and one - track idiots.

We see also a rising of mental stupidity. It has become more amd more common using more and more secondary literature - seldom a student is focussing on a special work - say for instance Shakespeare - alone but uses sources about it.

And here is a reason we are more interested in the life of an writer than in his work.

Actually the opus of someone should be enough getting the flow of his intention. But we scrabble in the life of the author instead of focussing on the opus alone. And so do we in other sections of art too.

In a thread about Charles Bukowski yesterday we saw at one hand his admired work, at the other hand his fucked up life and disgusting behaviour once in a while. And many thus had complaints.

But had Bukowski any chance of being outside of his life circle? Had he different abilities than doing what he could do from his soul - being a wordsmith? Has the wordsmith in general any chance not being a wordsmith?

I pledge for gentle reluctance when looking at an opus and going into an relationship with it without using preliminary secondary sources. I pledge for understanding the real deep backround of all that is happening: the strange connection of love and hate sometimes bringing people being a wordsmith and sometimes making people mad thus stealing their words and making them build bombs and killing devices...
Hope is the thing with feathers...
Emily Dickinson

  • Related topics
    Last post