Hi Beth! What a thoughtful email offering, thank you! It’s been sooo long! Hope you are well and thriving, and still writing/reading your wonderful poetry. Much love and happy holidays! XxO
Sarah! How are you???? I’ve thought of you from time to time and wasn’t sure how to reach you. So glad this found you! Writing a lot, not mostly not poetry rn. Working on the thriving part! 😆 Sending lots of love to you! xoxo
TIL Joni did blackface. My trust in her is pretty unshakable. Things that were widely understood in the black community until recently were not widely known or understood. She could fown it pass Monk, but if didn't know, why would she.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I suppose she did blackface and drag simultaneously, actually. It's hard to mistrust her intentions or her following of inspiration. She owns it, for sure, but to my thinking, she's never fully been accountable for it.
Wow, the Brooks quote makes me think of the recent conversation we had about language. Specifically, "A word does not start as a word—it is an end product which begins as an impulse, stimulated by attitude and behaviour which dictate the need for expression." I assume that Brooks is talking about the origin of any given word; and I believe that it also applies to to any instance in which the word is then repeated; each time the someone chooses to use the word, that choice also starts with impulse, attitude, behaviour. To me, this is, in a nutshell, why it is impossible - no matter how talented they may be - for any writer or speaker to ensure that their intended message will not be misconstrued, or even spun 180. Becuase as true as it is about the creation of words, it is also true about the interpretation of the words, in the context of not only the message in which they are used, but in the impulse, attitude, behaviour of anyone who hears the words. They, once again, recreate the words internally, as a way of interpreting what they have heard/read. There's no way for a speaker or writer (or any any type of artist, in any medium) to safeguard their message from recreations that desecrate their intended meaning.
This quote re-appeared to me at a time when I was already wrestling with this huge question.
And yes, it is definitely all related in my mind to our recent group conversation. These are ongoing questions for me.
What you say here is what I'm wrestling with all the time now: "To me, this is, in a nutshell, why it is impossible - no matter how talented they may be - for any writer or speaker to ensure that their intended message will not be misconstrued, or even spun 180. Becuase as true as it is about the creation of words, it is also true about the interpretation of the words, in the context of not only the message in which they are used, but in the impulse, attitude, behaviour of anyone who hears the words. They, once again, recreate the words internally, as a way of interpreting what they have heard/read. There's no way for a speaker or writer (or any any type of artist, in any medium) to safeguard their message from recreations that desecrate their intended meaning."
I want to say that the language of things works pretty well for most of us most of the time (ergo materialism?). It's the language of ideas and thoughts and feelings about things where I think meaning is so easily lost. I am exploring the possibility that this is because we now have open-context conversations in most settings. This is amplified in online interactions. Whereas only certain people in certain bodies used language publicly or in conversation to dissect and parse certain ideas or aspects of life or their thoughts or anything non-material for much of human existence, that is no longer the case. So where once a point of view—even a shared perspective— could have been assumed, it no longer can. Or it can to somebody's peril - the reader's or the writer's or the speaker's. Or everyone's peril.
These linguistic questions are large in my thought process rn. They are why I am trusting stories, which can become embodied, more than I am trusting isoldated statements or conversations. I'm also exploring the question and role of embodied storytelling in shared language.
Thank you, Laura, for reading and commenting and subscribing!
You present some very interesting questions. I don't have the answers yet - but I'm certainly going to think about it. On the Cannoli front... I was fortunate in that my father was Sicilian. There were Cannolis for everyone! I really want one now.
I'm most interested in the questions. Asking them can only bring things to light that we weren't seeing. There's a cafe in Berlin with the best sfogliatelle and cannolo! The sfogliatelle is homemade by a woman from Naples. Pasta Sisters has pretty good sfogilatelle, but I don't know where to get a great cannoli. <3
I know! I should post a recipe link, too. Well, there is a lot being generated, though it slowed down during the first year+ of the pandemic. Sometimes I feel like the pandeimic turned us all into those humans in Wall-E. :/
Got Damn!
Hi Beth! What a thoughtful email offering, thank you! It’s been sooo long! Hope you are well and thriving, and still writing/reading your wonderful poetry. Much love and happy holidays! XxO
Sarah! How are you???? I’ve thought of you from time to time and wasn’t sure how to reach you. So glad this found you! Writing a lot, not mostly not poetry rn. Working on the thriving part! 😆 Sending lots of love to you! xoxo
TIL Joni did blackface. My trust in her is pretty unshakable. Things that were widely understood in the black community until recently were not widely known or understood. She could fown it pass Monk, but if didn't know, why would she.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I suppose she did blackface and drag simultaneously, actually. It's hard to mistrust her intentions or her following of inspiration. She owns it, for sure, but to my thinking, she's never fully been accountable for it.
Wow, the Brooks quote makes me think of the recent conversation we had about language. Specifically, "A word does not start as a word—it is an end product which begins as an impulse, stimulated by attitude and behaviour which dictate the need for expression." I assume that Brooks is talking about the origin of any given word; and I believe that it also applies to to any instance in which the word is then repeated; each time the someone chooses to use the word, that choice also starts with impulse, attitude, behaviour. To me, this is, in a nutshell, why it is impossible - no matter how talented they may be - for any writer or speaker to ensure that their intended message will not be misconstrued, or even spun 180. Becuase as true as it is about the creation of words, it is also true about the interpretation of the words, in the context of not only the message in which they are used, but in the impulse, attitude, behaviour of anyone who hears the words. They, once again, recreate the words internally, as a way of interpreting what they have heard/read. There's no way for a speaker or writer (or any any type of artist, in any medium) to safeguard their message from recreations that desecrate their intended meaning.
Yes! :)
This quote re-appeared to me at a time when I was already wrestling with this huge question.
And yes, it is definitely all related in my mind to our recent group conversation. These are ongoing questions for me.
What you say here is what I'm wrestling with all the time now: "To me, this is, in a nutshell, why it is impossible - no matter how talented they may be - for any writer or speaker to ensure that their intended message will not be misconstrued, or even spun 180. Becuase as true as it is about the creation of words, it is also true about the interpretation of the words, in the context of not only the message in which they are used, but in the impulse, attitude, behaviour of anyone who hears the words. They, once again, recreate the words internally, as a way of interpreting what they have heard/read. There's no way for a speaker or writer (or any any type of artist, in any medium) to safeguard their message from recreations that desecrate their intended meaning."
I want to say that the language of things works pretty well for most of us most of the time (ergo materialism?). It's the language of ideas and thoughts and feelings about things where I think meaning is so easily lost. I am exploring the possibility that this is because we now have open-context conversations in most settings. This is amplified in online interactions. Whereas only certain people in certain bodies used language publicly or in conversation to dissect and parse certain ideas or aspects of life or their thoughts or anything non-material for much of human existence, that is no longer the case. So where once a point of view—even a shared perspective— could have been assumed, it no longer can. Or it can to somebody's peril - the reader's or the writer's or the speaker's. Or everyone's peril.
These linguistic questions are large in my thought process rn. They are why I am trusting stories, which can become embodied, more than I am trusting isoldated statements or conversations. I'm also exploring the question and role of embodied storytelling in shared language.
Thank you, Laura, for reading and commenting and subscribing!
I love, love, love what you are writing! (Don't have words this morning, but will say many adoring things later, when my brain wakes up.)
Thank you, L! I totally get the not having words yet concept. :)
You present some very interesting questions. I don't have the answers yet - but I'm certainly going to think about it. On the Cannoli front... I was fortunate in that my father was Sicilian. There were Cannolis for everyone! I really want one now.
I'm most interested in the questions. Asking them can only bring things to light that we weren't seeing. There's a cafe in Berlin with the best sfogliatelle and cannolo! The sfogliatelle is homemade by a woman from Naples. Pasta Sisters has pretty good sfogilatelle, but I don't know where to get a great cannoli. <3
I know! I should post a recipe link, too. Well, there is a lot being generated, though it slowed down during the first year+ of the pandemic. Sometimes I feel like the pandeimic turned us all into those humans in Wall-E. :/