Walter Benjamin’s 13 Oracular Writing Tips

benjamin writing tips

Image by Wal­ter Ben­jamin Archiv, via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

The prob­a­bil­i­ty of Wal­ter Ben­jamin’s name com­ing up in your aver­age MFA work­shop, or fic­tion writ­ers’ group of any kind, like­ly approach­es zero. But head over to a name-your-crit­i­cal-polit­i­cal-lit­er­ary-the­o­ry class and I’d be sur­prised not to hear it dropped at least once, if not half a dozen times. Ben­jamin, after all, men­tored or befriend­ed the first gen­er­a­tion Frank­furt School, Han­nah Arendt, Bertolt Brecht, Leo Strauss, and near­ly every oth­er twen­ti­eth-cen­tu­ry Ger­man intel­lec­tu­al who escaped the Nazis. Trag­i­cal­ly, Ben­jamin him­self did not fare so well. It has long been believed that he killed him­self rather than face Nazi cap­ture. Anoth­er the­o­ry spec­u­lates that Stal­in had him mur­dered.

Since his death, the leg­end of Ben­jamin as a kind of het­ero­dox Marx­ist prophet—an image he fos­tered with his embrace of Jew­ish mysticism—has grown and grown. And yet, despite his rar­i­fied aca­d­e­m­ic pedi­gree, I main­tain that writ­ers of all kinds, from the most pedan­tic to the most vis­cer­al, can learn much from him.

Ben­jamin did not strict­ly con­fine him­self to the arcane tex­tu­al analy­sis and lit­er­ary-the­o­log­i­cal hermeneu­tics for which he’s best known; he spent most of his career work­ing as a free­lance crit­ic and jour­nal­ist, writ­ing almost casu­al trav­el­ogues, per­son­al rem­i­nis­cences of Weimar Berlin, and approach­able essays on a vari­ety of sub­jects. For a few years, he even wrote and pre­sent­ed pop­u­lar radio broad­casts for young adults—acting as a kind of “Ger­man Ira Glass for teens.”

And, like so many writ­ers before and since, Ben­jamin once issued a list of “writer’s tips”—or, as he called it, “The Writer’s Tech­nique in Thir­teen The­ses,” part of his 1928 trea­tise One-Way Street, one of only two books pub­lished in his life­time. In Ben­jam­in’s hands, that well-worn, well mean­ing, but often less than help­ful genre becomes a series of orac­u­lar pro­nounce­ments that can seem, at first read, com­i­cal, super­sti­tious, or puz­zling­ly idio­syn­crat­ic. But read them over a few times. Then read them again. Like all of his writ­ing, Ben­jam­in’s sug­ges­tions, some of which read like com­mand­ments, oth­ers like Niet­zschean apho­risms, reveal their mean­ings slow­ly, illu­mi­nat­ing the pos­tures, atti­tudes, and phys­i­cal and spir­i­tu­al dis­ci­plines of writ­ing in sur­pris­ing­ly humane and astute ways.

The Writer’s Tech­nique in Thir­teen The­ses:

  1. Any­one intend­ing to embark on a major work should be lenient with him­self and, hav­ing com­plet­ed a stint, deny him­self noth­ing that will not prej­u­dice the next.
  2. Talk about what you have writ­ten, by all means, but do not read from it while the work is in progress. Every grat­i­fi­ca­tion pro­cured in this way will slack­en your tem­po. If this regime is fol­lowed, the grow­ing desire to com­mu­ni­cate will become in the end a motor for com­ple­tion.
  3. In your work­ing con­di­tions avoid every­day medi­oc­rity. Semi-relax­ation, to a back­ground of insipid sounds, is degrad­ing. On the oth­er hand, accom­pa­ni­ment by an etude or a cacoph­o­ny of voic­es can become as sig­nif­i­cant for work as the per­cep­ti­ble silence of the night. If the lat­ter sharp­ens the inner ear, the for­mer acts as a touch­stone for a dic­tion ample enough to bury even the most way­ward sounds.
  4. Avoid hap­haz­ard writ­ing mate­ri­als. A pedan­tic adher­ence to cer­tain papers, pens, inks is ben­e­fi­cial. No lux­u­ry, but an abun­dance of these uten­sils is indis­pens­able.
  5. Let no thought pass incog­ni­to, and keep your note­book as strict­ly as the author­i­ties keep their reg­is­ter of aliens.
  6. Keep your pen aloof from inspi­ra­tion, which it will then attract with mag­net­ic pow­er. The more cir­cum­spect­ly you delay writ­ing down an idea, the more mature­ly devel­oped it will be on sur­ren­der­ing itself. Speech con­quers thought, but writ­ing com­mands it.
  7. Nev­er stop writ­ing because you have run out of ideas. Lit­er­ary hon­our requires that one break off only at an appoint­ed moment (a meal­time, a meet­ing) or at the end of the work.
  8. Fill the lacu­nae of inspi­ra­tion by tidi­ly copy­ing out what is already writ­ten. Intu­ition will awak­en in the process.
  9. Nul­la dies sine lin­ea [‘No day with­out a line’] — but there may well be weeks.
  10. Con­sid­er no work per­fect over which you have not once sat from evening to broad day­light.
  11. Do not write the con­clu­sion of a work in your famil­iar study. You would not find the nec­es­sary courage there.
  12. Stages of com­po­si­tion: idea — style — writ­ing. The val­ue of the fair copy is that in pro­duc­ing it you con­fine atten­tion to cal­lig­ra­phy. The idea kills inspi­ra­tion, style fet­ters the idea, writ­ing pays off style.
  13. The work is the death mask of its con­cep­tion.

via Clar­i­on 18/Brain­Pick­ings

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Wal­ter Benjamin’s Radio Plays for Kids (1929–1932)

Umber­to Eco Dies at 84; Leaves Behind Advice to Aspir­ing Writ­ers

David Ogilvy’s 1982 Memo “How to Write” Offers 10 Pieces of Time­less Advice

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Hear Harold Bloom Read From Three Sublime American Authors: Herman Melville, Emily Dickinson & Hart Crane

Before Shake­speare, lit­er­ary char­ac­ters most­ly remained sta­t­ic, rep­re­sent­ing types rather than psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly real human beings. At least accord­ing to crit­ic and Yale aca­d­e­m­ic Harold Bloom, who pub­lished a gar­gan­tu­an book—Shake­speare: The Inven­tion of the Human—to prove that “in Shake­speare, char­ac­ters devel­op rather than unfold, and they devel­op because they recon­ceive them­selves.” Shake­speare, in oth­er words, invent­ed psy­cho­log­i­cal real­ism: that dynamism of char­ac­ter we rec­og­nize as one of the hall­marks of lit­er­a­ture. Great books give us fic­tion­al peo­ple we believe in, suf­fer with, feel we know inti­mate­ly when we’ve lived long with their sto­ries.

For Bloom, Shake­speare’s char­ac­ters often change because “they over­hear them­selves talk­ing, whether to them­selves or to oth­ers. Self-over­hear­ing is their roy­al road to indi­vid­u­al­ism.” When we look for­ward a cou­ple hun­dred years, we find Her­man Melville reach­ing for Shake­speare­an heights of tragedy and bom­bast in Moby Dick, his Ahab as out­sized and unfor­get­table a char­ac­ter as Lear, Mac­beth, or Richard II.

But does Ahab change? Per­haps only in that he grows more vehe­ment­ly sin­gle-mind­ed (and unsta­ble) as the nov­el pro­gress­es, though his pur­pose nev­er wavers from begin­ning to fate­ful end.

We can see Ahab’s inten­si­fi­ca­tion guid­ed by the self-over­hear­ing of his many crazed speeches—to his crew, him­self, the whale, no one in par­tic­u­lar. In the speech Bloom reads at the top of the post, Ahab address­es the pure­ly elemental—St. Elmo’s fire—in Chap­ter 119, “The Can­dles,” assert­ing his self­hood against the sub­lime indif­fer­ence of nature. “In the midst of the per­son­i­fied imper­son­al,” Ahab shouts at the lumi­nous phe­nom­e­non, “a per­son­al­i­ty stands here.” In his crit­i­cal book on Melville, Bloom inter­prets this speech as a Gnos­tic ser­mon, but we can just as well see it as a man­i­fest refin­ing of Ahab’s con­scious sense of him­self as an avatar of vengeance, ani­mat­ed against the world, though it seems not to rec­og­nize in him or any­one else the spe­cial­ness of per­son­al­i­ty and its many lists of griev­ances.

The Melville read­ing, and the two above—from Hart Crane’s The Bridge and Emi­ly Dick­in­son’s “There’s a Cer­tain Slant of Light”—come to us from Ran­dom House, pub­lish­er of Bloom’s lat­est crit­i­cal opus, The Dae­mon Knows, a study, as his sub­ti­tle states, of “Lit­er­ary Great­ness and the Amer­i­can Sub­lime.” As in near­ly all of his pop­u­lar crit­i­cal books, in this most recent one, Bloom traces lit­er­ary genealo­gies. And while all three of these Amer­i­can greats dis­tant­ly descend from Shake­speare, “here,” writes Cyn­thia Ozick in her New York Times review, Bloom “invokes the pri­ma­cy of Emer­son as ger­mi­nat­ing ances­tor.”

Emer­son, writes Bloom, “is the foun­tain of the Amer­i­can will to know the self and its dri­ve for sub­lim­i­ty.” As Bloom has inter­pret­ed the West­ern Canon for over half a century—serving as its self-appoint­ed spokesman time and again—the great dri­ve of lit­er­a­ture since the Renais­sance accords with the ancient com­mand to know thy­self… or, fail­ing that, invent thy­self.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Harold Bloom Cre­ates a Mas­sive List of Works in The “West­ern Canon”: Read Many of the Books Free Online

Harold Bloom Recites ‘Tea at the Palaz of Hoon’ by Wal­lace Stevens

Harold Bloom on the Ghast­ly Decline of the Human­i­ties (and on Obama’s Poet­ry)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Californium: New Video Game Lets You Experience the Surreal World of Philip K. Dick

Did Philip K. Dick fore­see the future, or did he help invent it? While many of his visions belong more to the realm of the para­nor­mal than the sci­ence-fic­tion­al, it’s cer­tain­ly the case that the world we inhab­it increas­ing­ly resem­bles a pas­tiche of Dick­’s hyper­re­al, post­mod­ern tech­no-dystopias.

Dick wrote about how the shiny, pop-art sur­faces of moder­ni­ty con­ceal worlds with­in worlds, none of them more—or less—real than any oth­er, and it’s easy to imag­ine why his char­ac­ters come unhinged when con­front­ed with one vir­tu­al trap­door after anoth­er, their sense of self and object per­ma­nence dis­in­te­grat­ing. But for Dick, this expe­ri­ence was not sim­ply a fic­tion­al device, but a part of his lived psy­cho­log­i­cal real­i­ty: from his drug use, to his many failed mar­riages, to his para­noid anti-author­i­tar­i­an­ism, to his life-alter­ing mys­ti­cal encounter….

And now, thanks to the very Dick­ian phe­nom­e­non of first-per­son com­put­er games, you too can expe­ri­ence the hal­lu­ci­na­to­ry life of a down-and-out sci-fi scribe in 1960s Berke­ley whose mind gets invad­ed by an alien intel­li­gence. The new game, Cal­i­forni­um—devel­oped by Dar­jeel­ing and Nova Productions—puts you inside the world of writer Elvin Green, whose life, writes Moth­er­board, “is an amal­gam of real ele­ments from Dick­’s life… and numer­ous events and themes that run through his work.”

For legal rea­sons, the devel­op­ers could not use Dick­’s name nor the titles of his nov­els, but “nev­er­the­less,” the game “is shap­ing up to be one of the most fit­ting trib­utes to the 20th cen­tu­ry’s infa­mous tech­no-prophet.” At the top of the post, watch a trail­er for the game, and just above, Youtu­ber Many a True Nerd walks through a com­pre­hen­sive tour of the game’s archi­tec­ture, with some live­ly com­men­tary. If you’re con­vinced you’d like to spend some time in this col­or­ful­ly addled alter­nate dimen­sion, head on over to the game’s web­site to down­load it for your­self.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Philip K. Dick Takes You Inside His Life-Chang­ing Mys­ti­cal Expe­ri­ence

Hear 6 Clas­sic Philip K. Dick Sto­ries Adapt­ed as Vin­tage Radio Plays

Philip K. Dick Makes Off-the-Wall Pre­dic­tions for the Future: Mars Colonies, Alien Virus­es & More (1981)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Paul Giamatti Plays Honoré de Balzac, Hopped Up on 50 Coffees Per Day

It’s the stuff of leg­end. Hon­oré de Balzac cranked out 50+ nov­els in 20 years and died at 51. The cause? Too much work and caf­feine. How much cof­fee? Up to 50 cups per day, they say.

Whether true or not, it’s fun to imag­ine what that scene might have looked like. Enter Paul Gia­mat­ti, known for his roles in Side­ways, Amer­i­can Splen­dor and John Adams, who gives us his com­ic take. This new short film comes from The New York­er, which has just released the first sea­son of The New York­er Presents on Ama­zon.

For more on Balza­c’s cof­fee habit, see the first two items in the Relat­eds below.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hon­oré de Balzac Writes About “The Plea­sures and Pains of Cof­fee,” and His Epic Cof­fee Addic­tion

The Cof­fee Pot That Fueled Hon­oré de Balzac’s Cof­fee Addic­tion

Philoso­phers Drink­ing Cof­fee: The Exces­sive Habits of Kant, Voltaire & Kierkegaard

J.S. Bach’s Com­ic Opera, “The Cof­fee Can­ta­ta,” Sings the Prais­es of the Great Stim­u­lat­ing Drink (1735)

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

An Animated Introduction to Leo Tolstoy, and How His Great Novels Can Increase Your Emotional Intelligence

Despite our fond­est intu­itions and most cher­ished of cul­tur­al notions—manifested for decades in aspi­ra­tional “Great Books” cours­es and read­ing lists—there is no “com­pelling evi­dence,” wrote Uni­ver­si­ty of York pro­fes­sor of phi­los­o­phy Gre­go­ry Cur­rie at the New York Times in 2013, “that sug­gests that peo­ple are moral­ly or social­ly bet­ter for read­ing Tol­stoy.” Or any­thing else for that mat­ter.

On the con­trary, respond­ed Annie Mur­phy Paul at Time, “there is such evi­dence,” and she cites ear­li­er psy­chol­o­gy stud­ies that show a link between read­ing fic­tion and empa­thy. Lat­er that same year, social psy­chol­o­gists David Com­er Kidd and Emanuele Cas­tano pub­lished a study in Sci­ence titled “Read­ing Lit­er­ary Fic­tion Improves The­o­ry of Mind”—or, in oth­er words, improves empa­thy. The study is enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly picked up by Sci­en­tif­ic Amer­i­can, and picked apart by Slate. In short order, Neu­ro­science gets in the game, and there’s talk of chil­dren’s brains “light­ing up” like Christ­mas in response to Har­ry Pot­ter and oth­er books. The Guardian’s “Teacher Net­work” col­umn finds in this sci­ence con­fir­ma­tion for what edu­ca­tors already sus­pect­ed.

Like Cur­rie, Lee Siegel at The New York­er casts doubt on these sup­pos­ed­ly cel­e­bra­to­ry find­ings. Should we require that books prove their util­i­ty, that they make us “bet­ter” in the way that, say, dietary sup­ple­ments do? Is empa­thy real­ly a moral qual­i­ty, or sim­ply an abil­i­ty that allows the unscrupu­lous to bet­ter manip­u­late oth­ers?

This recent tem­pest of social sci­ence and skep­ti­cism notwith­stand­ing, nov­el­ists have long argued that their craft requires, and fos­ters, bet­ter under­stand­ing of oth­er people—or in the famous words of Kaf­ka, which Siegel quotes dis­mis­sive­ly, lit­er­a­ture is “an axe to break the frozen sea inside us.” Fore­most among such artists is Leo Tol­stoy, who—says Alain de Bot­ton in his School of Life video above—“was a believ­er in the nov­el not as a source of enter­tain­ment, but as a tool for psy­cho­log­i­cal edu­ca­tion and reform. It was in his eyes the supreme medi­um by which we can get to know others—especially those who, from the out­side, might seem unappealing—and there­by expand our human­i­ty and tol­er­ance.”

Were Tol­stoy a less­er writer, a the­o­ry like this might have pro­duced unread­ably didac­tic books unlike­ly to find much of an audi­ence. His great lit­er­ary skill makes his books engross­ing­ly enter­tain­ing despite these inten­tions. Nonethe­less, De Bot­ton shows us the ways in which nov­els like Anna Karen­i­na (find it in our col­lec­tion of Free eBooks and Free Audio Books) teach eth­i­cal con­cepts like “sym­pa­thy and for­give­ness.” And whether you read Tol­stoy express­ly to become a bet­ter per­son, or find per­son­al improve­ment a side-effect of read­ing Tol­stoy, I don’t think we need social sci­en­tif­ic argu­ments to read Tol­stoy. Indeed, though great nov­els may teach us many things we did not know about human com­plex­i­ty, their val­ue can reside as much in the ques­tions they ask—and that we ask of them—as in the sup­posed answers they pro­vide about human­i­ty.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Leo Tol­stoy Cre­ates a List of the 50+ Books That Influ­enced Him Most (1891)

Leo Tolstoy’s Masochis­tic Diary: I Am Guilty of “Sloth,” “Cow­ardice” & “Sissi­ness” (1851)

6 Polit­i­cal The­o­rists Intro­duced in Ani­mat­ed “School of Life” Videos: Marx, Smith, Rawls & More

Down­load 55 Free Online Lit­er­a­ture Cours­es: From Dante and Mil­ton to Ker­ouac and Tolkien

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

David Foster Wallace Reads Franz Kafka’s Short Story “A Little Fable” (and Explains Why Comedy Is Key to Kafka)

Just last night I was out with a nov­el­ist friend, one of whose books a review­er described as “the fun­ny ver­sion of Kaf­ka.” While he sure­ly appre­ci­at­ed the praise, my friend had an objec­tion: “But Kaf­ka is already com­e­dy!” Casu­al read­ers, many of whom haven’t set eyes on Franz Kaf­ka since col­lege, might car­ry with them a men­tal image of the ear­ly 20th-cen­tu­ry Aus­tria-Hun­gary-born writer as a crafts­man of pure bleak­ness: of frus­trat­ing­ly inac­ces­si­ble cas­tles, of per­se­cu­tion for unex­plained crimes, of hope­less bat­tles with bureau­cra­cy, of sales­men trans­formed into giant bugs. But Kaf­ka enthu­si­asts know well the humor from which all that springs, and their ranks have always con­tained quite a few oth­er nov­el­ists will­ing to point it out.

None of them have done it quite so elo­quent­ly as David Fos­ter Wal­lace, who deliv­ered a ten-minute speech on the sub­ject at the 1998 sym­po­sium “Meta­mor­pho­sis: A New Kaf­ka,” which lat­er appeared in print in Harp­er’s Mag­a­zine, where he act­ed as con­tribut­ing edi­tor. He begins, by way of illus­trat­ing Kafka’s com­e­dy, with the short­er-than-short 1920 sto­ry “A Lit­tle Fable”:

“Alas,” said the mouse, “the whole world is grow­ing small­er every day. At the begin­ning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept run­ning and run­ning, and I was glad when I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have nar­rowed so quick­ly that I am in the last cham­ber already, and there in the cor­ner stands the trap that I must run into.”

“You only need to change your direc­tion,” said the cat, and ate it up.

He also men­tions that he’d already giv­en up teach­ing the sto­ry in lit­er­a­ture class­es (one of whose syl­labi we’ve pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured), which leads him to explain the “sig­nal frus­tra­tion in try­ing to read Kaf­ka with col­lege stu­dents,” that “it is next to impos­si­ble to get them to see that Kaf­ka is fun­ny… nor to appre­ci­ate the way fun­ni­ness is bound up with the extra­or­di­nary pow­er of his sto­ries.” Part of the prob­lem aris­es from the fact that “Kafka’s humor has almost none of the par­tic­u­lar forms and codes of con­tem­po­rary U.S. amuse­ment,” espe­cial­ly to “chil­dren whom our cul­ture has trained to see jokes as enter­tain­ment and enter­tain­ment as reas­sur­ance.” So what kind of jokes can we find in Kafka’s sto­ries, if we know how to get them?

There­in, Wal­lace argues, lies anoth­er part of the prob­lem: “It’s not that stu­dents don’t ‘get’ Kafka’s humor but that we’ve taught them that humor is some­thing you get — the same way we’ve taught them that a self is some­thing you just have,” all of which gets in the way of per­ceiv­ing “the real­ly cen­tral Kaf­ka joke — that the hor­rif­ic strug­gle to estab­lish a human self results in a self whose human­i­ty is insep­a­ra­ble from that hor­rif­ic strug­gle.” Of course, as Wal­lace adds in one of his sig­na­ture foot­notes, since “most of us Amer­i­cans come to art essen­tial­ly to for­get our­selves — to pre­tend for a while that we’re not mice and all walls are par­al­lel and the cat can be out­run — it’s no acci­dent that we’re going to see ‘A Lit­tle Fable’ as not all that fun­ny.” But read enough Kaf­ka, prefer­ably out­side the walls of a class­room, and you’ll get a much more expan­sive sense of humor itself.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

David Fos­ter Wallace’s 1994 Syl­labus

Four Franz Kaf­ka Ani­ma­tions: Enjoy Cre­ative Ani­mat­ed Shorts from Poland, Japan, Rus­sia & Cana­da

Franz Kafka’s Kafkaesque Love Let­ters

Vladimir Nabokov Makes Edi­to­r­i­al Tweaks to Franz Kafka’s Novel­la The Meta­mor­pho­sis

Franz Kaf­ka Says the Insect in The Meta­mor­pho­sis Should Nev­er Be Drawn; Vladimir Nabokov Draws It Any­way

Franz Kafka’s It’s a Won­der­ful Life: The Oscar-Win­ning Film About Kaf­ka Writ­ing The Meta­mor­pho­sis

The Art of Franz Kaf­ka: Draw­ings from 1907–1917

The Ani­mat­ed Franz Kaf­ka Rock Opera

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Celebrate Valentine’s Day with a Charming Stop Motion Animation of an E.E. Cummings’ Love Poem

Valentine’s Day draws nigh, and we can only assume our read­ers are des­per­ate­ly won­der­ing how to declaim love poet­ry with­out look­ing like a total prat.

Set it to music?

Go for it, but let’s not for­get the fate of that soul­ful young fel­low on the stairs of Ani­mal House when his sweet airs fell upon the ears of John Belushi.

Sarah Huff, a young and relent­less­ly crafty blog­ger, hit upon a much bet­ter solu­tion when ani­mat­ing E.E. Cum­mings’ 1952 poem [i car­ry your heart with me(i car­ry it in] for an Amer­i­can Lit­er­a­ture class’ final project at Sin­clair Com­mu­ni­ty Col­lege.

Her con­struc­tion paper cutouts are charm­ing, but what real­ly makes her ren­der­ing sing is the way she takes the pres­sure off by set­ting it to an entire­ly dif­fer­ent love song. (Echoes of Cum­mings’ goat-foot­ed bal­loon man in Ter­ra Schnei­der’s Bal­loon (a.k.a. The Begin­ning)?)

Released from the poten­tial per­ils of a too sonorous inter­pre­ta­tion, the poet’s lines gam­bol play­ful­ly through­out the pro­ceed­ings, spelled out in util­i­tar­i­an alpha­bet stick­ers.

It’s pret­ty pud­dle-won­der­ful.

Watch it with your Valen­tine, and leave the read aloud to the punc­tu­a­tion-averse Cum­mings, below.

[i car­ry your heart with me(i car­ry it in]

i car­ry your heart with me(i car­ry it in

my heart)i am nev­er with­out it(anywhere

i go you go,my dear;and what­ev­er is done

by only me is your doing,my dar­ling)

                                                      i fear

no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)i want

no world(for beau­ti­ful you are my world,my true)

and it’s you are what­ev­er a moon has always meant

and what­ev­er a sun will always sing is you

here is the deep­est secret nobody knows

(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud

and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;which grows

high­er than soul can hope or mind can hide)

and this is the won­der that’s keep­ing the stars apart

i car­ry your heart(i car­ry it in my heart

Relat­ed Con­tent:

E.E. Cum­mings Recites ‘Any­one Lived in a Pret­ty How Town,’ 1953

Famous Writ­ers’ Report Cards: Ernest Hem­ing­way, William Faulkn­er, Nor­man Mail­er, E.E. Cum­mings & Anne Sex­ton

The Mys­ti­cal Poet­ry of Rumi Read By Til­da Swin­ton, Madon­na, Robert Bly & Cole­man Barks

Hear Gabriel García Márquez’s Extraordinary Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, “The Solitude Of Latin America,” in English & Spanish (1982)

From the very begin­ning of Europe’s incur­sions into the so-called New World, the ecol­o­gy, the peo­ple, and the civ­i­liza­tions of the Amer­i­c­as became trans­mut­ed into leg­end and fan­ta­sy. Ear­ly explor­ers imag­ined the land­scape they encoun­tered as filled with marvels—creatures that arose from their own uncon­scious and from a lit­er­ary his­to­ry of exot­ic myths dat­ing back to antiq­ui­ty. And as the native peo­ple assumed the char­ac­ter of giants and mon­sters, sav­ages and demons in trav­el accounts, their cities became repos­i­to­ries of unimag­in­able wealth, ripe for the tak­ing.

Fore­most among these leg­ends was the city of El Dora­do. Sought by the Span­ish, Ital­ians, and Por­tuguese through­out the 15th and 16th cen­turies and by Wal­ter Raleigh in the 17th, “El Dora­do,” says folk­lorist Jim Grif­fith, “shift­ed geo­graph­i­cal loca­tions until final­ly it sim­ply meant a source of untold rich­es some­where in the Amer­i­c­as.” A cou­ple hun­dred years after Raleigh’s last ill-fat­ed expe­di­tion, Edgar Allan Poe sug­gest­ed the loca­tion of this city: “Over the Moun­tains of the Moon, down the Val­ley of the Shad­ow, ride, bold­ly ride… if you seek for El Dora­do.”

These colo­nial encoun­ters, and the fever­ish accounts they pro­duced, “con­tained the seeds,” says Gabriel Gar­cía Márquez in his 1982 Nobel Prize accep­tance speech, “of our present-day nov­els.” El Dora­do, “our so avid­ly sought and illu­so­ry land,” remained on imag­i­nary maps of explor­ers well past the age of explo­ration: “As late as the last cen­tu­ry, a Ger­man mis­sion appoint­ed to study the con­struc­tion of an inte­ro­cean­ic rail­road… con­clud­ed that the project was fea­si­ble” only if the rails were made of gold.

As Márquez’s work has often recount­ed, espe­cial­ly his epic One Hun­dred Years of Soli­tude, oth­er com­modi­ties suf­ficed when the gold didn’t mate­ri­al­ize, and the strug­gle between con­querors, adven­tur­ers, mer­ce­nar­ies, dic­ta­tors, and oppor­tunists on the one hand, and peo­ple fierce­ly deter­mined to sur­vive on the oth­er has made “Latin Amer­i­ca… a bound­less realm of haunt­ed men and his­toric women, whose unend­ing obsti­na­cy blurs into leg­end. We have not had a moment’s rest.”

Márquez’s speech, “The Soli­tude of Latin Amer­i­ca,” weaves togeth­er the region’s found­ing his­to­ry, its lit­er­a­ture, and its bloody civ­il wars, mil­i­tary coups, and “the first Latin Amer­i­can eth­no­cide of our time” into an accu­mu­lat­ing account of “immea­sur­able vio­lence and pain,” the result of “age-old inequities and untold bit­ter­ness… oppres­sion, plun­der­ing and aban­don­ment.” To this cat­a­logue, “we respond with life,” says Márquez, while “the most pros­per­ous coun­tries have suc­ceed­ed in accu­mu­lat­ing pow­ers of destruc­tion such as to anni­hi­late, a hun­dred times over… the total­i­ty of all liv­ing beings that have ever drawn breath on this plan­et of mis­for­tune.”

From the utopi­an dream of cities of gold and end­less wealth, we arrive at a dystopi­an world bent on destroy­ing itself. And yet,“faced with this awe­some real­i­ty,” Márquez refus­es to despair. He quotes from his lit­er­ary hero William Faulkner’s Nobel speech—“I decline to accept the end of man”—then artic­u­lates anoth­er vision:

We, the inven­tors of tales, who will believe any­thing, feel enti­tled to believe that it is not yet too late to engage in the cre­ation of the oppo­site utopia. A new and sweep­ing utopia of life, where no one will be able to decide for oth­ers how they die, where love will prove true and hap­pi­ness be pos­si­ble, and where the races con­demned to one hun­dred years of soli­tude will have, at last and for­ev­er, a sec­ond oppor­tu­ni­ty on earth.

You can hear all of Márquez’s extra­or­di­nary speech read in Eng­lish at the top of the post, and in Span­ish by Márquez him­self below that. The lat­ter was made avail­able by Maria Popo­va, and you can read a full tran­script of the speech in Eng­lish at Brain Pick­ings.

via Brain Pick­ings

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Read 10 Short Sto­ries by Gabriel Gar­cía Márquez Free Online (Plus More Essays & Inter­views)

Gabriel Gar­cía Márquez Describes the Cul­tur­al Mer­its of Soap Operas, and Even Wrote a Script for One

William Faulkn­er Reads His Nobel Prize Speech

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.