Clarity is blindness? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration
Night Shade Message Boards » Lewis, D.F. » Clarity is blindness? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:52 am:   

Someone recently said elsewhere: The clarity of sight can be regarded as a form of blindness.

I replied:
But the precondition of believing that to be literally true (as I do) is fully to empathise with -- and then use -- the clarity of sight that one hopes eventually to slough off when it has finished serving its purpose in establishing the fact of its blinding you to other possibilities and potentialities of constructive difficulty and blurred inspiration.
des

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carole C
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 02:13 pm:   

Fwiw, here is a similar quote:

'Extreme light, by overcoming the organs of sight, obliterates all objects, so as in its effects exactly to resemble darkness.'

This is apparently from Burke, 'A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful'.





Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 05:27 am:   

Thanks, Carole.
Do people out there prefer the fiction prose they read (or write) to be (i) densely textured with soundfests of meaning and networks of subclauses etc. and/or with non-linear, convoluted plots and allusive/elusive dreams etc or (ii) short sentences, simple words and linear plots or (iii) what in between?
des

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 05:45 am:   

First time anyone has done this with their previously print-published work?

http://www.geocities.com/bfitzworth/

And why would they want to do so? ;-)
des

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 07:46 am:   

This passage seems to be a good example of the power of 'difficulty' in prose fiction (from Anita Brookner's 'The Rules Of Engagement' (2003)):

"Edmund was protected by his own immunity - to remorse, though that was too simple: to sorrow. He and Constance were monstrous in so far as their emotions were rudimentary, confined to self-satisfaction and self-preservation. I could see why Constance might have had religious leanings. She might, over a period of time, have become aware of her own coldness, might have sought to put this out of reach, as if true warmth were the gift of another, or rather Another. And having discharged a passing distress in this manner, and made it the province of that Other, she would return briskly to her various obligations, one of which was to maintain marital equilibrium in the way that both she and her husband understood."

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration