Writing in Sand
Ron Silliman’s recent blog for 2 December is inspiring. Ron explains, among other things and interesting anecdotes (such as being bitten by a student over a writing assignment), how writing tools—quill*, pen, typewriter, computer—have affected the writing of poetry over the years, including his own, though his experience doesn’t include the quill as some of you pranksters might think.
* A quill was the hollow, rigid shaft of a bird’s feather. The word “pen” is derived from the Latin name for “feather”—“penna.” Shakespeare and other writers of his day used a variety of quills. If a writer’s pocket lacked jingle, he invested in a goose quill. If he could afford something better, he invested in a swan quill. Writers or artists who needed quills to produce fine lines purchased crow quills. Quills from ducks, eagles, turkeys, hawks and owls also served as “word processors,” producing plays, poems and sometimes revolution. Quills were the writing instruments of choice between
3 Comments:
This is a very thoughtful and provocative exposition, Alberto. It got me thinking again about spaces and tools, here, for writing, as had Ron's post earlier in the day, but also as these form relations in general. Really, I think it must go to the semiotic, something akin to Bachelard and de Certeau. Thanks for this.
Best,
chris murray
By chris, at 6:30 AM
This is truly food for thought, Chris, and why I turn to some of Ron’s explanations in his blog (it’s like listening to a pleasant conversation) on linguistics and semiotics. Aren’t those scary words? But on a very simple level it is fascinating to consider how the “tools” affect the writer’s “product”. Superficially, for instance, note how Blogger affects my writing here in this blog; how you are affected: e.g., aided visually in some respects by the existence of graphics and yet restricted and constrained by the limitations of the medium. (Frustration in not being able to do what we want by our control limit over the medium.) The tool affects our product and may be no different on a theoretical context to how hammer and chisel affected communications centuries ago. Time will tell. Contemporary poets may not realize the extent to which they are controlled by the tools of their choice. And, needless to say, as it has always been, the reader’s “participation” in the final act of “production”: “The activity of reading has all the characteristics of a silent production.” M. de Certeau.
Thanks for stopping by.
Alberto
By Chaty, at 12:50 PM
Hi ##NAME##, I find it quite refreshing to occasionally find a article like yours with an familair topic such as ##TITLE##. Its not was I was searching for but somehow ads to ones list of lifes experiences.
I have a soft spot for sites and blogs related to ##LINK## and /or sites that have a central theme around book publishing type items.
Once again, thank you ##NAME##, look forward see more posts from you in the future :-)
By Anonymous, at 12:36 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home