As a secular person, I feel comfortable personifying god in almost any endeavor.
Within literature particularly, where writers have to know everything about human character and behavior that psychologists and neuroscientists are now starting to uncover through quite another effort, the presence of that something that some of us have and that we as a culture long for is especially vivid.
Why should James Joyce be compelled to say that Gabriel had to fix “his cuffs and the bows of his tie” after his jovial comment is rebuffed by the young, poor housemade to whom it was offered ? (The Dead ) Why should Tolstoy know how to make an army commander press his two fingers "more and more rigidly to his cap," when confronted with having to justify himself to a superior? (War and Peace. Book 2 Chapter 1.) And why do we know just what they mean?
Today, science has a lot to tell us about why people fix cuffs and holds caps, and the simple answer to how writers who are not mind scientists know what is necessary for the building of frequently complete and believable characters, is that they are intuitive psychologists.
And we in their readership are to be intuitive readers. From general experience, we are to interpret the information we are given correctly. We are not to think, for instance, that the commander is holding his cap because it makes him think of this daughter. We, like the writers, are to know that this action means the commander is nervous or stressed.
We are all intuitive psychologists. But the most direct and interesting distillation between physical reality and its interpretation happens at the level of the writer. Between the writer and god. Between him and the biochemistry and neurocircuitry that runs us and that, at present at least, is likely to be so complex that it cannot be fully quantified in an equation.
Unless the equation is made of words that beget images that tell stories and result in experience.
Perhaps Einstein would say that the best science is the kind you experience. Or, if he wouldn't, perhaps our next inspired genius should.
Hi, Maya.
ReplyDelete'Unless the equation is made of words that beget images that tell stories and result in experience.'
I really like that sentence. It has terrific style.
I wonder what intuition really is? I guess its something like a native application of the brain as opposed to a learned method.
I myself learned to shoot the hard way from an uncle. I became a passable shot with a rifle, but I could never hit anything with a pistol after being instructed in the laborious and boring boot camp method.
Then my grandfather told me that shooting was easy. You just use your built-in aiming ability. You can point your finger at anything with perfect accuracy. You just mentally make the pistol into a part of your hand, point it like a finger, correct for bullet drop if shooting long distance and pull the trigger carefully so it can't rotate the pistol out of line.
It took me all of five intuitive minutes to learn to shoot dragon flies right out of the air.
I wonder if writers are running internal models of their characters, simulating behaviors and putting the model through the people-filters that they use to test the veracity of the people around them. Readers must have very similar filters in order for the character to ring true.
It is a worrisome thought that people filters must be at least partially based on experience. With people spending so much time in fantasy worlds, TV and all the other artificial distractions of modern life, there must be some very credulous people out there.
It explains much about politics.
Regards,
Jim
Hi, Jim. Thanks for writing. I don't worry about that: the cyber world killing off our ability to understand one another. It's all modeling. We'll never be able to get away from communicating and reading each other's cues correctly. I'm taking a psychology class right now and, in it, we're told that it is actually quite difficult for people to conceal their entire personality while "hidden" from others online. If they're neurotic, say, or stressed or shy or smart or puffy or pompous. The psychologists say that will come through. So I don't worry. The internet is just a medium. And TV: well, you may be right there. There is so much poor acting that I sometimes wonder whether we will all begin to think that expressing grief, for instance, is supposed to look the way it looks on TV (not right). I have to believe that, before any condition sets in at least, - or much of it - children will know what grief looks like and, every so often, in one out of ten, say, that proximity to our authentic set of behaviors will persist throughout adulthood even if we are saturated with forced, histrionic television dramas. And then those people will have a survival advantage, because we will all be drawn to their authenticity. Something like that.
ReplyDeleteYes, I so well understand your shooting pedagogy experience. It's that way with so much stuff: cooking, dancing, writing, playing. Even the flow of one's workday can follow a natural point-and-shoot or a "i'm thinking about this too hard and so it's not working" kind of pattern. Not to mention personal relationships. Every time you "try," you fail.
I'm thinking of discontinuing this blog, and, since you're my only reader, I guess I had better ask you for your input on that decision. What do you think?
Maya
I didn't see your reply to my comment until 12/2010. Your question, should you discontinue the blog, is one with no real answer outside of your own impulses. I enjoy your thoughtful commentary, but your time is your own. I would never wish to pressure you. I started a blog myself and it was dreadful. The truth is I do low comedy better than any sort of thoughtful analysis. If you wish to stop blogging, please don't let me be a factor. I suspect that you have more readers than you know, but take it from me, being secretly famous can be a real burden.
ReplyDelete