Wow, this was “brilliant”. I wish I could chat with both of you. While reading the conversation, I’d start having a thought— for example, “I wonder if this guy likes music,” and then the next paragraph would be about him composing. I’d think about impressionist music (Debussy) and how beautifully it goes with the abstract Manet and Renoir paintings, and how somehow the human mind fills in the gaps (despite many impressionist pieces literally being a series of dots) and then impressionism is brought up.
Also, I so related with the notebooks and letters to future self, including bits of plants and sand and dirt being thrown in.
I think one realization I had after reading the interview is that good writing trusts that humans have an innate ability to fill in the gaps, to complete what language can’t possibly fulfill. I really liked the discussion on adding and subtracting words, and how trying to explain wonder basically takes the wonder out of what’s being written (because wonder doesn’t stem from words themselves but from a human’s processing of the words). I think it’s easier to understand when it comes to music (which I consider to be as close to a universal language as we’ll ever get).
Oh and special mention to the discussion about how a dying language means that some things will never be able to be explained again. I remember wishing when I was little that I could speak every single language on earth, so that I could connect to every human alive.
I still feel a shred of sadness when I realize that I will never be able to 100% understand another person, because of all the dilution that happens between a person living an experience, then sharing that experience to another and the other interpreting what was said. But then I cross paths with content like this— which I read and end up feeling seen and connected despite having no prior knowledge of either party— and remember that as humans, we have access to some kind of deep “knowing”, on a cellular level.
Ok now I’m just rambling, time to get ready for work haha.
I would have highly preferred that a true connoisseur of language use their art to intensify the definition of life rather than diluting its extension. What he did is not only disappointing but also harmful.
Wow, this was “brilliant”. I wish I could chat with both of you. While reading the conversation, I’d start having a thought— for example, “I wonder if this guy likes music,” and then the next paragraph would be about him composing. I’d think about impressionist music (Debussy) and how beautifully it goes with the abstract Manet and Renoir paintings, and how somehow the human mind fills in the gaps (despite many impressionist pieces literally being a series of dots) and then impressionism is brought up.
Also, I so related with the notebooks and letters to future self, including bits of plants and sand and dirt being thrown in.
I think one realization I had after reading the interview is that good writing trusts that humans have an innate ability to fill in the gaps, to complete what language can’t possibly fulfill. I really liked the discussion on adding and subtracting words, and how trying to explain wonder basically takes the wonder out of what’s being written (because wonder doesn’t stem from words themselves but from a human’s processing of the words). I think it’s easier to understand when it comes to music (which I consider to be as close to a universal language as we’ll ever get).
Oh and special mention to the discussion about how a dying language means that some things will never be able to be explained again. I remember wishing when I was little that I could speak every single language on earth, so that I could connect to every human alive.
I still feel a shred of sadness when I realize that I will never be able to 100% understand another person, because of all the dilution that happens between a person living an experience, then sharing that experience to another and the other interpreting what was said. But then I cross paths with content like this— which I read and end up feeling seen and connected despite having no prior knowledge of either party— and remember that as humans, we have access to some kind of deep “knowing”, on a cellular level.
Ok now I’m just rambling, time to get ready for work haha.
Wonderful wonderful conversation David. I loved listening by the fire. Thank you for sharing.
I would have highly preferred that a true connoisseur of language use their art to intensify the definition of life rather than diluting its extension. What he did is not only disappointing but also harmful.
https://medium.com/the-new-climate/can-a-river-really-be-alive-a37f0a520c44
love your work man… thanks for another fantastic interview.
Ps I’m also reading Is A River Alive? and loving it.