We’re at the mercy of our descriptions

‘We’re at the mercy of our descriptions’, says Lisa Appignanesi, and again: ‘creatures of word and image, we humans are … made and remade by our descriptions’.

It’s hard to overestimate the importance of that statement. How we describe the world determines how we experience it. How we describe ourselves shapes our experience of ourselves. And how we describe others clinches which dimensions of the other we can and can’t perceive. Our description of the world we encounter becomes that world, becomes ‘reality’ – at least to us, not infrequently to adverse, in some cases even disastrous effect.

In a book devoted to the issue of feminism, Appignanesi applies this insight to women’s concerns regarding the fact that their lives have always been defined by male descriptions:

… from a little base of biology, humans elaborate who they are through their writing, culture, politics and institutions. For women’s lives to change, it was important to take more of that power of description into our own hands.

From ‘Fifty Shades of My Own …’, in Lisa Appignanesi, Rachel Holmes and Susie Orbach (eds), Fifty Shades of Feminism

Bloodstains, teethmarks, gashes and burns

Some reflections on the arduous nature of the writing process:

On plenty of days the writer can write three or four pages, and on plenty of other days he concludes he must throw them away.

Even when passages seemed to come easily, as though I were copying from a folio held open by smiling angels, the manuscript revealed the usual signs of struggle – bloodstains, teethmarks, gashes, and burns.

(from Annie Dillard, The Writing Life)

In my experience, smiling angels are a rare occurrence; the bloodstains etc. I can relate to only too well.

No one without

There is no person without a world.

Anne Carson, Autobiography of Red: A Novel in Verse

Study

… all study is worthwhile, observing things and trying to understand their hidden patterns.

The interesting thing about this quote from C. J. Sansom’s Revelation is that it is said about the study of medicine, including the opening up of bodies, during the Tudor period when such procedures were highly controversial.

Undoing the latches of being

Anne Carson is brilliant. I have only admiration for her creativity and use of language.

In ‘Red Meat: What Difference Did Stesichoros Make?’ (published in Autobiography of Red), she discusses Stesichoros’s literary contribution, which, in her estimate, consists in breaking the constraints of Homeric epic. ‘Homer’s epithets’, Carson says, ‘are a fixed diction with which Homer fastens every substance in the world to its aptest attribute and holds them in place for epic consumption.’

How does Homer do that? By using a stock repertoire of adjectives, ‘the latches of being’. If nouns name the world and verbs activate those names, then, says Carson, adjectives ‘are the latches of being’. Wow! What an ingenious way of describing the function of adjectives!

So how does Stesichoros come into this? By leaving Homer’s stock repertoire behind and coming up with novel descriptions. Or, in Carson’s words, by ‘undoing the latches’.

Words, if you let them …

Words, if you let them, will do what they want to do and what they have to do.

Anne Carson, ‘Red Meat: What Difference Did Stesichoros Make?’ in Autobiography of Red

.