« Family Get-togethers | April | Innocence » « Plato sees our day | Quotes | Whence Language? »

Comments

AJ • 04/15/04 • 9:04 PM:

Assuming your comment is true, if you are good, do you consequentially know it?

More on topic though, I’m not sure the quote is so succinct. Is it simply saying that everyone is born to be good at certain things and can’t be good at others? That may be true, but if it is I’m not sure that it would apply to entirely learned practices such as written communication/art. Writing isn’t quite like other arts because you need to have an educated base to comprehend it. For instance, a beautifully written poem and a string of mild profanities might seem relatively the same to me if they were written (or spoken) in German. I’m going to go ahead and blame that on the fact that I don’t know the German language, but I think I could learn the language. Graphic art might often play off of the viewer’s expected experience, but doesn’t necessarily require it.

Is the comment suggesting you shouldn’t bother to do something if you aren’t “good” at it?

I couldn’t say the comment is right or wrong since I don’t understand quite what it is saying. I’m definitely unclear on what “good at” is supposed to mean. I’m not sure you can get a word with a more subjective definition than “good,” so if this comment is to mean anything at all, I think “good” has to be defined at least as it was used.

Back along the lines of my first question, is “recognition of good” subject to the same principal?

Patrick • 04/16/04 • 1:44 PM:

AJ, thanks for commenting. Go ahead and use capital letters for your initials if you don’t mind. We use it for tracking comments (where “aj” is different from “AJ”). We’re very type-A about these things. By “we,” I mean “I.”

On to your questions. First, I find that the word good is commonly used in academic discussion of creative writing without definition or qualification. People understand that there is some subjectivity involved in calling art or writing good, but they also understand that this subjectivity does not mean that it’s all good or equivalent or there is no standard. When we were children we knew what good meant and we knew what bad meant. Why are we pretending not to know now? Let’s cut the Bill Clinton routine already.

As for writing, skill at it is language independent. There may be some whose innate ability is never realized because they live in the woods with wolves, but I think most human societies nowadays have some sort of language. How about we substitute for “writing,” “linguistic ability”? Then we can include the storytellers and tribal elders whose verbal ability is not, technically, “writing.” What’s key is an insight into words as an artistic medium, not just little information carriers. A Writer must love language, must feel it before it ever gets translated into a specific language. I am not the oldest nor the wisest teacher of writing, but I’ve taught a fair share, and I can tell you that some students can write well, and they can improve with classes, and some students cannot write well, and they can also improve, but they get stuck at adequate, if they even get there. Many mire themselves in poor, and they like it down there, or they’re apathetic, so they see no reason to strive for adequate. So, anyway, when you say that you couldn’t recognize good German writing, I say, that’s not what we’re talking about. You could (or someone could) recognize goodness in it if it were intelligible, for instance if it were translated competently into your own language.

For drawing (art): I am not well-versed in the academic discourse, but I suspect it’s similar. Granted, there is a lot of wiggle room (I just went to the Chicago Art Institute and liked a lot of what I saw, was indifferent to a lot of what I saw, and disliked a lot of what I saw), but, again, that doesn’t mean anything goes. But to paraphrase Pascal: just because it’s disputed doesn’t mean it’s not valid or worthy of investigation.

So I guess we’ll never entirely plug into the aesthetic soul of God to know what’s really good in writing and art, but that doesn’t mean we can’t approximate (and get pretty close at times).

By the way, if you’re ever confused about what is good writing, feel free to ask me.

AJ • 04/16/04 • 9:11 PM:

I think that is a well written response.

Dad • 06/20/07 • 8:26 PM:

Thanks to the “related entries” feature I reread this entry and its comments and now feel compelled to disagree. There is no insurmountable barrier between poor and good (although it very well may be an “energy” barrier). I use myself as an example. I was once a poor writer but now am a good one, having spent much time and effort in the process.

Admittedly, this leaves me wide open for “cut me to the quick” criticism by someone with more incisive wit, greater knowlege, and less scrupples than I have. Nonetheless, I stand ready to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Later, I might even oppose and end them.

The point is, follow your dream, using strong words, and don’t let foolish consistency get in your way.

David • 06/20/07 • 10:59 PM:

I agree with Dad, although much of my gut, uneducated guessing-self, would like to agree with Pat. Everything that I’ve read over the past decent while (few years) points to the fact that experts (athletes, writers, chessmasters, musicians) are made, not born. Here is one article from Scientific American, titled, The Expert Mind.
Quote = “The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born.” The topic was also discussed a bit in a book I read recently on chess, The Immortal Game - it’s good, you should read it.

Post a comment