I have often recommended aphoristic writers.
And I have (at least since I began regular blogging in 2010 - a year or two after I became a Christian) myself developed an aphoristic style of writing (as may be evident by comparing my earlier writing).
So, I need no persuading of the virtues of aphorism.
However there are limitations on the effectiveness and value of this type of writing.
An aphorism only takes the reader so far and to an uncertain destination.
Why? Because really to comprehend, we must see the workings of thinking.
The ideal is not to present conclusions merely, but that the reader - through the process of reading - participates in the thought processes of the writer.
Therefore the best use of aphorisms comes when they are presented in some quantity, and in a sequence that represents the movement of the author's thought.
When this is done well, a reader can get benefit from the journey - even when the destination turns-out to be a place he dislikes.
**
Note: The first aphoristic text that grabbed me was Wittgenstein's On Certainty; which is derived from notes made on a few occasions; jumping around a problem, tackling it by rushes, from different angles. I can't remember Wittgenstein's conclusions, if any; but I appreciated the way he tackled the business.
4 comments:
I believe the strength of aphorism is in how it enables synthetic thought...
Essays promote analytical thought, poetry and proverbs promote intuitive thought...
A lot of our thoughts float disconnectedly above our heads; aphoristic writing is lengthy enough to help us synthesise our thoughts, but brief enough to cut off the weeds of analysis.
@IB - I have a hunch that the length of an aphorism has some correspondence to the size of a thought that can be "grasped whole" by a single mental act.
But this also requires that we understand exactly what "question" the aphorism is "answering" - which is why there needs to be context (whether the context for an aphorism is implicit, or explicit - the context needs to be in-place).
I feel personally attacked!
just joking, I agree entirely - yet I often don't do it, sometimes out of laziness, other times because I think it's wiser to leave the thought process hidden. in fact I have been doing the opposite more, lately: I start with a few paragraphs and then trim them down until all I have is the short statement out of context, mostly for aesthetic reasons. I also don't feel I necessarily want to be understood by everyone, but rather only by those who already know more or less where I am coming from.
@Laeth - I find that isolated aphorisms are intrinsically ambiguous, and seem often intended to be such (eg to provoke reflection or attempts at explanation). Whereas chains of aphorisms are a mode of communication that can, in principle, be extremely precise.
There is also something going-on in relation to reader response. The aphorism is effective at evoking reader response in one way, not in another. Effective because not requiring a sustained response, but ineffective in losing the narrative power of a story.
The aphorism requires the reader to stop and think, or else it will be experienced as shallow, trivial, having no more power than a "headline" - and readers who will not stop and think won't get much out of aphorisms.
But - when it comes to aphorisms in quantity - this also points at the potential value of a linked chain of aphorisms. If a series of unlinked aphorisms are offered, there is a contradictory pull for the reader; on the one hand needing to get on with reading all through the page of aphorisms; on the other hand, the need to stop and think between each of the list.
On this basis, unlinked aphorisms probably need to be presented one per page, and with no other aphorisms visible that might distract.
Post a Comment