Jul 15, 2023·edited Jul 15, 2023Liked by Nina Schuyler
These substack posts never fail to excite me, even if, lazing about in an unwriterly way, I neither make the effort to imitate your stunning sentence of the week, nor comment on the worthy efforts of others. Thanks for brightening my Saturdays.
Oh! The content disguised the architecture, but I see it now! In your sentence, I like how the phrase "lazing about in an unwriterly way" interrupts the subordinate clause, as if the narrator is lazy or distracted and can't follow a linear flow. The word "unwriterly" works well with the other negating words of "never," "neither" and "nor." So good!
That is so much fun! In my braindead way I neither noticed the structure nor was I even slightly struck by the faintest spark of its subtle invention, until you tore the mask off and revealed the shimmering neverland within.
I'm so glad! Even if you're not trying the exercise, you've read it and somewhere it is woven into your being. That, too, is valid and part of the writer's education. So much of writing is reading good prose.
Nina, I loved your analysis so much that I said to myself, why not give it a shot:
Complicity is never the evil because, imbibed by the everyman in the shade of evil, it has neither the countenance for a wanted poster nor a countryman willing to bring it to trial.
"It’s a sentence saturated in the absolute, an apodictic statement; it refuses to tremble with doubt or submit to pondering; it’s not looking to be debated." You're leading me to think about how hard it is for me to adopt this tone of voice—maybe harder for women in general? (See? I can't resist the qualifiers.) But I'm not drawn to the "unshakeable confidence" in other writers either—unless they're speaking only for themselves. I back away from the godlike tone, just by instinct. Seems to me it's already caused enough trouble in the world. So I didn't warm up to Kundera's sentence. But your commentary on it? Now that's a delight, no equivocation. :)
I like this sentence, but am more enamored of its content than its form. What to want, that is the question, more than what to do. The wanting is the foundation of the doing. If there are not other lives then this one is the sieve through which desire is filtered and refined.
These substack posts never fail to excite me, even if, lazing about in an unwriterly way, I neither make the effort to imitate your stunning sentence of the week, nor comment on the worthy efforts of others. Thanks for brightening my Saturdays.
Oh! The content disguised the architecture, but I see it now! In your sentence, I like how the phrase "lazing about in an unwriterly way" interrupts the subordinate clause, as if the narrator is lazy or distracted and can't follow a linear flow. The word "unwriterly" works well with the other negating words of "never," "neither" and "nor." So good!
That is so much fun! In my braindead way I neither noticed the structure nor was I even slightly struck by the faintest spark of its subtle invention, until you tore the mask off and revealed the shimmering neverland within.
Thanks, Nina. I started to say something but thought better of it. It was fun!
I'm so glad! Even if you're not trying the exercise, you've read it and somewhere it is woven into your being. That, too, is valid and part of the writer's education. So much of writing is reading good prose.
Nina, I loved your analysis so much that I said to myself, why not give it a shot:
Complicity is never the evil because, imbibed by the everyman in the shade of evil, it has neither the countenance for a wanted poster nor a countryman willing to bring it to trial.
Quite the indictment. And so sadly true.
"It’s a sentence saturated in the absolute, an apodictic statement; it refuses to tremble with doubt or submit to pondering; it’s not looking to be debated." You're leading me to think about how hard it is for me to adopt this tone of voice—maybe harder for women in general? (See? I can't resist the qualifiers.) But I'm not drawn to the "unshakeable confidence" in other writers either—unless they're speaking only for themselves. I back away from the godlike tone, just by instinct. Seems to me it's already caused enough trouble in the world. So I didn't warm up to Kundera's sentence. But your commentary on it? Now that's a delight, no equivocation. :)
I like this sentence, but am more enamored of its content than its form. What to want, that is the question, more than what to do. The wanting is the foundation of the doing. If there are not other lives then this one is the sieve through which desire is filtered and refined.