At some point you have to believe that the inadequacies of the words you use will be transcended by the faith with which you use them. You have to believe that poetry has some reach into reality itself, or you have to go silent.

— Christian Wiman, My Bright Abyss, p. 141 (via recycledsoul)

(via settledthingsstrange)

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a “party line.” Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946 (via invisibleforeigner)

(via invisibleforeigner)

People without hope not only don’t write novels, but what is more to the point, they don’t read them. They don’t take long looks at anything, because they lack the courage. The way to despair is to refuse to have any kind of experience, and the novel, of course, is a way to have experience. The lady that only read books that improved her mind was taking a safe course—and a hopeless one. She’ll never know whether her mind is improved or not, but should she ever, by some mistake, read a great novel, she’ll know mighty well that something is happening to her.

— Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose p. 78 (via habitofbeing)

(via settledthingsstrange)

bookpickings:

Both Flesh and Not: Essays
David Foster Wallace
“Fiction becomes a weird way to countenance yourself and to tell the truth instead of being a way to escape yourself or present yourself in a way you figure you will be maximally likable.”
David Foster Wallace on the nature of fun:

bbook:

Christo “Surrounded Islands, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida”.

I reference this in the last chapter of my book, which I’m working on now.

"You Can't Be Any Poorer Than Dead" is the title of a short story Flannery O'Connor wrote that later became the first chapter of her novel The Violent Bear it Away.

It's a line that has been ringing in my ears ever since I read it fifteen years ago, and it's the inspiration for the book I'm finishing up--Pyramid Scheme: Making Art and Being Broke in America, a book about the connection between poverty and creativity.

This blog is a visualization/scrapbook of the book-in-progress, which is inspired by many images, lives, and works of art. Among the book's influences:

St. Francis of Assissi, Edgar Allan Poe, Knut Hamsun, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dorothy Day, Federico Fellini, Jacques Maritain, Jean-Luc Godard, Flannery O'Connor, Agnes Varda, Joan Didion, and Lewis Hyde.

Please browse.