Borgesian Conundrum

File: Capture2.png (208KB, 226x366px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 226x366px

I'm not sure that the book writing the author makes sense because the book isn't actually sentient.
If you write enough it's possible that your subconscious ideas about the characters and their behaviours will take over and start doing things that the conscious mind didn't plan or expect.

I'm pretty sure Umberto Eco said somewhere that "le characters act on their own" writers are utter retards

I kind of know what you mean though. Did I fight the tiger with the knife? Or did the tiger fight me with the knife?

A combination and variation of Derrida and the 2nd hermeneutic circle as gadamar used it, meaning you bring your own situadness to interpret a text which gives it (new) meaning and at the same time the text changes your situatedness (in history, unstable structure of language etc). As a writer it's no different, there's no fudamental difference between writing and reading.

You have no real control over language, the writing (and reading) subject is constructed by language, by all the texts (which includes speech) you have ever read. So in that sense, "you", the autonomous subject (which arguably doesn't exist) doesn't write; you are "being written".

>>8868464
>Umberto Eco said

Stopped reading there.

>>8868526

> there's no fudamental difference between writing and reading.

Brainlet detected.

>>8868552
rate my borgesian story
http://pastebin.com/v1Qnb28g

>>8868447
This is OP, thanks for contributions so far.

I noticed my second quote didn't work for some reason.

Wilson said: "I more-than-half suspect that all "good" writing, or all prose and poetry that one wants to read more than once, proceeds from a kind of "alteration in consciousness," i.e. a kind of controlled schizophrenia. [Don't become alarmed -- I think good acting comes from the same place.]

I sometimes suspect that what Blake called Poetic Imagination expresses this exact thought in the language of his age, and that visits by"angels" and "gods" states it an even more archaic argot."

>>8868452
Yes. Now if we had aspects of ourselves that we were not conscious of, that we were projecting onto the work in a spontaneous process, would this seem to us as if the story or the characters had a "mind of their own".

In the same way that you might uncover subconscious thoughts when writing a journal, but in this sense you uncover whole attitudes or systems of thoughts and desire that do not seem to be part of the recognised self. They appear to come from the characters themselves.

Does a good work write itself, or does a lot of conscious planning and focus need to go into sentence construction, etc.?

>>8868447
I think a good book should be written so well that if it lived it would all happen without you. In that way a good writer is just writing only what and has happened. Something that mirrors life so closely that it will happen, and as it happens, becomes life.

>>8868566
Translate it into real words and I will read it.

>>8868540
Nabokov said it too. But Nabokov was a fag IMO.

>>8868552

>he's illiterate
>>on /lit/

Nietzsche also said that philosophy is the unconscious confession of a philosopher.

>>8868447
Its much the same phenomenon as how say, a pro tennis player, will sometimes describe their technique as different than it actually is on video. The conscious mind is actually kind of dumb and basically they don't recall or understand how they actually wrote certain things because the subconscious was doing the heavy lifting.

>>8868566
What language is even these