Wednesday, March 16, 2022
6:10 a.m. Guys, let’s talk about making Orphic Sayings into a book. Setting switches. Maximum F, R, C, P.
Look at your manuscript as it exists.
As of now I have it in a three-ring binder in sections:
- All 100 sayings, without commentary.
- Sessions from May 11 to May 27, examining sayings 1 to 50.
- The gist of these sessions.
- Wikipedia article on Alcott.
- The sessions again, with subheads added.
- A free translation of the first 50 sayings in a few pages.
- Sayings 51-100 in the original.
- Sayings 51-100 in free translation.
- Sessions Oct 11 – Oct 25, translating 51-100.
And it has taken 10 minutes to go through it. So, back to you.
You see, you have the skeleton you need. Your text could be 1, 5, 9, 6, 8. That is, the original, the process of deducing what the original means, and then a listing of the translated sayings. Short, sweet, to the point. This would need to be framed. An introductory session to lay out the problem; a concluding session, to suggest some implications.
Yes, that makes sense.
The real point of the book is
- To demonstrate that Alcott was a true visionary because for some reason he was living in the practical, bustling, 19th century with perceptions that would not be clear to others (save a precious few) for nearly 200 years.
- To clarify what he say but could not clearly write (though he could say).
- To show by implication that Thoreau and Emerson saw and valued, even if often exasperated by Alcott’s 3D-person’s crochets.
- Thus to show, by implication, that Transcendentalism was not a literary conceit nor “the latest form of infidelity” nor impractical abstract posturing, but resulted from a different experience of the world.
However, having said that, we hasten to add that this is not to be a massive unreadable scholarly tome, semi-competently executed in an attempt at respectability. It is to be, as your work with Hemingway was, an attempt to state certain things clearly from our point of view, not that of the world, which includes the world of scholarship.
And I must restrain my tendency toward archivist’s preservation of the process.
Yes. Showing people the process with all its blind alleys and learning-by-doing is for other books. You have done that. The reader of this book will have to judge the material by what it is, not by how it was accumulated.
So, talking with Chris Nelson, I realized we will need a title and a cover, both more important than they might seem.
Your title will emerge from what you wind up with as a final product. That’s why Hemingway chose his titles last, not first. It will reflect what you have created, shaped, come up with.
All right. And fortunately, we are under no kind of deadline. So what about the intro and the conclusion? How do I learn what I want to say, except by saying it? But you might give me a few hints. And I hope you will. [A realization.] Oh my. I heard, “Why not contact Bronson Alcott himself?” For some reason, that hadn’t occurred to me.
Because you had criticisms of me? Because you don’t feel close to me, as to Thoreau or Emerson? That is no barrier. You connect to me through them, if need be, and you connected to Henry immediately.
Yes I did. And Stow Persons [my thesis supervisor in graduate school] suggested to me that I write my thesis examining your recently published journals. I couldn’t have done that at age 24, I didn’t know anything like enough. I could do it now, if I had the time and inclination. But as soon as I opened Walden, I knew a kindred soul, and examining what he left of his journal’s first ten years [for my master’s thesis] was a labor of love.
You will profit yet by reading my journals, though of course you needn’t.
What would you think I should say in an introduction to your Orphic Sayings?
Begin by quoting a few of the harshest criticisms. Point out that I had spiritually powerful friends, one of whom was well known to the wide world. Remind people that my conversations were clear and were valued by some. Show Emerson’s and Thoreau’s appreciation of me by a scant few examples. Point out what is obvious, that I had vision without the gift of written expression.
“Mute inglorious Miltons.” [ from Thomas Gray, “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,” though I had to do a computer search to find out what I was remembering.]
Yes. Vision does not always come with a simultaneous translation. Think of Blake. Finally, you will have to explain the nature of your conversations – how you examined my work, and you can present it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As you now know, there is no persuading anybody. Strike sparks, and then leave the bulk of the work to strike its own sparks, if possible.
Yes, that seems straightforward.
Then you are left to summarize what my sayings mean to the contemporary reader, whenever that may be. Someone reading it now, or in 10 years, or 100, would get different things, because one’s own life goes into the reading of any book, but my end of the equation – or I should say our end, because we will have each added something – will be a constant. Suggest how I see the world, saw the world, as a model of perception. That is, not that you or anyone should see what I saw, but that you would profit by seeing as I saw, at least sometimes.
Yes, I see that. Well, thank you. Anything more? Suggestions on a title?
Forgotten so soon?
No, but I was fishing for something that would help me point it as I go.
Do it Hemingway fashion. Text first, title and cover second. And of course you have editorial assistance available as you go.
It must be a relief to be able to speak transparently, after your 3D experience of being unable to write clearly.
Don’t be too sure. What is clear to one is not clear to another. My life was inwardly lit but outwardly directed. I was very much aware of community responsibilities. Much of my life – most of it – was in active interrelation, not in putting words on paper. That is one more reason why I wasn’t very able to put my thoughts into print. I was accustomed to the medium of speech, with its reliance on sensory clues from the other person. Writing was like speaking without the ability to see the listener.
I get it. Well, perhaps at least a few of us will see you more clearly by the time we get though this.
That shouldn’t be the point. I am long dead to the world of fashion. What lives is what I related to, that others can relate to.
Concentrate on the moon, not on the finger pointing to the moon.
That’s it exactly. And, as I say, you will have help. Anyone would.
Thanks very much for this and for help to come.
And as always, our thanks to you for making the effort.
Guys? Today’s theme?
Surely, “Working with Alcott.”
Yes, all right. Till next time, then.