When estimated Jermain foutre le Camp, there is a nice list of quotes on writing and the writer.
http://ultimativefreiheitonline.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/der-zustand-des-schreibenden-teilt-sich-dem-wahren-leser-sogleich-vollig-mit/
Alone, the Goethe quote, he also chose to title, is not my consent: "The state of the writer the true reader shares immediately with completely."
And it's not because I know how loyal reader, despite its undoubted skills and achievements, no sovereign admirer of Goethe am much do detest what he has done.
The set is from my own experience as along my knowledge of other literary work just is not right.
I write, for example, another episode of German-Südschwitz or by Konstantin Eulenspiegel, or otherwise so much, so is my condition sometimes very far removed from what has been said. He must.
My state may so far affect the progress of each story, a linguistic view, a critique, a social analysis, a treatise, an essay does not automatically mean that this once totally the true reader communicates itself.
Not even to the extent that he is after him and after telling.
Unless, and this may happen, I want it that way.
If this happens unwillingly now just yet, so I'm just not quite Lord of the substance still my style.
More: Meinte Goethe here the state of the writer in general, then this would ever, in each piece, entirely reveal.
Now this would mean that the writer had only a so narrow spectrum of fabrics, perspectives and forms of expression, as it were always just be very specific Restricted. That there may be well, but is certainly not for a literati, which is good for more than getting same yearning love poetry or morbid Short Stories.
Goethe said now the current state of the writer, so this could be true also for only a narrow horizon, in his work entirely on this bound, hereby minden writers.
Apart from the fact "the state" of the writer changes indeed the writing itself; and even this internally changing state is just not where art reigns, at least not fully, reflected in the written word.
- Ads -
Tags: German-Südschwitz , Goethe , Jermain foutre le Camp , Konstantin Eulenspiegel , Writing
Dear Mr. Goeller, although I am not so well versed in literature as you, but for this article, I would not like to owe you an answer.
Unfortunately, I have the time to do so much, I was in between but still find time to relax, so I will love to take this position in more detail.
Goethe has never really appealed to me, although in his works is contained in some philosophy, and it is here already raises the question, why, in what condition he was in, that he though a well-known, famous poet, but as a lot of damage wreaked ,
I would have preferred earlier received your words, but somehow it did not work. Somehow it did not go ON, and as long as something does not turn on, it stays out flat.
And I have you in almost everything you wrote as a protest against Goethe's statement, may agree from the outset. Yes, because he's right, I was thinking all the time.
At the same time the quote for me is perfectly valid; whereupon I go into more equal. The sticking point is in all probably the word "state".
Agree I had you in the fact that the Goethe quote can not be right or barely so, if you wanted to speak with the written word of each literature, or of a work that is a literary creation is based.
But I applied it to the general braided into the grid letter, which I also mean the mine, it is my view, all male so that the state of the writer the true reader here (and there) immediately notifies completely.
Or, and you have just right, could possibly tell. For if the state may not always be "immediately fully" tells, but then quite sometimes.
Only state which is at all meant? Is an emotional state or a mental condition meant? In addition, it may indeed, as you add, thankfully, only a 'momentary', so "always changing" his condition.
In times of universal consciousness change would be for example the 'state of consciousness' such. And that I just said.
The inadequacy of such standing on their own concept of "state" also led me to send another meaning to him, and danne hero less of a state than to speak of a "competence";
Which part of the writer being is the responsibility was given, or what part of the writing system has given the responsibility which part? - The insightful ego the increasingly revealing spiritual (mental) consciousness, or the less pronounced spiritual consciousness which then still prevailing ego?
In short: Who or what is actually the "Lord of the substance"?
Against this background would then also the chosen concept of so-called "true" reader to a more excellent significance that is just capable, in some places at the respective plant herauszulesen the possible state of the writer.
In this (self-constructed) context I can for a large part of what is now everything belongs to the literature, is sold in bookstores as such or is discussed in feature articles accordingly, Goethe (supposedly precipitated!) * Statement repeatedly confirmed as true! - only he will probably have meant something completely different.
Since I also Max Frisch's statement "To write is to read themselves" very agree with everything, I have the Goethe quote so far regarded as valid, as he has it, just as usual, merely secretly talked every writer of yourself.
! *
Unfortunately, I only now (days later) become aware that I probably a phrase of Goethe incorrectly shown as a quotation've served ...
I would now like to explain more below, and it is imperative to do so. The foregoing Wrote I would still be happy to leave it as I had written in response to your article (days in advance).
So; I have the quote in question once any collection of quotations taken blind ... that is, without having previously examined the context in which Goethe may well have written this sentence.
That another context would be, would certainly have been seen already alone in the choice of words - and this context is the set a validity, so picked out of me, is lost.
In short, the quote comes from a LETTER Goethe Johann Friedrich Rochlitz on April 22, 1822, and applies only to certain statements within the correspondence.
I would therefore not allowed to use it -
and therefore am still very busy at the moment, again sweep all the ashes of my head ...
But the quote collector would have time to give more effort and must make a reasonable indication of the full text.
Even worse, though, is that this Schinderhannes has allowed the audacity to simply stop the alleged rate per point at a location where a comma was originally - and behind it decided yet went on.
Namely wiefolgt:
"That you acquire precisely that of the last pieces of art and antiquity, what I have written in the best sense of humor, I am very pleased. The state of the writer informs the reader at once totally true with, and I recognize dankbarlich the beautiful echo of amicable and unanimous reflection. "
So things look the same but much more beautiful, especially I think it's from the Zitatenkonstruktör also an absurdity, 'informs' the words to have simply removed the h.
This is something you do not. Glad to have the faux pas yet been elucidated, but at the same time deeply ashamed to be eating him up, I draw from the teaching, continue to quote only from himself available to me books and not from any vorlügenden the internet collections.
Excuse the thus perhaps superfluous continued employment with Goethe's alleged words and thank you for your patience
LG
[...] * (Faulty quote. Learn more about it here →) [...]
... And of course, thank you for your precise observation; otherwise the thing would have not come out.
@ Jermain
In fact, a fat dog, a quote so disfigured to out of context.
After: An illustrious thing.
And they made you as prompted me to at least interesting considerations for those who occupy themselves with such matters at all.
Novelty. Funny somehow.
But also a warning.
[...] https://unzensiert.zeitgeist-online.de/2014/03/27/einspruch-lieber-jermain/ [...]