> tie together a number of disparate elements. It is what writers do strive to do
Very hopefully not. A game of associations ("first", "test", "try", "feel", "skin"...) is already «t[ying] together a number of disparate elements». But randomly, in idleness, possibly decadent.
Writers (should be supposed to) try to present a coherent complex idea - defending a thesis, modelling a description, disclosing potentially fruitful relations - by making its ideal structure explicit through some relatively fixed perspective form. That remains, structuring information (and in a loop of criticism checks), in a set of globally (as opposed to locally) strong relations (between the nodes). With a so implied Purpose in the statements.
Which by the way seems to have been an intended target of TFA. Compromising a lot with its enemy, though.
> Writers (should be supposed to) try to present a coherent complex idea - defending a thesis, modelling a description, disclosing potentially fruitful relations - by making its ideal structure explicit through some relatively fixed perspective form. That remains, structuring information (and in a loop of criticism checks), in a set of globally (as opposed to locally) strong relations (between the nodes). With a so implied Purpose in the statements.
I remember reading something similar from an old Ernest Hemingway interview.
Does anyone who knows what I'm talking about have a link?
I'd like just to specify that I composed that paragraph on the spot. Rem tene, verba sequentur.
If Hemingway said something similar, I'd say it is not specifically because great minds think alike - also that -, but because we described the same thing. There is an infinite number of ways to describe, say, a glass through «relatively fixed perspective form[s]», but a pretty limited number of «ideal structure[s]» pertaining.
Well, since I in fact have written it from scratch, as an original - though saying nothing new but an actual state of things -, please do find the exact quotation, so we will wonder upon the "magic" that allegedly happened.
Incidentally: I checked earlier, because I was intrigued - though probably "«for different reasons»", i.e. to compare the views - and I could not find it. I saw that there exists an "Hemingway on Writing", 2019. But I do not know. I admit I never read Hemingway (owing to queues). Though I can guess we have pretty different styles: syntactic vs paratactic.
Edit: but if that "magic" happened - /if/ -, I know the trick, and I can already tell you (rephrasing what written before): if, e.g., "a circumference is the set of points equidistant from a centre", the ways in which you can say that idea will collapse into that.
Further edit: although, if the equivalence were there word by word for that deontic definition of writing, I'd turn to the supernatural.
Very hopefully not. A game of associations ("first", "test", "try", "feel", "skin"...) is already «t[ying] together a number of disparate elements». But randomly, in idleness, possibly decadent.
Writers (should be supposed to) try to present a coherent complex idea - defending a thesis, modelling a description, disclosing potentially fruitful relations - by making its ideal structure explicit through some relatively fixed perspective form. That remains, structuring information (and in a loop of criticism checks), in a set of globally (as opposed to locally) strong relations (between the nodes). With a so implied Purpose in the statements.
Which by the way seems to have been an intended target of TFA. Compromising a lot with its enemy, though.