Another short thing she wrote about living that I really like:
“ I’m not telling you to make the world better, because I don’t think that progress is necessarily part of the package,” she once wrote. “I’m just telling you to live in it. Not just to endure it, not just to suffer it, not just to pass through it, but to live in it. To look at it. To try to get the picture. To live recklessly. To take chances. To make your own work and take pride in it. To seize the moment. And if you ask me why you should bother to do that, I could tell you that the grave’s a fine and private place, but none I think do there embrace. Nor do they sing there, or write, or argue, or see the tidal bore on the Amazon, or touch their children. And that’s what there is to do and get it while you can and good luck at it”
— Joan Didion
>Didion wrote the essay as the magazine was going to press, to fill the space left after another writer did not produce a piece on the same subject. She wrote it not to a word count or a line count, but to an exact character count.
Even using a movable type system, I don't see why matching a specific number of characters, rather than lines would be necessary.
Yeah that doesn’t really make sense. Print is always measured in physical units: pages, columns, inches, etc. Type can be adjusted to fill this much space, so the character and even word counts are somewhat flexible. There are of course limits to the amount of adjustment that can be made, but even with none at all, proportional fonts means exact character counts would not be the right unit of measure to ensure a piece of writing fit an allotted amount of space.
This excellent essay reminds me of a profound saying I overheard while, of all things, shopping at the grocery store: "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything." In the case of this essay, if you don't account for the value of yourself and what you believe, everything will feel like it costs too much.
Not really. What you mean is they could just as well be "cool headed", think it through for themselves, and not be swayed here and there.
But you'll need to arrive at a deep conviction after doing that thinking. Else, you'll just let the crowd/peer/society pressure lead you to act as they wont on the matter.
You say that you won't be swayed otherwise, because once you've e.g. rationally arrived that X is better, you'll stand your ground? Well, you've just described a deep conviction in a roundabout way :)
A bit of arithmetic says that Joan Didion wrote this piece at 26 or 27. It may be the cantankerousness that sets in with age, but when you are eligible for Social Security it becomes odd to read the young writing such things.
She certainly had a voice, first to last. (Well, last of what I read, which was a while ago.) It carries you along without giving you time to wonder whether the examples weren't a bit arbitrarily chosen, whether one's grandparents' generation didn't have as many bunglers as one's own, or people not only lacking in self respect but unwilling to acknowledge its claims.
It is amusing to find the first sentence quoting Gerontion.
Read La Rochefoucauld's Maxims and see if, afterwards, you still think that's anywhere near true! (La Bruyere's Characters is somewhat similar, but more varied/less relentless.)
wow. What an amazing essay. I have not read much from her, but what a command of the language, what insight and wisdom into herself. This is the type of thing keep going back to, because you can't fully understand it in one reading.
https://archive.is/BTXmx