conversation is an engine

A lot can happen in a conversation

Louis L’Amour and Writing for Life from Life

with 6 comments

My new dead friend teaches on knowing

I do not read westerns, typically.

But Mrs. Kirkistan, with her eclectic tastes, put L’Amour’s autobiography into my [sweaty] hand. Education of a Wandering Man is a revelation.

Two things right away:

  1. L’Amour was an autodidact like few others. He had little formal education—he quit school at 15 to travel. His real education started with knocking about as merchant marine, going to war, wrangling cattle, going hungry between jobs, boxing—and reading. Especially reading. L’Amour’s hunger to know is infectious.
  2. L’Amour’s hard-knocks education contributed to his readable writing. That’s my hypothesis: life experience makes for more readable writing. And vice versa.

bergenfromhigh-2-20161027

L’Amour’s life (1908-1988) seems a rebuke to the supposed schism between “academic” and “practical.” If you read Education of a Wandering Man (and I hope you will) you will find an articulate man who read widely and used very approachable language to package his thoughts. But it wasn’t just easy-to-read language that was his genius; it was the layering of language into a story. L’Amour is a storyteller who is hard to resist.

His is not academic writing, of course. But it is thoughtful writing—especially when you find out what he was reading when he wrote. His simple stories start to go deep.

In his autobiography L’Amour named the books that had been influential for him. There are scores of them—73-120 books per year, from 1930 to 1937—and he named them one by one. But these are not the books listed on a college syllabus (though some are, to be sure). From Voltaire to Nietzsche to Schopenhauer to Mann to O’Neill to Joseph Conrad And lots and lots of fiction These are the books that piqued his interest as he lived his life. And that is how his autobiography is organized: the books he read while he was living this or that particular chapter. Reading about the West as he worked on cattle ranches Reading Nietzsche and Schopenhauer as he boxed. Reading ancient myths and stories as he sailed. Reading about the West later as he wrote frontier stories. (I may be off in the details about when he read what—there were so many mentions and so many chapters in the guy’s life).

 

Education Not a Given

One thing that stands out is the focus of his education. It was not to acquire a degree. It was to move forward with what he was intended to do—as best he understood.

Stay with me here: L’Amour read to see how stories worked.

Yes, he got lost in books. Yes, he loved learning. But his learning was always aimed at assembling an image of how the world worked. He was of a time when many readers were doing the same thing, because education was not as available as it is today. But there were books.

Here’s the point: L’Amour told stories, and all his philosophical thinking about life is bound up in the stories. He is not pedantic (at least in this book), but thoughts about life roll out of the characters in the stories. This is a revelation because much of our education (and my education) are all about pedantics: laying lesson out in neat arguments. One could memorize these arguments. In fact, you have to memorize them because they slip away the moment you turn your eyes. That’s because they are not moored in the emotion of real life.

L’Amour, on the other hand, had stories pop out of him of all sort of real (ish) people doing real things in life because of their underlying beliefs.

 

Oral and Writing Should Talk

The big revelation that L’Amour gave me was that precisely because he was educated by stories and for stories (he had to captivate audiences again and again in the different chapters of his life), his writing fit quite naturally into an oral rhythm. No big words. No long sentences. Ideas were easy to remember because he wrote them with stories, and we remember what that philosophy looks like without the pedantics.

Because of L’Amour’s example, and because of my own failures (plus a few minor successes) with communicating and expressing detail, I’m starting to move toward copy that can be said. I’ve always advised copywriting students to read their sentences aloud to see if they make sense. In the end, it’s quite possible that what we hear and what we gather from what we hear, is the standard for engaging another person, as well as the standard for knowing anything.

Knowing seems to pass through our mouths, in particular.

###

“Nobody is just what you see.”

leave a comment »

nobody-2-20161013

nobodysign-2-20161013

Written by kirkistan

October 16, 2016 at 5:00 am

The Path

leave a comment »

downhillview-2-20161013

Written by kirkistan

October 15, 2016 at 5:00 am

Opportunity

with one comment

manwomanfloyen-2-20161013

Written by kirkistan

October 14, 2016 at 5:00 am

From Mount Floyen

with one comment

mountfloyen-2-20161011

Written by kirkistan

October 13, 2016 at 5:00 am

Louisiana Cafe

with 2 comments

louisianacafe-2-20161011

Written by kirkistan

October 12, 2016 at 5:00 am

How could a Christian possibly support Donald Trump?

with 2 comments

Short Answer: Hatred for Hillary Clinton

I hope and pray evangelicals don’t support Trump because of his racist, xenophobic, misogynist, lying, bullying, know-nothing, clearly anti-Jesus approach. I’ve heard many cite hatred for Hillary Clinton as a reason for support for Trump—and perhaps misogyny may be something evangelicals can live with.

Set aside Clinton’s pro-choice views and problems with truth-telling for a moment. Isn’t there something about Hillary Clinton taking leadership as a woman that galls evangelicals? Her leadership doesn’t fit the narrow evangelical reading of a woman’s role as servant and (even better) subservient.

But then the Proverbs 31 woman was an outlier, right?

Check out Sara Pulliam Bailey’s article on evangelical views on Hillary Clinton:

wapo-20161009

Written by kirkistan

October 9, 2016 at 7:37 am

%d bloggers like this: