I LOVED this passage of Middlesex:
Emotions, in my experience, aren't covered by single words. I don't believe in "sadness," "joy," or "regret." Maybe the best proof that the language is patriarchal is that it oversimplifies feeling. I'd like to have at my disposal complicated hybrid emotions, Germanic traincar constructions like, say, "the happiness that attends disaster." Or: "the disappointment of sleepig with one's fantasy." I'd like to show how "intimations of mortality brought on by aging family members" connects with "the hatred of mirrors that begins in middle age." I'd like to have a word for "the sadness inspired by failing restaurants" as well as for "the excitement of getting a room wtih a minibar."
That's good stuff. There I go... oversimplifying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I remember that passage and loved it. Something else I've recently read/heard referred to the German tendency to squoosh words together to form new ones - think it was the course I listened to on The History of the English Language, now that I think of it. Reminds me of the many Lapp expressions for "snow" - if there is a strong enough need for a word, it will emerge. Also think the reflection on reason behind simplified terms for emotions may have some merit. Never thought of it that way.
Love getting in on these musings
Hi Larkin,
I've been reading Moby Dick since so many great writers refer to it's influence on them. I like classics because I can usually count on them! It is so rich in emotional detail and unusual image descriptions, just magnificent storytelling. It will probably take me 6 months to read, but when I'm done I'll see if I can find Middlesex at the Library. I like that passage too.
Post a Comment