Loved this! I was just thinking this morning about how much I enjoyed reading the journals of Jan Morris, John Cheever, Susan Sontag, Anais Nin etc. It's always such an interesting mix of confessional and workshop, with the added pleasure of knowing they weren't written to be performative. In my personal journal, I wrote down that they all "start from fog and not from clarity", and I think that about captures the essence of what makes them so meaningful, especially to other craftspeople.
Reading your post made me think of what it will feel like in the near future, when we’ll be reading the ‘polished’ writing of LLMs vs the authentic writing of a real person. Maybe the world is in need of an anti-polished writing movement, where the workshopping towards a final result becomes the work itself.
i'm confused by footnote 4 in the context of this piece. in my estimation, most authors don't publish the more raw forms because they're less articulate, not as thoroughly researched, and thus more challenging for a reader to parse meaning from. is that difficulty not precisely why you find these writings enjoyable? i find a similar satisfaction in reading less polished or journal-like works(e.g. anais nin Diary of Other People) because it lets me peer just a bit deeper into their mind, to notice how they direct their attention and process the events of life in relation to their work. it helps me in both life and reading to build out sort of 'models of mind' that i can use to try out new ideas from different perspectives.
maybe i'm just opposed on principle to using AI in this way, but i'm strongly of the opinion that using anything but the author's--or at the very least another human's--judgement to parse, paraphrase, or rephrase a work discards almost all the value of the original text.
realizing this is also probably a quite uncharitable interpretation as i'm writing, but i hope my point at least comes out coherently. i'm certain that your usage of ai in this case is as more of a supplement to, rather than replacement of, the original text since you describe it as 'read[ing] alongside' an LLM. i just worry that having the conversation with an LLM at all in this case introduces more noise than it could ever clarify.
It is useful in the same way as it is useful to have someone else with another perspective to discuss a text + it is much better than me at understanding references in contexts I'm not familiar with, which is especially useful in contexts where the author does not bother explaining references. I can only argue from experience, saying, it is useful for me. But yes, it is not a replacement, and it does introduce noise, which you have to filter.
Very good piece! I fully agree. And thanks to all for so many interesting hints!
There are different types of journals, though. Some diaries are especially important for research concerning the author's life and creative processes (e.g. Goethe's diaries or Thomas Mann's), others bear witness to their time (e.g. the ones written by Jewish professor Viktor Klemperer who describes the terrible years after 1933) or Franziska zu Reventlow's, a 19th century rebel against her assigned role in society. She was not very successful as a writer, but her journal is fascinating ... There are other types, but I'll leave it at that.
Not paradoxical at all. The best writing is pure and from the heart, which of course comes only if you’re ignoring your audience. I truly enjoyed your essay as well.
I definitely got this sentiment when reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. On your point about the so-called fakeness of properly published works, private notes are as authentic as it gets... we can outwardly espouse a lot of things, but what we tell ourselves in private reveals our truest nature. And it's incredibly rare to get a glimpse into that for other people
I love your writing! And these reflections come hot after I went to a writer’s talk last night where she spoke about the riches of the 18th century with all the letters, travel writing, household books - acknowledging these are still published and ‘polished’ but there is something so vital about their seeming immediacy and often apparent randomness.
Thank you for the piece! I appreciate the premise, and it makes me curious too.
My primary training in the arts is more and this glorification of sketches doesn't seem to apply. There's historical interest in looking at a composers sketches, but rarely great musical value that's been papered over.
The exception that comes to mind is The Carnival of the Animals by Saint-Saens. Its not a sketch, but Saint-Saens wrote it as a silly work for friends. He did not want it published, now it as his most popular work.
Maybe we see this more outside of classical art music. The Beatles movie that had all the archival session footage was apparently pretty good- is watching a band write music in real time the same type of joy? Does improv count? (I'm inclined to say no).
I find it interesting, the effect is so strong in math (my other area of training), but not music. Maybe in math, the object only points to the intangible essense that is the art, whereas in music the object made is the essence? I'm no sophisticate of poetry, but I'm curious of your impression: do the diaries / sketchbooks of poets evoke the same magic as those of essayists? Even when you're reading for the quality of the verse?
P.S. I find I do my best writing in letter form (I initially wrote this as an email until I couldn't find your email; I couldn't have written this at the start as a substack comment). Are any of your favorite books collections of correspondence?
I just wrote about this last week! I did not publish it, but wrote this in a letter to the contributors of our budding Substack publication. I wrote:
"I've learned from the essays, memoirs, letters, and diaries of well-known thinkers that great ideas do not simply arrive. They unfold over time. And often, those great writers express their best thinking in these informal missives...Ideas-in-process have a kind of embodiment in the present. They haven't yet been released into the world like a finished work you can walk away from. Not everyone is comfortable writing before their idea feels complete. But imperfection is part of the beauty—it reveals something essential about our voice."
Montaigne, Emerson, Thomas Merton, Ulysses Grant, Anais Nin, Bishop/Lowell ... a few that come to mind! Your beautiful writing today reminds me how much this all matters to me.
It's on embracing inwardness, being public vs private when you're a creative, the sort of spiritual toll that sharing work can have. I think it's a great complimentary read to yours!
i like ur footnote idea of a post that consists fully of footnotes
Loved this! I was just thinking this morning about how much I enjoyed reading the journals of Jan Morris, John Cheever, Susan Sontag, Anais Nin etc. It's always such an interesting mix of confessional and workshop, with the added pleasure of knowing they weren't written to be performative. In my personal journal, I wrote down that they all "start from fog and not from clarity", and I think that about captures the essence of what makes them so meaningful, especially to other craftspeople.
Reading your post made me think of what it will feel like in the near future, when we’ll be reading the ‘polished’ writing of LLMs vs the authentic writing of a real person. Maybe the world is in need of an anti-polished writing movement, where the workshopping towards a final result becomes the work itself.
i'm confused by footnote 4 in the context of this piece. in my estimation, most authors don't publish the more raw forms because they're less articulate, not as thoroughly researched, and thus more challenging for a reader to parse meaning from. is that difficulty not precisely why you find these writings enjoyable? i find a similar satisfaction in reading less polished or journal-like works(e.g. anais nin Diary of Other People) because it lets me peer just a bit deeper into their mind, to notice how they direct their attention and process the events of life in relation to their work. it helps me in both life and reading to build out sort of 'models of mind' that i can use to try out new ideas from different perspectives.
maybe i'm just opposed on principle to using AI in this way, but i'm strongly of the opinion that using anything but the author's--or at the very least another human's--judgement to parse, paraphrase, or rephrase a work discards almost all the value of the original text.
realizing this is also probably a quite uncharitable interpretation as i'm writing, but i hope my point at least comes out coherently. i'm certain that your usage of ai in this case is as more of a supplement to, rather than replacement of, the original text since you describe it as 'read[ing] alongside' an LLM. i just worry that having the conversation with an LLM at all in this case introduces more noise than it could ever clarify.
It is useful in the same way as it is useful to have someone else with another perspective to discuss a text + it is much better than me at understanding references in contexts I'm not familiar with, which is especially useful in contexts where the author does not bother explaining references. I can only argue from experience, saying, it is useful for me. But yes, it is not a replacement, and it does introduce noise, which you have to filter.
Very good piece! I fully agree. And thanks to all for so many interesting hints!
There are different types of journals, though. Some diaries are especially important for research concerning the author's life and creative processes (e.g. Goethe's diaries or Thomas Mann's), others bear witness to their time (e.g. the ones written by Jewish professor Viktor Klemperer who describes the terrible years after 1933) or Franziska zu Reventlow's, a 19th century rebel against her assigned role in society. She was not very successful as a writer, but her journal is fascinating ... There are other types, but I'll leave it at that.
Not paradoxical at all. The best writing is pure and from the heart, which of course comes only if you’re ignoring your audience. I truly enjoyed your essay as well.
I definitely got this sentiment when reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. On your point about the so-called fakeness of properly published works, private notes are as authentic as it gets... we can outwardly espouse a lot of things, but what we tell ourselves in private reveals our truest nature. And it's incredibly rare to get a glimpse into that for other people
I love your writing! And these reflections come hot after I went to a writer’s talk last night where she spoke about the riches of the 18th century with all the letters, travel writing, household books - acknowledging these are still published and ‘polished’ but there is something so vital about their seeming immediacy and often apparent randomness.
My wife reckons I don't give her enough privacy. At least, that's what she wrote in her diary.
Thank you for the piece! I appreciate the premise, and it makes me curious too.
My primary training in the arts is more and this glorification of sketches doesn't seem to apply. There's historical interest in looking at a composers sketches, but rarely great musical value that's been papered over.
The exception that comes to mind is The Carnival of the Animals by Saint-Saens. Its not a sketch, but Saint-Saens wrote it as a silly work for friends. He did not want it published, now it as his most popular work.
Maybe we see this more outside of classical art music. The Beatles movie that had all the archival session footage was apparently pretty good- is watching a band write music in real time the same type of joy? Does improv count? (I'm inclined to say no).
I find it interesting, the effect is so strong in math (my other area of training), but not music. Maybe in math, the object only points to the intangible essense that is the art, whereas in music the object made is the essence? I'm no sophisticate of poetry, but I'm curious of your impression: do the diaries / sketchbooks of poets evoke the same magic as those of essayists? Even when you're reading for the quality of the verse?
P.S. I find I do my best writing in letter form (I initially wrote this as an email until I couldn't find your email; I couldn't have written this at the start as a substack comment). Are any of your favorite books collections of correspondence?
Splendid stuff. Footnotes are so much fun.
Fully agree. Boswell’s London Journal was one of the best things I’ve ever read. Good piece.
I just wrote about this last week! I did not publish it, but wrote this in a letter to the contributors of our budding Substack publication. I wrote:
"I've learned from the essays, memoirs, letters, and diaries of well-known thinkers that great ideas do not simply arrive. They unfold over time. And often, those great writers express their best thinking in these informal missives...Ideas-in-process have a kind of embodiment in the present. They haven't yet been released into the world like a finished work you can walk away from. Not everyone is comfortable writing before their idea feels complete. But imperfection is part of the beauty—it reveals something essential about our voice."
Montaigne, Emerson, Thomas Merton, Ulysses Grant, Anais Nin, Bishop/Lowell ... a few that come to mind! Your beautiful writing today reminds me how much this all matters to me.
Love these private notebooks Henrik! Reminds me of the Haiku Masters chapbooks that my brother collects
I loved this! Not too long before reading your piece, I read this newsletter here: https://charlottewood.substack.com/p/subtract-outerness
It's on embracing inwardness, being public vs private when you're a creative, the sort of spiritual toll that sharing work can have. I think it's a great complimentary read to yours!