03-03-2015, 04:22 PM
(03-03-2015 07:56 AM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: [ -> ]RPN would just drive a mathematician crazy...
Yeah, yeah, ...
Cheers
Thomas
(03-03-2015 07:56 AM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: [ -> ]RPN would just drive a mathematician crazy...
(03-03-2015 07:30 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote: [ -> ]I am considering to follow you.
(03-03-2015 08:09 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]Marcus - It can be hazardous to generalize about most things, but certainly about RPN or mathematicians. But never, ever, about both at once. At least not here.
Quote:How can I tell what I think till I see what I say?-- Aspects of the Novel, by E. M. Forster
(03-04-2015 10:43 AM)Thomas Klemm Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:How can I tell what I think till I see what I say?-- Aspects of the Novel, by E. M. Forster
Quote:But because this quote is a kind of touchstone for what we mean when we say ‘discovery writing’, I’ve made the effort to track it down. It seems to come, as I’ve said, from Aspects of the Novel. Forster had been critiquing Gide’s sense that a novel should not be planned. Forster’s words are sarcastic, and put Gide’s ideas into the mouth of an uneducated “old lady”, a “distinguished critic” who has no “understand”[ing] of “what logic is”:
“Another distinguished critic has agreed with Gide – that old lady in the anecdote who has accused her nieces of being illogical. For some time she could not be brought to understand what logic was, and when she grasped its true nature she was not so much angry as contemptuous. “Logic! Good gracious! What rubbish!” she exclaimed. “How can I tell you what I think till I see what I say?” Her nieces, educated young women, thought that she was passée; she was really more up-to date than they were.” (Forster, 1927: 71, emphasis mine)
...
Forster, then, was not an exemplar of discovery writing, as many people now assume, but was an early critic.