Tuesday, May 19, 2009


Well........"most sentences can be cut up at random and reassembled without too much loss of meaning or music..." Excuse me? Will you please step outside and repeat that? Help! I am being beaten up by an army of poets and other wordsmiths. Please! Look at the date: it was 1983. This is 2009 and I no longer agree with the rash statement I wrote then. I apologise. But the rest is okay, innit?



linda severn said...

Hi Natalie,
Looking back over your last 5 extracts, they become more and more wordy. The first 2 have those beautiful graphics, and,as you say at the end of 5 '...more pictures'. Your notebooks are from a long time ago, if you still agreed with everything you wrote then, there would be something wrong!Have you learnt anything from looking at them afresh? It's fascinating looking back at what we once thought. I hope you'll let us see more. Best wishes, Linda.

Natalie d'Arbeloff said...

Linda, you're right. If I had written these notes (and my many journals in general) with the intention of publication, I certainly would have edited them drastically and also added lots more graphics. But since they're private inner monologues, they tend to be word-heavy. Oddly enough, looking back at a lot of stuff I wrote in the past (and there are boxes full of it!) I'm often surprised that most of it is still relevant to me in the present.

Dominic Rivron said...

I have you think a point :)

Would that be like "cubist writing"? One or two writers in the past have considered themselves "cubist"ish.

Natalie d'Arbeloff said...

Dominic, cubist-ish, yes. But the surrealists used the automatic writing process: any words will do, whatever comes to mind, in any order, and it won't matter if you remove one word and insert another. Only they weren't interested in communicating any particular feeling, only 'letting loose' the unconscious. Whether the unconscious is interesting or not.