pathways in the brain

Here’s another old (2010) essay I saved from the NYT by novelist James Collins (Beginner’s GreekI) who asks “What’s the point of reading so many books when I can barely remember what’s in them?” And I guess the corollary to that question is the complaint of many readers who begin to read—usually a mystery—only to realize that they’ve read it before. If you do that, are you actually conscious when you read it the first time? I was thinking about this the other day when I discovered I couldn’t remember The Goldfinch, at least not from the trailers advertising the movie based on it. I liked the book so where was I when I was reading it? i was there-here-wherever.

Collins went for help to answer his question, consulting a professor of Child Development at Tufts University, Maryanne Wolf. She reassured him that a recent book he had read and enjoyed but couldn’t seem to remember had nevertheless had an effect on him. She said he was a different person for having read it, and she used that phrase i used for my blog title: reading, she said, creates pathways in the brain. She said there is a difference between the immediate recall of details and the ability to recall a “gestalt of knowledge”. To adapt a phrase of William James’s, there is a “wraith of memory”. “It’s there,”Wolf said. “You [we] are the sum of it all.” Of course! It’s from the poem, Ulysses, by Lord Tennyson:

I am a part of all that I have met; 

Yet all experience is an arch wherethro' 

Gleams that untravell'd world ///whose margin fades 

For ever and forever when I move.///

Oops—here’s a detour on my pathway. I have quoted those lines recently but after untravell’d world I continued “from whose bourne no traveller returns”. That, of course, is from Hamlet’s soliloquy that begins “to be or not to be.” Oh dear.

It’s gone to print. I made this egregious error in my new book, even now on its way to public scrutiny. You can be the first to reprimand this careless writer. She was haunted by a wraith of memory.

octotherp

Octotherp is an earlier name for the hashtag: # (TLS, of course, May 17, 2019)

See the eight free ends of the four strokes that make it up. Critics resisted Andreas Bernard who gives us this name in his book Das Dictat des Hashtags (2018), translated by Valentine A.Pakis as Theory of Hashtag. I looked it up online and got this:

octothorp(e) a versatile symbol with many names (among them hash mark, number sign, and pound sign), the octothorpe has become popularized as the go-to symbol for marking trending topics on Twitter and other social media. ... The octo- part almost certainly refers to the eight points on the symbol, but the -thorpe remains a mystery.

TLS (via OED) tells us that “thorp” is an eighth-century Old English or Old Norse word for village. I’ve had enough of this. I don’t even like hashtags, especially on T-shirts..