interesting ideas. This has been said by many other writers, it is to them a self-evident truth.Writers, states Roberto Calasso in his book Literature and the Gods, ‘are the onlyones who know the territory well’ and giving a long list of them, which includesBaudelaire, Proust, Valéry, Auden, Yeats, Borges, Nabokov and Calvino, aremarkably diverse international group, Calasso adds: ‘we immediately sense…that they are all talking about the same thing... they know that the literaturethey’re talking about is not to be recognised by its observance of any theory, butrather by a certain vibration or luminescence of the sentence’ — a gloriousphrase that, lumines cence of the sentence.Conrad talks about ‘the shape and ring of sentences’ in the preface to one hisnovels; Flaubert refers to ‘sentences that make me swoon’ — two variations ofluminescence.Nabokov said in his Lectures on Don Quixote, ‘the only thing that really mattersin this business of literature — the mysterious thrill of art, the impact of aestheticbliss.’ Flaubert wrote in a letter, ‘As for me, I fail to understand how those peopleexist who are not from morning to night in an aesthetic state. I have enjoyedmore than many the pleasures of family, as much as any man my age thepleasures of the senses, more than many the pleasures of love. But I know of nodelight to compare by that given me by some of the illustrious dead whose worksI have read or seen.’ (To Louise Colet: Oct 3, 1846).The pleasure that Flaubert and Nabokov are referring to is that of language itself,that moment of ecstasy experienced by the mind when an expression, an imageor a rhythm brings to it a sudden surge of pleasure.Longinus, writing his treatise On the Sublime almost 2,000 years ago, stated that‘the Sublime consists in a consummate excellence and distinction of language,and that this alone gave to the greatest poets and prose writers theirpreeminence.’ In 1815, Goethe stated, ‘An art attains to supreme heights whenits subject is a matter of indifference and the art itself truly absolute, with thesubject-matter merely its vehicle.’ In 1858, George Eliot wrote in a letter to herpublisher: ‘The soul of art lies in its treatment and not in its subject.’ Eight yearslater, in another letter, she wrote, ‘I think aesthetic teaching is the highest of allteaching because it deals with life in its highest complexity. But if it ceases to bepurely aesthetic — if it lapses anywhere from the picture to the diagram — itbecomes the most offensive of all teaching.’ It is not ideas, not merely thecontent, but style, what we call the writer’s unique voice when it uses language ina compellingly distinctive form, which generates the aesthetic bliss.No one can give a young writer a formula for acquiring a distinctive style. It is anevolutionary process dependent upon wide reading; the more you read the moreyour mind is engaged in a natural selection of those forms which the peculiar