> Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language.

> Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language. This applies to all art. Of course it cannot literally put you in someone else's shoes, but it does things like evoke an image in the viewers imagination. > It's up to the reader (if their curiosity is so piqued) to do their own work (whatever that may be) to see if related experiences might be relevant to them. I see nothing in this passage or in those of Iyer's works that I've read to suggest he believes anyone can attain the states he's describing simply by reading his writing. I never denied the importance of active engagement for the viewer of art. > They're just offering practices and associated reflections that might be useful to some. He literally wrote "I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is...". Not just something that might be useful, but the best. And he's arguing against analytical methods of accomplishing similar things. I don't think this piece can be defended by saying the author was just sorta sharing some neat stuff. He's criticizing other approaches.