I often find myself led to thinking about things due to questions people ask on forums or due to conversations (chat and otherwise) I have. Sometimes I start thinking about the original conversation and splinter off, so to speak, to a loosely related topic. And sometimes I dwell on the original topic.
Today's topic: writing for publication. Or, for that matter, writing to a broad audience. Or really, writing to any audience. (I know former professors of mine who would scold me for a premise such as this one. I just moved from specific to broad . . . but that is neither here nor there)
I'm obviously writing to an audience right now. In fact, I bet I could predict who will read and comment on this post. But I shall refrain. Because I can also predict that my prediction won't be completely right. There will be some random stragglers I can't account for. (Until, that is, I get sent my statistics report and see they ended up here as a product of a google search for something that might appear as a short phrase in one of my entries, but the entry itself will have absolutely nothing to do with what they are looking for.)
Anyway, this is what I have discovered (and it's not a new notion, by any means) about writing. Especially writing once you have handed it over to someone else. Once you let it leave your hands, it no longer belongs to you anymore. Sure, you still have possession in the sense you get the copyright.
But I'm not talking about physical possession. I'm not talking about conveying ideas. Once you have presented someone else with anything--a poem, a song, a novel--what you meant for it to mean just doesn't matter anymore. And it isn't that you didn't give it any meaning. It's just that you can't control what it means anymore.
My AP English teacher positively loathed getting analysis essays from us that had any ideas worded such: "The author obviously intended x," or "The author meant that y," because no reader can truly no the intent of an author. Unless the author tells them.
Now shhh . . . but let me tell you something. Sometimes the author didn't have a definite intent outside of writing something entertaining. But remember, you didn't hear that here.
In fact, I would go so far as to argue that if someone who writes something makes their meaning so abundantly clear and obvious it can't be mistaken, expanded, or revised--then that person is not tremendously talented. I'm just sayin'. You can agree or disagree. (Go on, disagree. I dare you. Give me an example of somebody clubbing you over the head with their point and you liked it and thought it artistically well done.)
So as a writer, I think it's important to remember that once it hits the public, the work is out of your hands. The audience gets to decide. And the less unanimous the audience is about what they see and what moves them in your work, the better you are at what you do.
And interestingly enough, when touched by a variety of readers/listeners, some works only evolve and improve over time. After all, a work untouched by an audience never has a chance to be anything other than what the creator thinks it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
And I would add, the value of a piece increases with the amount of reader interpretation than just the author's alone. Consider, would we ever read Jane Austen if somebody out there didn't like it? And publish it some more?
"Give me an example of somebody clubbing you over the head with their point and you liked it and thought it artistically well done."
Abinadi comes to mind. Lehi, too. Most any prophet, really--to say nothing of Jesus Himself. I think how clearly you express your point really depends on why you're talking at all. Jesus didn't tell parables just to tell nice little stories; Dr. Seuss probably didn't have any sort of linguistic agenda in enumerating the letters beyond Z.
Just sayin'....
sch. -- Yes, but Jesus and Abinadi weren't clubbing you over the head with something, you're just a bystander.
True enough; I suppose it was less enjoyable for those who originally had those words directed toward them. However, sometimes the intent of a thing is not enjoyment but edification, and I'm sure Alma was grateful the rest of his life.
But, to be fair, I don't suppose these things I have brought up really address Confuzzled's declared topic of "Writing for Publication." I'd really like to use Upton Sinclair's The Jungle for an example, but I've never read it. Ummm. How 'bout 1984, though? CERTAINLY not an enjoyable read--Confuzzled herself through the book across the room upon finishing it--and I'ma gonna say George Orwell was clubbing his readers with a message there, wouldn't you?
'Course, bottom line, here, is that I'm mostly disagreeing because Confuzzled dared me to, and what are cyberfriends for if not to argue when given the opportunity?
Schmet--Now why would you think I was daring you in particular to disagree? (*Puts on innocent face*)
I can make no claims for The Jungle either. (I also haven't read it) And I've known enough people who had varied reactions to 1984 that I'd have to both agree and disagree with you. Yes, George Orwell had a pretty obvious agenda. But not everyone I know (by any means) interpret the work caused by the agenda exactly the same way...
The absolutely best example of a very enjoyable clubbing over the head from a writing designed publication is Ismael by Daniel Quinn, but I don't suppose anyone here has read it but me. It's not a book I readily recommend to many people, but it is, perhaps, my all-time favorite work of fiction. But the plot is secondary to the philosophy; in fact, I could summarize the plot in a single sentence: "The protagonist meets a philosopher who explains to him what is wrong with society and how to fix it." The reasons I don't readily recommend my favorite book are 1) it is extremely persuasive, and 2) its philosophy is, in light of the Restored Gospel, simply wrong in very fundamental ways.
Of course, this, too, may be a poor example of an enjoyable clubbing because I find that, of the few people I know personally who have read this book, I am the only one who really loves it (though there are online forums for those who subscribe to its philosophy to the point of fanaticism). I love it because of the beauty and clarity of its presentation; perhaps, then, people like you (meaning people who prefer fiction that has intricate plotlines and definite character development) would consider it bad fiction, I don't know.
Any idea, presented either in fiction or not, is going to meet with both sides of any argument. Just the fact that there is debate here is a perfect example. You might say the most compelling argument for Confuzled's point is it's applicability to every work examined here. I know for a fact that Jesus' sayings are rarely considered to mean only one thing, the staggering amount of discordance on that subject being witness. 1984 is also controversial, because my own favorite interpretation of it is that it's anti-christian writing. Any point, expressed in either fiction, or ever plainness, will be interpreted according to the person recieving. I don't know what triggered the blog, Confuzled, but even though I disagreed in chat (as I am wont to do) I say, well done.
OMG, I just had the worst De Ja Vu of my hellish experience otherwise known as AP English. Although it sounds like you had a much cooler teacher by not allowing you to say "what the author thought" because that is all that mine wanted, and let me tell you, my idea of what the author meant and what my teachers ideas were were always different, hence I recieved way too many D's and C's for Caroline's typical performance in school. Does literature always have to mean something? Sorry, but I would much rather take a Math class than any interpretive english class. Although I love reading, and yes I am moved by literature.
Post a Comment