Young Writers Society

I read about this somewhere. I can't remember where, although I have ideas, but I don't have the books with me so I couldn't be sure. Maybe someone else has heard this too and they can fill me in...

I read something about how the other should be, or must be, seperate from the writing and how some authors try to defy this. It was in the way that, once your work has been published and it goes to the reader, the writer no longer matters. No one reads for the writer, essentially, but for the writing. When writers try to make themselves apart of the writing, try to put them in the middle of it, it ruins the writing. It shouldn't be that way because the writer should be behind a curtain, so to speak, unseen by the reader.

It was something like that. If I had what I was actually thinking of this would make more sense... Any thoughts? Or am I making no sense at all?

I have no idea what you are talking about lol.

Is this like that article that came out when JK Rowling outed Dumbledore (it was posted somewhere on YWS, but I can't find it now) that claimed that just because Rowling said that Dumbles was gay, that didn't make it so? That she gave up the right to control her characters as soon as the books got published? If so, I disagree. They're still the author's intellectual property, and for me, what the author says go.

I suppose that's all I have to say XD

I think I understand. But the characters should be what the writer wants them to be. That, I think, is almost the key point of writing novels.

You mean, as a narrator or something? Like the unseen voice?

Not.... really. I didn't make much sense, I admit. I found the quote, though.

Reading, at the bottom, has very little to do with writers. The celebrity author is a farce, because writing can only mean something once the author has removed himself from it. As Manguel puts it, "...in order for a text to be finished the writer must withdrew, cease to exist. While the writer remains present, the text remains incomplete...Only when the able eye makes contact with the markings on the tablet, does the text come to active life. All writing depends on the generosity of the reader...From its very start, reading is writing's apotheosis."

From The Artful Edit by Susan Bell.

Of course I have a note scribbled next to this that says: "Reader Response Theory?" So perhaps what I thought it was and what it is are two different things, hah. But I am mostly referring to the the part I underlined. Even there though, I think I am making no sense--even to myself.

Even inside the book I took it from, the aforementioned quote is talking about the fact that at some point a writer has to stop writing, and editing, their story. Within the text, the quote makes sense, but I think I've twisted it, or at least, thought something else of it. Hah, I am confused.

You're not making much sense. but there is a well known quote:

An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere. ~Gustave Flaubert

And I totally agree with that. Of course it's impossible to write without putting some of your personality, opinions etc into the characters and things like that, but it shouldn't comprise of that completely. In other words, your characters should be as separate from you as possible. You shouldn't be able to obviously see what comprises of your personality etc within your work.

It actually does make sense to a point. I mean, from a legal stand point, sure the author does own the characters/story, but real art belongs to everyone and we all have the right to interpret or enjoy it in our own ways. Just think of how many interpretations people have for the symbols and events in The Lord of the Rings? We all have different ideas about what the ring means, and JR Tolkien, from everything I've read, would never tell you you're wrong.

I think it makes sense. It is the story told and the writing shared that matters and can truly impact a reader. Sometimes when an author speaks on behalf of the story after it is shared, it can ruin the beauty of the book. Interpretation and imagination are two of the most enjoyable aspects of reading. I don't think an author necessarily must remove him or herself, but excessive explanation and an overbearing view of the writer can often cloud the message of the story and defeat the entire purpose of telling the story well.

Maybe that was a confusing, but it's an interesting topic.

I'm glad I made a little more sense that time around, hah.

And what about in success? Authors have never been incredebly famous, at least not to the point of actors. Maybe Rowling, I don't know. But should the author be the one receiving the success? For the writing--yes. They did write it. But it is the actual writing that should be praised...I'm not sure that makes sense either. You would praise the artist and the art, but in the end you look at the art in the museum, and not the artist.

Honestly, I don't know what I'm trying to get at here. I think I am just throwing things out and seeing what happens, haha.

Then what would you say about autobiographies...?

I think that as long as the writer wants to keep himself tied to the books, they won't be able to function as books, you know? They'd be static and sit around, collecting dust.

*throws things out in response to see what happens*

I'm totally confused.

I think I need to go mull all of this over for a while. xD

-:pirate3:

... I think I get what you're talking about. I think.

In my ideal world, writing would always be judged on nothing but its own merits. We would just look at the words on the page and the techniques applied and leave the author out of it. I mean, praise the author for his or her skill, accordingly, of course. But I personally dislike the notion of tying a collection of words to a certain person. If another person had written exactly the same thing, would it have meant something else? Maybe I'm just close-minded, but I would prefer to think not.

One of the most intriguing things about literary analysis for me is not necessarily knowing the author's views on what he or she wrote. It makes you read that much more carefully to pick up clues in the writing rather than drawing conclusions from an author's background. If an author wants to make a point about something, I hold them in far higher regard if they do that solely through the words they print rather than if I have to go searching through their personal history and apply that to the story.

Of course the context of pieces of writing is important -- I wouldn't dream of saying that it isn't. The author's context certainly shapes his or her views and therefore, what he or she chooses to write about. But the writing should stand for itself. The author shouldn't need to hang around in the background to make it make sense.

... I have no idea if all of that made any sense whatsoever, but I'll stand by my own policy and step back and let you guys interpret it as you will. My words should speak for themselves

Hey Suz, I think you're heading toward what prominent scholars have debated for decades. There are several fields of literary theory and criticism and the one you describe most resembles New Criticism, which attempts to look solely at the text and ignore any outside resources, specifically biography.

The other side, which prescribes to New Historicism, says that a work is a "product of its time" and so biography and the time it was written are important. In this field, history and biography are closely studied to reveal truths about the author and time and then related to the work.

This stuff becomes really important if you decide to become an English major, as you'll be critiquing books, possibly through both types of criticism. Some professors prefer to learn the history and biography behind everything, while some like to focus on the work itself and leave out all that extraneous info.

As for when it comes to writing, I'm not sure you should worry about that as an author. The readers will do as they wish.

I'm looking at this as a fiction tip/discussion and though it's an important point for a reader or critic to know, maybe it's just as important for writers.

In the first reading of a peice, at least, it's best not to look at the authors influence on the writings. I read once that many lines of Hart Crane's poems in 'The Broken Tower' and the 'Voyages' series give different meanings when read normally and when read while remembering that he had publicly announced homosexual feelings. But some critics say that it spoils the effect completely as poetry is too delicate to take that way.

For the critic I'd say it's useful to know the background. It's difficult to know when a writer's actual feelings and thoughts are affecting his writing, so normally it's best for non-critical readers to just take the text on the face of it. But then there's the question as to what a writer should do about this. Personally, I'd say that a writer can't avoid influencing his plotlines and characters. Shakespeare is considered a genius because he has such a huge host of original characters in his stories. But a dozen idiots go around saying that Hamlet was influenced by Shakespeare's suspicions that his wife was commiting adultery. So, yeah, even though the originality of an author might simply be an author's feelings twisted around and around in his subconscious before being spilled onto paper (like a kind of input and output) authors should be careful with what they write.