Re: explanation
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sat, 04 Jul 1998 19:08:57 +1000
> I gather this conceit that a work of art is some kind of
> co-operation between creator & audience derives originally from
> Frog literary theory. It triggers a lot of delighted laughter
> in England but is apparently still taken quite seriously in America
> & some of the other colonies.
First of all. Let me put out there that I do not consider myself an
intellectual. As far as I'm concerned, no one's theory of literature is
paramount; I subscribe to none of them. I' (And please ... *please* do not
demean yourself by referring to Australia so contemptuously as `a colony'
as if we are still trying to bleach the convict-arrows out of our pyjamas!
It's a terrible example of the green-inkism you were condemning yourself
only days ago.)
> It is, of course, utter drivel propogated by academics & critics
> hoping to arrogate their humble function to the same level as
> that of the artist. But that's not how the thing works at all.
That's not true at all. I'm neither a critic nor and academic - I'm close
as a university-educated person can be to Salinger's famed `amateur reader'
(and coincidentally enough a writer myself). If you can put aside your
obvious contempt for such `arrogating' people you will listen to my side of
the story, at which I am not attacking from any intellectual point of view
but in my own opinion and experience.
What I mean by this exchange is that writing is a kind of communication,
and for a communication to be valid; for that tree to be *heard* crashing
to the floor of the woods, there needs to be a receiver.
> The artist or writer is the discoverer of a unique vision which
> he tries - without ever wholly succeeding - to transmit across
> all the static & bumph of interstellar space to whatever distant
> planets may be trying to tune to his wavelength.
This is very true. Very true. And it rests at the core of my opinion - the
artist *is* transmitting his message. But it is impossible for this message
not to change in transit. You cannot say that the Holden Caulfield in my
head is the same as the one in your head. Nor is your experience of the
book the same as mine - I read it in highschool, and so it is inextricably
linked to that time for me. Both of our experiences of the book are
different to Salingers'. Between us, we have `created' three different
books that mean different things. There is a certain sacredness, granted,
in the author's original `transmission', for he or she is the one who sent
the impulse that stimulated something in us. But ultimately this stimulus
is only a collection of suggestions that you put out for the world to
consider. As you say yourself :
> the artist may not, himself,
> wholly understand since much of it derives from his own unconscious.
This is in fact accepting the reality that the author is not necessarily
the ultimate authority on his or her own text. I know I don't know
everything about the things I have written. I need almost as much help
interpreting them as anyone else. I've seen many productions of my plays,
and more often than not I've realised something new in each production that
I didn't realise was in there. Yes, I put it in there, but it was hidden to
me. It was, as I said a suggestion, of which every text is filled, and
which different people find different answers for. If they disagree with my
interpretation, I am in no position to say they are right or wrong. So no,
I don't agree that:
> But, believe me, he is in a much better position to speak for it
> than anyone else who, by the very nature of things, is many light
> years from its place of origin.
>
> I know about these things. I'm a writer of novels both published
> & acclaimed & have known quite a number of creative writers even
> more distinguished than myself.
I don't believe in elitism of this sort. I don't feel inferior to you
because I haven't had anything published, and nor should I. I would hope
that you respect myself and the other writers on this listserv (and there
are many) and our opinons regardless of what we have had published or what
big names we have known. This shouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
> The day Jack REALLY starts to believe he's as
> good as his Master will be the day Western Civilisation starts
> its final collapse.
I think it's a shame that this is your opinion. Out of everything about
creating literature and art, I find the exchange of ideas the most
fascinating and the aspect which I most cherish. I don't see myself as the
master of my readership or audience. Instead, I really appreciate the
exchange that takes place and truly enjoy the idea that in each and every
head that has come into contact with my writing, I have planted the seed
that grows into a wonderful experience which is unique to every person. I
don't think I could bear writing into a vacuum as Salinger does. As far as
I'm concerned, Author + Reader = Text. But I can in a way understand his
anonymoty - by removing himself from one end of that equation of
communication, he makes us rely on our own interpretation.
It just seems a shame that he is not interested in the things his stories
have become in the minds of others.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442