# A Matter of Perspective:  Is Writing Selfless or an Extension of Self?



## Darkkin (Jan 18, 2017)

Happened across an interesting perspective in a critique thread that was decidedly different from most, that of a poem, a frame of sorts that was handed over to the reader to fill in the blank space.  Needless to say, I was a bit confused as to why a writer would leave so a piece so open ended, to the point that the voice of the writer was in complete abeyance.  

The reasoning behind the action was a unique perspective, that writing, any creative medium for that matter, is not about the journey of the author or artist, it is about the reader/viewer's reactions, their moment.  In essence, the creative process is selfless, control of the medium entrusted to the reader/viewer upon completion of the project.  It falls to the reader/ viewer to provide the context of their experience.

It is the polar opposite of what I know of the creative process.  As a writer, I've always believed the process is an extension of one's self.  Something written or created as an expression of one's emotions, thoughts, and/or ideas.  And while observations, critiques, and reactions are appreciated the writer maintains a clear voice and control over their work.  Yes, there is room for the reader, but so too, there is also the decisive presence of the writer.  The images, ideas, and journeys made clear.  

As a writer I don't let the reader define the emotive context of the piece, I know what I felt, what I want to convey, but I certainly hope I've written well enough to elicit a similar response from the reader.  Have I gotten them to empathize.

What I know of people is a mixed bag, and I admit to being a cynic.  I know people can be selfish and often times cruel. Four percent of the American population are classified as sociopaths.  And a study published in _U.S.__ New_ found that of 35,000 Americans surveyed almost six percent, one in sixteen, of the 20 - 30 year old age bracket had a clear diagnosis of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).  The number falls to around three percent with a direct correlation to the subject's age.  But it is still a significant number of people.

Statistics aside, basic life experience teaches us early on that people more often than not put themselves first.  It is human nature, highly instinctive, but there are times when self absorption borders on callous, oblivious, ignorant, and cruel.  It weighs on the mind, the body, and soul.  Our creative processes help battle against this.  As writers, readers we have a chance to hone our awareness of not only our minds and emotions, but also how we impact those around us.  And research has shown that readers simply by the act of reading have a much greater capacity for empathy than nonreaders.

As writers, reading goes hand in hand with our craft, laying the foundations for writers to be more emotional cognizant and inherently empathetic.  Still, every person is unique and statistics and personal experiences don't lie.  People who are truly selfless are few and far between, hens' teeth if you will.  Individuals like Mother Teresa come to mind.  As do the speeches of Winston Churchill and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  I'm sure there are others living in obscurity, but selflessness is not a trait we often see displayed by the general public.  

Knowing what I know, what I've read, I have a very hard time accepting a near utopian vision of the creative process.  I can respect the perspective, but I cannot accept it.  Because in doing so, it feels like one is essentially silencing one's voice as a writer and allowing the reader to have complete control of their idea.  It ceases to belong to the writer and becomes the reader's.  

Granted, as a writer, one concedes control to a certain extent when a piece is posted or shared.  The reader is wholly entitled to their experience and opinions given they have invested their time and attention.  However, certain foundations have been laid, delineating the writer's voice.  One hopes the reader will empathize, but the writer's voice is still the controlling factor. 

 But to surrender that control, leaving a trace so faint it is nearly invisible...To take everything that went into the project and render it inert, so the reader's experience is all that matters feels wrong.  Why should the writer or artist's journey and emotions count for less than those of the reader?  The writer did the work, I like it when I can hear them loud and clear.  

Selfless writing is a commitment I cannot make considering what I know of people, which admittedly, is limited.  And one has to wonder, too, that as readers are we going to want to be saddled with the responsibility of providing our emotive context to such a construct?  I'm guessing some of it depends on the medium, too.  There is a huge difference between listening to music, reading a book, and looking at a painting.

I will be the first to admit, I am a selfish, control freak.  My projects are mine.  I  take opinions and observations under consideration, but I will never cede complete emotive and contextual control to the reader.  Their emotions are not mine, nor mine theirs.  As a reader I can walk around in their shoes, and they in mine, but at the end of the day, we still maintain the inherent voice of our creative process.

I understand writing is about finding balance, but there is a line between allowing the reader room to extrapolate and having them do the work for the writer.  I don't want to be a selfless writer.  As broken and abhorrent as my writing is, it is still _mine_.  The reader knows it, I know it.  Something so incredibly personal and unique is not meant to be placed in the hands of the general population.  An artist's soul, that gamut of emotions and chaos, it belongs to the individual.

What are your thoughts?  Is the creative process selfless, an extension of one's self, or somewhere in between.  Personally, I think it is about finding balance between one's voice and the reader's experience.  Both matter.  And I know I am seriously overthinking this.  Sorry about the ramble, it was just an interesting crossroad of psychology and the creative process.  Some folks clearly have way more faith in humanity than me...:wink:


----------



## Firemajic (Jan 18, 2017)

I doubt that Renoir would start a painting, then hand his palette and brush to a bystander and ask them to finish his work... cause then, it would no longer be a Renoir...


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 18, 2017)

Good art inspires, no matter its medium.  Whether it is amazing food, a book you fall into, or a painting that leaves you breathless.  The work is singular and memorable because of what it gives the observer, but not at the cost of the artist.  I should look up interviews to see if a similar question was asked of current writers and artists.  Do they write for themselves or their audience?  The statistics would be interesting to see.

Another thing to consider, the phenomenon of selfless writing, I think has the possibility to occur, pardon me while I channel Mr. Spock, when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  When conditions are right, and empathy is at an unprecedented level, those are moments when words become more than the writer, more than the reader.  Dr. King's _I have a Dream _speech is a perfect example.

A bonafide occurrence of such a thing is a statistical improbability, but like our moon statistical anomalies will and do happen.  The circumstances surrounding such a happening though, will have to be an absolute perfect storm of variables.


----------



## Shi (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not the best at writing coherently on the fly, so I'll jump around and address several questions you raised, and in the meantime, hopefully address some of the main issues you wanted discussions on.

So. "Do they write for themselves or their audience?"

I staunchly believe that a writer writes for themselves. They write for their own beliefs, for their own enjoyment, to relieve their stress, to see an idea of theirs come to life. Anyone who says they write completely for the audience is lying, because there is a little part of them that's doing it for themselves, too: they might want people to like their work and give them praise, or to win a prize, or to get recognition for their idea.

However, that doesn't mean writing is a selfish act, in the negative sense. An adequate amount of selfishness is needed in order for us to have an identity. If everyone have their creative process for others, then what's _their's_, where's _their _originality? Even if you write for yourself, it's not a bad thing. But if a writer doesn't admit they're writing for their own benefit, hiding under a philanthropic mask, that's where the problem comes in.

But the sharing? That's just the good side of humanity. The story we wrote has brought us joy, or has instilled in us a positive emotion, and we want to share it with others, to hopefully give them the same reaction too, and besides, everyone likes to connect, to be understood, and so what's better than sharing a creation? Conversely, what's worse than pitching an idea only for it to fall into the void?

I don't frequent the really intellectual forums. I just can't seem to find those, so I follow the tumblr space instead.

There, I believe, I found an answer to your question of the creative process. The post said this way better than I can, and I'll try to find it again, but meanwhile, I'll try my best to say it.

A creative process is personal. Of course the formation of the idea is personal, and belongs only to the creator. But the results? Like I mentioned before, we want to share. The true creative process occurs when once the idea is formed and made, it's shared with others, receive constructive criticism, the artists reflects, and matures to create a better product. Should the creative process happen in a vacuum, the artist most likely would not improve as much as they would've if they shared it with an audience.

Anomalies can happen, of course, but it's very, very rare. The example you used (_I have a Dream speech_) is instead an example of the orator speaking _for everyone_, which includes himself. He's speaking his thoughts, and he's speaking everyone's thoughts. Do you see? While the speech itself can certainly be called a creation of selflessness, what really is self? What constitutes the line between doing something for and because of and to benefit/express oneself versus doing the exact same thing and having the result resonate with an audience?

Perhaps we're all capitalizing on the confirmation bias inherent to us as social creatures. I don't know, and I don't think anyone really does, but this is my little selfish and messy take on this, hope it helps.


----------



## Sam (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't care. 

I write a story. If the reader feels sad when I wanted them to laugh, that's their prerogative. 

Everybody takes a story differently, everyone doesn't see the picture that the author tried to convey, and that's what makes reading entirely personal. We take different things from stories, based on our world view and experiences. Therefore, you can write whatever emotion you want in your story, but it does not guarantee that a reader will pick up on it or take it the way you wanted them to. 

But if you can tell a great story, if you can make a reader want to read on into the small hours, it doesn't matter a damn whether writing is selfless, a self-extension, or the most narcissistic thing in the world.  It doesn't matter whether the reader laughed when you wanted them to be sad, or cried when you wanted them to smile. All that matters is that they're invested in your story so much that they forget to go to sleep.


----------



## Firemajic (Jan 19, 2017)

I am a glassblower, and when I sit down at my torch, pick up my glass rods and start the process of creating, I will be damned if anyone is going to tell me what to make ... what I see in the glass is MY vision. How I translate that vision into a sculpture in MY right. I own that. BUT, if I can do it better, make my art more exquisite, I am all for that, but I am the creator. If someone buys my glass art, that is fabulous, that means they see and appreciate my vision, and that means I can take their money and buy MORE glass to feed my need...


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 19, 2017)

Darkkin said:


> What are your thoughts?  Is the creative process selfless, an extension of one's self, or somewhere in between.  Personally, I think it is about finding balance between one's voice and the reader's experience.  Both matter.  And I know I am seriously overthinking this.  Sorry about the ramble, it was just an interesting crossroad of psychology and the creative process.  Some folks clearly have way more faith in humanity than me...:wink:



Great question! It sounds like an interesting thought experiment, this leaving of the reader to fill in the blanks, but personally I am not convinced of its artistic merit, not least of all because I think it is based on a flawed premise, namely that the opposite of "self" is is "selfless". The oppoite of "self" is "other". The logical expension of this is to provide a blank piece of paper, get someone else to write on it, and claim all the credit yourself. I tried that with an agent. Of my submission, I said "readers must fill in the blanks". Unsurprisingly, they didn't think there was anything there! In all seriousness, that's not me being selfless or other-directed. That's me doing nothing at all, trying to look a bit good doing it, while meanwhile someone else is extending out _their _self. Now, if they were to leave everything blank in turn, nothing would actually get done. Some extension of the self is required for anything to happen. You could argue that without a degree of selfishness humans would have died out long ago.

All this talk of selflessness *sounds good*, it sounds all "other-centric" but is that fundamentally sensible? Should everything we do be to the benefit of others? It is so easy - too easy - to jump on the word selfish and invoke sociopaths and whatnot. I don't think that helps the discussion. In fact, to me it reflects a certain poverty of thought, a tendency to grasp at answers that sound like they reflect who we want to be, rather than reflecting the mechanics of the situation. By it's nature, the act of writing is an extension of the self. I have a vision, and I want to share it. I have an idea that people might want, or even need, to benefit from my thoughts. I even - get this - think it conceivable that people might pay a tenner or so to _access the contents of my head!_ I mean, if that's the ultimate megalomania, I dunno what is. 

But is that bad? 

I don't think it is, because the contents of my head are largely benign. But is it bad that I want to put myself in a position of such power? Surely power is bad, right? No - power is necessary! A parent has ultimate power over their child, and so it should be, until that parent's good knowledge has been absorbed by the child, and on, and on. Same with teachers. We have such a fraught relationship with power (a phenomenon that seems to have landed in the lap of one segment of the political demographic more than another) that we risk alienating ourselves from it totally, which means we will only be subject to it. If one can wield power responsibly, to the benefit of others as well as ourselves, then that is a great power indeed. Think of what good could be achieved. But the very word gets people's backs up, because power has been horribly misused by truly bad people - here's where your sociopaths come in - and that's an issue. We shy away from the acquisition of power but we shouldn't, because the ability to handle power is a real gift. It should, like many things, be evenly distributed. People say "power corrupts" - but is that all it does?

So with the ability to write a book comes a modicum of investiture in the self. What remains is what we do with that responsibility. I do believe that the ability to write well requires a high degree of awareness of others - of how they feel, of what they want, of what pushes their buttons, and for that to happen, one needs some interest in others. Is that interest healthy or unhealthy? Depends what you do with it. But one thing's for sure: if one is totally self-obsessed, never looking outward, can you imagine the kind of crap that might issue forth from such a person's pages. Actually I'm sure you don't need to. We've all read stuff like that. It's rubbish, isn't it?

Now buy my book you bleeping bleepers!


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Jan 19, 2017)

Anyone who writes is essentially writing about what they are thinking or feeling at the time.

But chances are the reader will likely take something different out of what the writer intended simply because the reader's life experience is different. That's not a bad thing nor is the intent of the writer. If I can read an article from PJ O'Rourke and look at what he wrote from a different political perspective, that doesn't make him less of a writer anymore than it makes me less of a reader. The same goes for someone that might be bearing his/her heart out.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 19, 2017)

mrmustard615 said:


> Anyone who writes is essentially writing about what they are thinking or feeling at the time.



Or even some other time apparently, like even in the future. Oh dear, this thread has really rung my bell.

Just to recap on what I've been writing ever since I joined WF, I never intended to write anything and never had a motive except to purge unwanted thoughts that were plaguing me. I know that my unconscious mind is obsessive about a thing once it adopts it, but this is not the person that I choose to be. As my mind had somehow conceived a story I did my best to abort it and quite possibly some readers may consider what I wrote to have been an abortion. That doesn't matter to me as it was only an afterthought for me that someone might just enjoy reading it before I binned it. Before I could contemplate letting anyone read it I had to examine it carefully to discover just how much it revealed about myself and maybe even those closest to me. In doing that I satisfied myself that there were no profound conclusions to draw from it about anyone in particular, but I also discovered the deeper mystery, that although the story wasn't particularly connected with any of my known experiences in life it was reminiscent of later events, but that's another story entirely.

In order to better understand the strange phenomenon apparently connected with my almost involuntary occasional spates of writing (as opposed to this chit-chat) I was recently reading an article on the respective functions of the two halves of the brain. The details vary from person to person but generally one side takes responsibility for organisation, ordering and classification of knowledge while the other deals with vaguer and more conceptual aspects. Hence generally the left side deals with chronology and other linear structures such as text and speech as well as demarcation of boundaries, which includes the idea of self. The right side is a hippy in comparison, regarding itself as a part of the whole, so disregarding self-interest, and with no comprehension of order or time, so more suited to relating general concepts than specifics. Where free will originates is difficult to determine as the two sides negotiate on everything, but it seems to me that really creative writing involves engaging one's free will to the utmost and ignoring all the conventional boundaries, so the right side ought to be dominant unless the writer is too focussed on rules imposed strictly by the left side. Maybe this is how poetry is seen as a different creative process from writing prose, although I have said on more than one occasion that my prose _is_ my poetry. So far as my weird forward-looking writing is concerned I can only assume that somehow the right side of my brain has taken the next step in ignoring the boundaries of time altogether and taken into account things that I ought not to know yet, but again that's another story.

The subject of how tightly a writer should control the reader has also come up in another currently active thread Do you read sequentially in the Beta Readers Open Discussions ,by the way, as it is an issue of interest both to readers and writers.

Regarding the idea of leaving space for a reader to add their own thoughts by omitting to write something, mentioned in the OP, I have in my endless quest for exceptions to prove the rules of good writing done the opposite. At least, if I ever complete my planned trilogy I will have. I have written a chapter to appear _after_ the end of the last novel. It will be preceded by a clear message to the reader that they do not need to read it because the story has ended. This is a test of the rule that when one reaches the end of the story one should _stop writing_. Nevertheless, if one is to allow the reader any leeway then it seems reasonable to let them continue reading should they wish, doesn't it? The extra chapter is a short story in almost the same setting as the trilogy with a twist in its tail which could affect one's perception of the main story. The point is that one of the themes of the main story is the nature of free will and how we know when we are truly applying it. The reader not only has to decide whether to read the extra chapter but also whether they are truly making that choice of their own free will. Perhaps some would cheat, but only on themselves of course. Fiendish, aren't I? If they have been paying attention to the story then they will know the solution though. 

Come on, I ought to get just a little satisfaction out of my writing.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 19, 2017)

Yes.


----------



## escorial (Jan 19, 2017)

i read the outsider by albert camus and decided this is the greatest thing i've ever read...then i struggled with the fact it was translated by another person and that bothered me..can your work be just a script for someone to translate and still give the essence of you..i think it can be done but i don't think anyone can improve on what you wrote...


----------



## JustRob (Jan 19, 2017)

escorial said:


> ..can your work be just a script for someone to translate and still give the essence of you..



Good point. I read a translation of the writings of the great Japanese organisational theorist Kaoru Ishikawa, but was I really reading his sentiments? The Catholic Church assigned someone who I knew at school to translate the Catholic liturgy from Latin into English for use in America, but there was controversy over his translations because there were no directly equivalent words in the languages. In particular there were objections to his representation of angels. I know that problem personally of course, having represented one myself on WF for the last two years.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 19, 2017)

Firemajic said:


> I doubt that Renoir would start a painting, then hand his palette and brush to a bystander and ask them to finish his work... cause then, it would no longer be a Renoir...



That's exactly what painters of stature often did, they'd paint the important bits and leave the background, and filling in, to their students...


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 19, 2017)

A kaleidoscope is a decent example of trying to explain the creative side of human nature, both the actual making and the experience of the end result.  No individual will ever see the same thing, and that keeps the world interesting.  :thumbl:  

What matters?  That the book was written, the speech made.  It might be the five minutes stolen reading the new novel by your favourite author instead of doing your algebra homework, (I've been guilty of the that one too many times to count.), or watching a child looking up at a sun made of golden glass (Chihuly's blown glass sun at Mayo), a last look at something bright before they disappear into the dark.  

Art in whatever form (writing, music, painting...food), it is a universal language and one of our greatest legacies.  Creating something for the sake of an idea and then reaching a hand out, as if to say, _'Hey, come away if only for a moment_...It isn't often accepted, but occasionally someone will.  

The reasons and experiences the individual are their own, yet they took time to walk around in another's shoes, or peak through the window of a painting.  The Holocaust art of artists interned in the death camps during WWII, left a legacy, an brutally honest record of the very worst of human nature.  Even as the world sought to tear itself apart, people made sure something remained.  Voices and visions from the past reaching through time.

Still, there are times when the creative process feels a bit like the internet, incalculable amounts of data from every aspect of human nature colliding on a centralized hub.  Chaos theory at its best.  You never know quite what tangents will cross or when.  It is essential infinite potential.  

Some of the stuff that is created leaves one going WTF?  True, you are shocked speechless because you are wondering how the hell you ended up encountering it.  But, and I know this is an idiotic but, it did make you wonder, question for even the briefest of moments.  Look at it this way, have you ever left a movie thinking I can write something better, heck, my cat could do better.  How many of you have read a book that left you frustrated because the writing was lacklustre?  e.g. plot holes you could drive a truck through.  Yet here in your hand is the evidence.

I work at a bookstore and I really like what I do because books are a language I speak.  However, there are things that bother me about it, too.  We have a lot of people who come in on Monday, steady as clockwork for the new James Patterson book.  And readers rave about how amazing his writing is.  It is brand name fiction, farmed out to countless co-authors, whose names no one remembers.  It is fill in the blank fiction.  Granted, it is fiction, but it also feels like it defeats the purpose of creativity.  The critical element of the individual is lost.

Nora Roberts is a recipe author, (predictable results but they still taste pretty good...In other words, guilty pleasure reading), has 209 books to her credit.  And unlike Patterson, she hasn't farmed out to countless co-authors.  Her books are her own, and while you know it is predictable, there is her style as a writer coming through.  It isn't automated.  The same can be said for Louis L'amour.  Some of the interviews he gave were excellent.

Commercialized fiction is very much self-less writing.  It is done for the money.  An idea that originally meant something to its creator and has since gone off the rails.  Robert Ludlum's Bourne series, and Tom Clancy books come to mind.  Vince Flynn has also been added to the list.  Also think about authors you've read, once loved, and have since stopped reading.  

I loved Mary Higgins Clark in middle school, I liked her recipe, found her characters relatable.  Then she started writing in first person because it was the rage with the publish industry at the time.  I never finished that book.  Occasionally, I will take a glance through one of her titles when one comes out, but it isn't like it used to be.  Somewhere along the line, something got lost.  Readers can tell when authors don't care anymore and when the author doesn't care, so I wonder, is the money worth the loss of a personal passion?

We all write for difference reasons, but a lot of it comes down to fact that most of us write because we like to.  It is about the journey.  It gives us purpose.  It isn't just about the reader, for the reader.  Someone may hand me a frame, but it doesn't mean that I need to put my moment in it.  What can you do, but say thank you for the gesture and move on.  Chances are the frame will go to Goodwill or end up on a rummage sale and into the hands of someone who can truly appreciate it.

Do justice to your passion, your voice and it will stand on its own merit.  It is why creativity endures, evolves.  Not because of some action of pure altruism made for the greater good, but because people embraced their ideas and brought their visions to fruition.  You have to be a bit selfish to believe you can do it in the first place.

Who knows, maybe years from now my atrocious poetry will leave a reader going WTF?!, inspiring them to try their hand at the medium, just to prove what good poetry should be like.  :wink:  Are you the source of inspiration or merely the catalyst for it?


----------



## escorial (Jan 19, 2017)

last summer went around city chalking shadows an a chinese lad followed me an asked why...i just said i like it an i think that is all you need to be creative..just like doing it

[video=youtube_share;UZvvspY-uBg]https://youtu.be/UZvvspY-uBg[/video]


----------



## The Fantastical (Jan 19, 2017)

Let me play devil advocate here and answer Darkkins questions a different way, a third way. 
*
Is Writing Selfless or an Extension of Self?

*


> Because in doing so, it feels like one is essentially silencing one's voice as a writer and allowing the reader to have complete control of their idea. It ceases to belong to the writer and becomes the reader's.







> Selfless writing is a commitment I cannot make considering what I know of people, which admittedly, is limited. And one has to wonder, too, that as readers are we going to want to be saddled with the responsibility of providing our emotive context to such a construct? I'm guessing some of it depends on the medium, too. There is a huge difference between listening to music, reading a book, and looking at a painting.


Lets start with a yes and no. Creating a work of art is "selfless" in that it shouldn't ever be about the creator.

Rather it should be about the subject matter. This doesn't inherently mean that the creator lacks a voice, but that they use their creativity to give voice to the subject matter. The creators job, be they a artist, a writer, or a photographer, is to express their chosen subject matter in a way that others can connect with it. 

This I personally think is one of the biggest responsibilities of a creator, to create something bigger than just themselves, to give something to the world, to the people that will come across their work. In this, creating is again "selfless". You give, not in the hope of gaining some reward but to change a little of the world around you. Hopefully for the good.  

To explain where a creators voice comes from is this "selfless" form of creation let me explain it like this. A creators voice comes through from the subject matter they choose. It comes through in the first step in forming "vision", if you will. But the big thing is that this is where it stops. At this point the creator needs to step back and let their chosen subject speak for itself. Great art, like great writing needs to have a universal voice, not just the creators personal one. 

Then there is something called "style" this is a part of the "voice" of the creator. We all draw differently, we all write differently we all have a different "style/voice". This means that even when they leave room for the viewer, let the subject come first, they are still there. This is why we can tell a Van Gogh from a Maurice Denis.



> is not about the journey of the author or artist, it is about the reader/viewer's reactions, their moment. In essence, the creative process is selfless, control of the medium entrusted to the reader/viewer upon completion of the project. It falls to the reader/ viewer to provide the context of their experience.



The creation is for the viewer. You create something to share it, in order to share it as fully as one can you have to make your subject matter as universal as possible. I touched upon this above, but here is (IMO) the why of it.

People are all different. This means that in order to truly touch a viewer you need to have something that will touch upon one of the few universal emotions that we all have. You do this through connecting them with your subject matter by leaving space for their (the viewers) universal and personal self's.

This doesn't mean that the creator is putting all of the work onto the shoulders of the viewer, quite the opposite in fact. The viewers only "job" is to view. It is the creators job to create something view-able. The responsibility of making something worth looking at is still the creators. 

But the fact is that you cannot expect a full connection to occur with the creators self. A good universal piece leaves room for the viewer, it doesn't box a viewer into reacting just the way the creator wanted, it isn't the place of the creator to tell the viewer how to feel, or that they are looking at their creation wrong. 

Steve Martin had the same idea that he based his comedy on:



> IN A COLLEGE PSYCHOLOGY CLASS, I had read a treatise on comedy explaining that a laugh was formed when the storyteller created tension, then, with the punch line, released it. I didn’t quite get this concept, nor do I still, but it stayed with me and eventually sparked my second wave of insights. With conventional joke telling, there’s a moment when the comedian delivers the punch line, and the audience knows it’s the punch line, and their response ranges from polite to uproarious. What bothered me about this formula was the nature of the laugh it inspired, a vocal acknowledgment that a joke had been told, like automatic applause at the end of a song.
> 
> A skillful comedian could coax a laugh with tiny indicators such as a vocal tic (Bob Hope’s “But I wanna tell ya”) or even a slight body shift. Jack E. Leonard used to punctuate jokes by slapping his stomach with his hand. One night, watching him on The Tonight Show, I noticed that several of his punch lines had been unintelligible, and the audience had actually laughed at nothing but the cue of his hand slap.
> 
> ...



Allowing the audience to pick their own moments, to put the humour into their own context actually made it funnier, the laugh more genuine. It was allowing them to truly connect with the humour and with themselves. 

Once again the creator has to step back, the the viewer find their own way about things. All that we can do is give them something worth looking at, worth reading, but we have to let them take what they will, put what they will into the creation. We have to let go of the self and create something timeless, something that is more than just our personal lives splashed about. 

We need to give people a chance to really get something out of what we do, or else what is the point?


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 19, 2017)

The Fantastical said:


> We need to give people a chance to really get something out of what we do, or else what is the point?



For the sheer joy of knowing you can do something that is yours alone, knowing you have power of your own when the world has called you a screwed up freak, has said time and again, you cannot read, you cannot understand.  You are too stupid to do anything, let alone function in society.  They tell you, you're broken, not worth the air you breathe, but still you see something, know something these people don't.  You turn inward away from their constructs and you make your own.  You can still find beauty, hope despite the horrors raging about you.

You take the hits, swallow your pride and make yourself invisible, but you have something...A capacity to create, something you know doesn't matter, it sucks in point of fact, but it makes you happy to do it.  It brings peace, solace in the process of the building, patterns coming together out of nothing.  It is the one thing you control.

To hand that critical piece of one's self to the public at large, when you have seen what they can and will do to you.  Have done to you...The construct of your thoughts is one of last refuges you have.  Why do I need to give them a chance, when I never had one?  Why do I need them to offer validation for my creative process?  

Yes, different perspectives are always appreciated, often insightful.  It is part of the learning curve, but do I need the reading public to say, we want more.  Keep going!  No.  It is one of the perks of being a selfish writer, you become self-sufficient.

I write because I have to.  It gives me purpose in a world that calls me a fucked up waste of space and breath.  I know I'm worth less than the time it took them to spit out those words, but one aspect lingers.  A few rhymes, stories that have made my nephew's face light up with joy.  Nothing big, just a minute of happiness.

My issue with supposed selfless writing is, where is it written that in order for something to have purpose it has to be shared?  Why can't a writer write wholly for their own satisfaction?  A self driven purpose?  Case in point: The work of one Henry Cavendish.  No one knew anything about him until after his death.  He was at the forefront of physics research, decades ahead with his theories and experiment, but that didn't matter.  What mattered was the work, the process.  He didn't care about what people thought, hell, people scared the poor man nearly senseless.

It is the sheer joy of making something from nothing at no cost to anyone, except for the creator's time.  Call it self gratification, but does the world miss out on something they never knew about?  No, but if writers adhere to the sentiment of writing for the sake of someone getting something out of it, then we render our one power inert.

I'm an extreme introvert, spectrum, high functioning...I don't connect with people.  And I'm not meant to.  I don't focus on doing justice to my subject matter so it connects to others, I tell the stories because I have a responsibility to my characters, I created them, I committed to their journey.  That is what this comes down to.  It is about the journey of the individual, not the public.  Someone gets something out it, consider it bonus points.

There are enough people writing 'for the greater benefit of mankind' that I can go on writing for entirely selfish purposes.  As one of my co-workers recently observed:  'You live in a bubble, you don't even know what a box is...'  It is a perspective so far left of normal, I'm coming around the backside of right of wrong.

But am I going to start a project with the blazing ideal, of 'I hope this will make the world a better place...'?  Nope.  I write because I like to, not because I am any good at it.  And I hope others write for similar reasons.

Look at it this way, in order to write for people, for something bigger than yourself, first you have to like people.  I like individuals, people as a whole, I have issues with so why should I try to do something that will benefit them.  I'm a waste of space after all.

And it raises a question, is selfish writing worth less than projects conceived on the premise of hoping to improve society?  How do you measure such a thing?  And without questioning every individual about the driving force behind their projects, how will you know what the original purpose really was?

The creation, the process belongs to the creator.  It is an extension of self.  Others may empathize, but their experiences are vicarious, not first hand.


----------



## Firemajic (Jan 19, 2017)

Bloggsworth said:


> That's exactly what painters of stature often did, they'd paint the***** important****** bits and leave the ***background****, and filling in, to**** their students***...




exactly, the creator is IN charge, the creator paints the important parts, and the STUDENT fills in the background [ student of the teacher? I think... yes..] not some random lay person.... 
 Creator, writes the story, the reader [ student, if you will] fills in the background with his or her knowledge of what the writer has already expressed... fabulous, writer and reader working together....


----------



## Firemajic (Jan 19, 2017)

And another thing.. I do want the reader to fill in some damn details and blanks and participate in how evevvvver they want, but I at least have to have some damn content.... CONTENT.... content.. not fog in a frickin jar... content... don't paint a blob on the wall and expect me to admire your artistry ... you get no credit for my vision.


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 19, 2017)

The Fantastical said:


> Creating a work of art is "selfless" in that it shouldn't ever be about the creator.



So does this make works like the papers of Henry Cavendish worth less simply because he wasn't working in hopes of helping to improve the world?  Does it mean that books like _Born on a Blue Day, My Life in Pictures, Mind on Fire, Look Me in the Eye, Struck by Genius, Wishful Drinking, A Child Called It, _and _January First, _the category of autobiographies as a whole, less because they are centered wholly on the creator?  

How many people merely wanted to tell their story from their perspective?  How many of them sat down and thought, '_Hey, the world will be a better place if they know my story_.'  I'm guessing it was not a deciding factor in the creative process.  How much of it started off as a form of coping.  Dealing with trauma, stress, and emotion through the process of articulation?

Stories like these are intensely personal.  The journey of the individual, often in brutal detail.  How are these stories not about the creator, when the words are a reflection of said creator.  It is their journey, first, last, always.  Readers can go along for the ride, but until you have actually been to such a place, how can you _really_ know.  Moreover, depending on the subject, would you really _want_ to know?

What the reader gains is often an accidental benefit of the writer's knowledge and observations.  Chances of the writer intending to impart a lasting message in were probably not taken into consideration during the creative process.  A process, centered around the creator.  They aren't going to be considering what John Q. Public is going to take away from their story.  They are just telling the story.

On the flipside of personal experiences, what does my drivel have to do with personal experience.  For the most part nothing, but a few pieces are drawn from actual events.  _The Lessthan, Roar of the Lessthan, _and _Necessary Ink_.  Those were personal.  Granted they are crap, but I didn't have the reader in mind when I wrote them.  Was I wrong to write them because I wasn't considering the reading public when I opened a word document?  Didn't bother to consider what the reader would think as I typed.  It was just something I wanted to say.   

Stories are rooted around their sources, so why is it necessary for a writer to step aside, even if they know their work will stand on its own merit?  The writer still has an opinion and observations.  They are the only one, who really knows the driving forces behind the creation of a piece.  It is their work, not a gift to the world.  Yes, they give you a choice to come along for the ride or decline, but it is still about them, by them...

As I've said before the reader is wholly entitled to their thoughts and experiences.  Their opinions and observations are as much their own, as the work that inspired them is the creator's.  Catalyst to reaction.  Neither is required to interact with the other, but just as much as the writer doesn't have a right to tell the reader how to react, neither does the reader have a right to tell the writer, how and what to writer.  Usually both sides have valid observations.  It is the whole balance thing again.

Now fiction take as a medium.  How many books are written with the author saying, '_Hey, I have story that will speak to the world!'_  As before, I'm guessing it isn't many.  What percentage of authors will say they write for the pleasure of it.  Story for the sake of story, not some greater meaning.  What percentage of novels are based on personal events and how many more are written for sheer escapism?  

Consider too, why you read what you read, and why you read what you read when you read.  Are you reading because it's required, because you want to, to escape for a little while, to learn something new?  How often does the reader sit down with a book thinking, '_This book will change the world!  Or I'm a better person for having read this book.  This author has given me a gift!_'  Basic reasoning and life experience tells us, this is not going to happen.  Such a thing actually borders on the ridiculous.

I'm sure there are authors out there who write to achieve a higher standard, hoping to impart some piece of wisdom to the world, nonfiction as a whole argues well for this.  Some people just like to learn, which rises another question.  How many nonfiction authors write about their subjects simply because they find it interesting?  How much of it is about the learning process, what is garnered along the way?  Again, if asked, how many will say, '_Yeah, I wrote my book to teach the world something new._'

No matter how it's sliced, there will always be an indelible human element in art.  It is one of the defining characteristics of humanity.  So what, if anything, is wrong about art, whatever the medium, being about its creator, when it is an inherent part of the creator?  Yes, the outside world has a chance to be a part of it, but they are not the source of.  You can't take the source out of the medium and more than you can take the medium entirely out of the source.

Art, writing is a result of the chaos of life, the collective intellect, interests, and experiences of the individual.  It isn't a crusade.  People, by their very nature are selfish creatures.  More often than not we create because we can.  We don't need a reason, a philosophy, or some worthy cause.  (If it does some good along the way, great, but it isn't a requirement.)  And it is one of the few times when because I want to is actually reason enough...:wink:

We don't consider _why_ we do it.  We quite simply _do._  Sometimes that's all you need.  You don't need to have universal appeal, merely your thoughts and a little bit of time.  In my case, clearly, too much time.


----------



## The Fantastical (Jan 20, 2017)

Darkkin, 

I think that it is important at this point for us to talk about personal work and work that you put out there to sell. 

Every artist has their personal work, work that they do just for themselves and never share. I do. I have work that I don't let anyone see... it is mine and very personal. I wont ever post it here or anywhere. It sitting on my computer and that is where it will stay.

But then there is the work that I ask for critique on, that I want to improve, share, work on to maybe later sell. This work isn't about me or what I need or anything personal. It is sellable, not personal. This work is just for the viewer, it is meant to sell, to appeal, to make people want to take it home.

I think that this mixing of the personal and sellable is why it is often hard for people to get feedback on their work, or why (if they are published first) it is hard on them when a reviewer takes their work to pieces. This is another example of why it is important for the work you share to be selfless... if the personal you isn't in it, it doesn't matter if someone doesn't like it. One needs to separate their work into two lots. The one lot is for you and the other is for the world. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Jan 20, 2017)

I would think that writing is both. It's a way of expressing that becomes selfless through the process itself-- as you are offering up something to the world at large.

At least that is how I look at it.


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 20, 2017)

I read things literally.  Metaphors, symbolism, inference...All things I miss, making my reading of most everything wrongsided, and rightly so.  I look to context to help delineate.  And if I don't understand something I usually as for the reasoning behind it.  It is also why I deal better with quantifiable nonfiction, generally science and history.  Facts, clear lines of demarcation.  Primary source information.  Not a lot of grey area.  I'm not good with grey...:wink:

As for the creative process, I can't divided it into saleable and non.  A piece is written for the sake of writing.  The process the same, every time.  When you go so deep into the zone that everything ceases to exist except for the idea.  You get lost, not for a moment, but for hours.  No one knows where you went or why.  They don't care, they don't need to.

The work is the end result, but the process is yours.  And there is purpose in the process.  If the reader can run a parallel course and follow the path taken then the writing has done its job.  No one gets lost in the bushes.


----------



## Sam (Jan 20, 2017)

Darkkin said:


> So does this make works like the papers of Henry Cavendish worth less simply because he wasn't working in hopes of helping to improve the world?  Does it mean that books like _Born on a Blue Day, My Life in Pictures, Mind on Fire, Look Me in the Eye, Struck by Genius, Wishful Drinking, A Child Called It, _and _January First, _the category of autobiographies as a whole, less because they are centered wholly on the creator?



She wasn't talking about autobiographies, was she? 

_Ars est celare artem_.

Translated, the above Latin means "it is art to conceal art". It means that artists and writers and creatively minded people should not allow the focus of their viewers or readers to be on the creator of the work, but on the work itself. That is why it is considered shoddy craftsmanship to break the fourth wall in our medium. We don't talk directly to our reader; we talk through our words, our dialogue, and our prose; our characters and our voice. 

Writing is not about us; it's about the words on the page, the characters in the story, the story between the lines. Yes, we created it, but once it leaves our head, is put onto paper, and is read by someone else, it has nothing to do with _us _any longer. The person who wrote it is inconsequential. It means nothing, changes nothing, and accomplishes nothing to direct our readers' focus onto us. All it does it take them out of the piece and plant them straight back into the real world. And anything that breaks the flow in writing, that destroys the sliver of a tether between the real world and _your world, _is ultimately bad. 

Having the reader concentrate on you, the writer, serves no purpose except to seek attention where it should not readily be sought. The attention should be on the work, on the art, and not the artist. 

For it really is art to conceal art.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 20, 2017)

I correspond from time to time with a tutor in English literature at an American university. Here's a relevant story that he told me some years ago.



> Rob,
> Your last email reminds me of a story one of my professors once told me about his dissertation when he was in graduate school.  He had written his dissertation on T.S. Eliot, who, at that time was still alive and living in England.  He had the brashness of a young student writer and actually sent his work to Eliot and asked him what he thought of it.  He wasn't really expecting a response, but, lo and behold, he did receive one back which quite delighted him.  Eliot wrote him that "my dear fellow, my work has been analyzed on both sides of the Atlantic, and I feel you have come closer than anyone."  As you can imagine, Stewart was quite delighted at his good fortune, until his dissertation chairman ripped his manuscript apart, telling him he had to start his writing over.  Whereupon Stewart brought out his letter from Eliot as evidence he was on the right track.  His professor flippantly cast the letter aside, admonishing Stewart by saying "He's only the author--what the hell does he know?"



Sam is right, that once our offspring is born and makes its way into the world it is no longer ours.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 20, 2017)

There is no 'either, or' in this discussion. I see it as a vast range of reciprocity in all the arts. But, since this is a writing site, I'll focus on writers. There are writers who are intent on delivering their message to the reader's brain as unambiguously as possible. They want the reader to see precisely what they intended and to understand their message just as they want it understood. This is an impossible quest, of course, but it is their goal. On the other end of the spectrum are writers who strive for ambiguity, who are intent on keeping the reader in a perpetual state of discomfort and near confusion. They create "the frame" and allow the reader to fill in the details. Between these extremes is a scale subdivided into as many degrees as there are authors. This thead is simply a discussion of where on that scale we choose to be.

Selfless, or an extension of self? Writing is always both. It is impossible for it to be anything else since it is a form of communication and all forms of communication rely on a symbiosis between transmitter and receptor. The act of writing is completely selfish. The writer chooses his/her medium, POV, tense, structure, and all the other variables right down to the words and punctuation used to express their thoughts. As soon as a reader picks up the manuscript and starts to read, however, the author's work become absolutely selfless. The author has little control over how the work is perceived by any given reader. My signature does a good job of summing up my feelings on this (not the line about pot-stirrers, the next one).


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 20, 2017)

Maintaining the fourth wall...That I can do.  Readers are as entitled to their experience with the written work as the writer is to their creative process.  The crossroad is where the writer's process ends and the reader's begins.  Opinion and observation belongs on the work, not how the work came to be...

And my sadly overly literal translation of selfless writing became for the reader, by the reader...Off the charts on the ambiguity scale Terry mentioned.  One place, I really, really do not like being, have no business being.  I avoid that type of literature because I know what happens when I read it, I get frustrated because I know I'm reading it wrong.  Lateral overlay of that reaction to something as personal as the creative process, a reverse perforation of the aforementioned fourth wall.  Logically, nonfeasible, but logic fails sometimes.  And that is one place the reader has no business being.  A preconceived violation of the bubble.  In reality, not so much.  Solution:  Easy, move the bubble and adjust my perspective.

I live at the other end of the spectrum, writing-wise.  I rely on context and empathy to understand.  Inferred facial expression and body language, inflections...so I'm a demon about detail (not an endearing trait, I don't recommend it.)  Give the reader a clear picture, not your process.  Once you guys bounced my bubble to the right spot (thank you for that), I can see the lines, not hyperfocus grey.  (That's all you see when you land face first on a line...layful 


I don't know if it is a universally acknowledged truth that there is no wrong or right way to write.  Merely that some methods are more efficient than others.  Everyone has their own style, even the fashion disasters...:wink:  Doesn't really matter how they got from A to Q, all that matters is they made the journey.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 20, 2017)

> Writing is not about us; it's about the words on the page, the characters in the story, the story between the lines.



I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree overall.  Art is always about the artist imo.  The way I see it, we are drawing from ourselves to create the work we do.  So, the art is the artist and the artist the art.

Even the most horrible creations come from a place within the writer.  It tells the readers in some way, what the writer is afraid of.  The most beautiful scenes tells us what the artist believes is beautiful.  The reader is seeing the world through the eyes of the writer.

At least that's how I see it.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 20, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree overall.  Art is always about the artist imo.  The way I see it, we are drawing from ourselves to create the work we do.  So, the art is the artist and the artist the art.
> 
> Even the most horrible creations come from a place within the writer.  It tells the readers in some way, what the writer is afraid of.  The most beautiful scenes tells us what the artist believes is beautiful.  The reader is seeing the world through the eyes of the writer.
> 
> At least that's how I see it.[/COLOR]



Art may be _of _the artist but that doesn't make it _about _them. It might be about people similar to them though (if there are any)


----------



## Sam (Jan 20, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree overall.  Art is always about the artist imo.  The way I see it, we are drawing from ourselves to create the work we do.  So, the art is the artist and the artist the art.
> 
> Even the most horrible creations come from a place within the writer.  It tells the readers in some way, what the writer is afraid of.  The most beautiful scenes tells us what the artist believes is beautiful.  The reader is seeing the world through the eyes of the writer.
> 
> At least that's how I see it.[/COLOR]



You don't go to The Louvre to see what Leonardo da Vinci was like as a person; you go to view the _Mona Lisa; _to see the wonder of his paintings; to experience the detail of his work. 

The artist is totally and utterly irrelevant to the reading or viewing process, in much the same way an actor portraying a role is irrelevant. The character is what matters, not the person playing them. This is an essential aspect of TV. The viewer has to be able to suspend reality and understand that they aren't looking at actors playing characters, but looking at _bona fide _characters who they will learn to love, hate, fear for, root against, etcetera. They can't do that if they focus on the person behind the facade. 

It's exactly the same with writing. The person who authored a piece is so far removed from important. The only thing a reader cares about, or will grow to care about, is the story: the characters, the dialogue, the storyline, the pitfalls and the successes, the goals and the setbacks. There is nothing more important. 

Yes, the writer is very much front and centre of every story, insofar as his/her worldview, experiences, and prejudices are self-contained within the written piece, but the reader never comes to realise any of that -- unless they are a student of language and delve into analysing the entire piece. Then the author becomes relevant once more. 

But to the average reader, to the casual admirer of storytelling, the author holds as much importance to them as the foreword does.


----------



## aj47 (Jan 20, 2017)

Sam said:


> You don't go to The Louvre to see what Leonardo da Vinci was like as a person; you go to view the _Mona Lisa; _to see the wonder of his paintings; to experience the detail of his work.



*This. ^^^

You also don't take your box of crayola to color it in.*


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 20, 2017)

Sam said:


> You don't go to The Louvre to see what Leonardo da Vinci was like as a person; you go to view the _Mona Lisa; _to see the wonder of his paintings; to experience the detail of his work.
> 
> The artist is totally and utterly irrelevant to the reading or viewing process, in much the same way an actor portraying a role is irrelevant. The character is what matters, not the person playing them. This is an essential aspect of TV. The viewer has to be able to suspend reality and understand that they aren't looking at actors playing characters, but looking at _bona fide _characters who they will learn to love, hate, fear for, root against, etcetera. They can't do that if they focus on the person behind the facade.
> 
> ...


Wow, is that what you got from what I posted?  If so, I don't think you really digested what I wrote.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 20, 2017)

Why can't it be both?  In a good story the writer disappears but the research and experiences the writer brings to the piece come from the writer.


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 20, 2017)

The writer puts up the fourth wall when they finish.  The readers' journeys are akin to a parallel universe, similar aspects, differnces in the details, neither touching, disaster looming if they do.


----------



## Sam (Jan 20, 2017)

Ariel said:


> Why can't it be both?  In a good story the writer disappears but the research and experiences the writer brings to the piece come from the writer.



Because that would be too easy. 

The person behind the mask is irrelevant to the consumer. When someone finishes a book, they don't go and find out where the writer was born, how s/he grew up, and what their life was like. It's immaterial. I know we like to think that we're important, as proponents of the written word, but the reality is that we don't matter. 

Ask someone what Rick Grimes is like as a person. They'll give you a detailed rundown of that character. Then ask someone what Andrew Lincoln is like. Only the die-hard fans will even come close to telling you anything at all about the actor. 

This medium is not about us. A story that is never read is only words on a page. Yes, those words are the toil of a writer who worked sedulously to put them together, but without the person on the other end to read them, all they will ever be is words. And when that person picks up that book to read it, they don't do it with the intention of finding out who the author is, or to find out the author's worldview or beliefs, but to read and hopefully enjoy _a story. _

Because what it all boils down to in the end is the story. Anyone who says they pick up a book of fiction for anything other than the story, characters, and world contained within it is lying. Just as anyone who says they watch a TV show to learn about the actor behind the mask is also lying. 

We don't watch TV shows and films to concentrate on the actor, or the producer, or even the writer; we watch them for the story. 

We read works of fiction for the story.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 20, 2017)

Then why can I go and buy a book of Rainer Maria Rilke's letters or of Robert Frost?  Granted, those are poets but, admittedly we are the rock gods of writing (jk!), they are still writers.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 20, 2017)

Sam said:


> Because that would be too easy.
> 
> The person behind the mask is irrelevant to the consumer. When someone finishes a book, they don't go and find out where the writer was born, how s/he grew up, and what their life was like. It's immaterial. I know we like to think that we're important, as proponents of the written word, but the reality is that we don't matter.


None of that is true.  There's a reason people want to see what writers look like.  There's a reason why people are interested in JK Rowling's life.  There's a reason why I made an author profile on Amazon.  People DO want to know who wrote that piece of work.  Folks want to know about the person who wrote that book and see what they're about.  Readers want to know what you're into and what you like to do when you're not writing.

IMO, they want to know if you are like them.  They want to understand the mind of the person who came up with this world they love so much in the book you wrote.



> This medium is not about us. A story that is never read is only words on a page. Yes, those words are the toil of a writer who worked sedulously to put them together, but without the person on the other end to read them, all they will ever be is words. And when that person picks up that book to read it, they don't do it with the intention of finding out who the author is, or to find out the author's worldview or beliefs, but to read and hopefully enjoy _a story. _



Whether the reader wants to know about the writer or not, they do ultimately learn about the writer.  They learn about the writer because the work comes from the writer's mind and soul.


> Because what it all boils down to in the end is the story. Anyone who says they pick up a book of fiction for anything other than the story, characters, and world contained within it is lying. Just as anyone who says they watch a TV show to learn about the actor behind the mask is also lying.
> 
> We don't watch TV shows and films to concentrate on the actor, or the producer, or even the writer; we watch them for the story.
> 
> We read works of fiction for the story.


Yeah... I don't think you're understanding the crux of what's being stated.  Whether a story is read or not read, it is still a reflection of the person who created it.  Every story a writer creates is formed from the life and perspective of the writer who created it.  Because of this, we cannot extricate ourselves from the work we create.  We are the work we create and it doesn't matter what the readers do.  They cannot change what the work is.


----------



## Sam (Jan 20, 2017)

I never argued that it wasn't a reflection of the person who wrote it. 

I merely argued that the person who wrote it is immaterial in the reading process. Yes, people meet writers all the time, but they don't buy a book with the notion that doing so will allow them to meet the author, or find out something about them, but with the desire to read the story contained within the pages of it. 

Nobody is arguing that writing isn't a reflection of one's self. Of course it is and to argue otherwise would be specious. The point put forward was that the reader should not be left to fill in the blanks -- that the author should make their intentions clear -- and nothing could be further from the truth. We're not the ones doing the reading. It's not our place to tell a reader that they should have taken that sentence the way we wanted them to. 

I don't hold my reader's hand. I don't explain things that aren't necessary to explain. I describe that which is needed to be given description. After that, the reader paints their own picture anyway. If they infer sadness in my words, and I was being reflective, that doesn't mean that I've somehow spoiled my work because they've picked up their own brush and added to my canvas in a way that I hadn't intended them to. 

Letting your reader make their own inferences, draw their own pictures, and actively live within the story -- nothing could be more powerful as a writing tool.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 20, 2017)

Now that I agree with, Sam.


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 20, 2017)

Write the story you want to hear.  If you are invested in the piece, it will show.  Give quality to the reader and hopefully the reader will reciprocate by investing their time in your story.

One question, however.  As writers, if it were possible for the reader to breach the fourth wall in your creative process, what would your reaction be?   Given the creative process, I don't think that question can ever be anything but theoretical.

I know I could not be kind about it, _that_ particular hole is mine (enter the totally selfish element of writing...:wink  Moreover, is it wrong not wanting the reader involved, even remotely, with the creative process?  They get there chance with the piece once it's done.

Just as the writer has no right to tell the reader what to take away from a sentence, does the reader have the right to tell the writer what they actually meant?  Yes, the reader can theorize, all the more power to them if they do, but is it safe to say that the road runs both ways?  Both the reader and the writer taking something away from the interaction.  More perspective, if you will, plus or minus an electron.

On a tangential note, in an old, spoofy western, _The Hallelujah Trail_, a cavalry colonel played by Burt Lancaster gives one of his sergeants the job of maintaining a maneuver he called detached contact with a group of temperance marchers.  As a writer, a reader that order nicely sums up how the relationship between the reader and the writer should be.  No interaction, but you also aren't blind to what goes on.


----------

