# The lie of creative writing



## Terry D (Sep 17, 2014)

I had an epiphany today. I realized that I'm not a creative writer. I create nothing. All I do is build a kit from words; I package up a bunch of locations, characters, and situations and send them out to my readers. If I get all the right parts in my kit, and if my assembly instructions are clear, my ever so talented readers then assemble that kit using only their minds to create a story. Since no two readers are exactly alike, each of those stories will be absolutely unique. I always have an idea of how I want that kit to look once it's assembled, but I know my vision will never be the same as anyone else's. My hope is that I give the reader enough of the right materials so they can create something in their imagination which exceeds my meager plan. If I put the right words in the box, and supply my readers with well organized assembly instructions, I have a shot at succeeding. They create the story. I just supply the 'stuff ".


----------



## dale (Sep 17, 2014)

i more see my stories as my creations, and the imagination of the reader where my creations manifest.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Sep 17, 2014)

By this argument, we can all heal ourselves, because doctors are just tools with equipment 

I know it's not the same, just wanted to share that. Creative writing is defined as exactly the process you've talked about; assembling ideas to form a story for the reader to enjoy.

Unless you have another definition of Creative Writing? Perhaps..

_This is a word. Inception. Thanks for reading._

I guess I think assembling things in my own head is pretty creative, even if it's assembling things from my brain.

What's your definition of Creative Writing Terry? Or did you just mean this post to be a "I love readers." type of thing.


----------



## Gargh (Sep 17, 2014)

There's a counselling theory, that I can't recall the name of unfortunately, that proposes that good counselling is where the counsellor and client meet halfway, creating a safe space between them in which to study/discuss/repair etc what's going on. I personally think that that's what good writers do too; they bring their story-telling skills to the table and the reader brings their imagination and between them they create what unfolds. It's why I think some film adaptations can fall flat on their faces, because there's a lot of space for the reader to create in the original book. It's an interesting subject... :saturn:


----------



## Terry D (Sep 17, 2014)

Elvenswordsman said:


> What's your definition of Creative Writing Terry? Or did you just mean this post to be a "I love readers." type of thing.



I do dearly love my readers, but it goes deeper than that. As writers we have a tendency to think we are creating the world in which our stories take place and that's simply not true. We create that world once--when we imagine it--but that's only for us. After that all we can do is disassemble it as carefully as possible, translate it into these fragile abstract ideas we call words (each of which has a slightly different meaning to the next person in line), put them in some sort of sequence, and then hope the reader reassembles the concept close to our original intent. I know each reassembly will be different from my original and from each other. All I really provide is the raw materials for my reader's imagination what they create with that is unique, and beyond my control. That makes my job of selecting those materials, and of attempting to sequence the reassembly, all the more important. Creation takes place twice; once in our minds and once in the mind of the reader. Writing is not creation, it is translation.


----------



## Gavrushka (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm not sure I agree... I'm not sure if you're attempting to take an analytical view of what many would still call the creative process. I guess it depends on how you write. - If you have a methodical approach, plotting, planning and then dividing that into greater detail, you could say there is an element of assembly at some point... BUT it all has to start with creativity. - You don't go to a shop and buy a character or two and then search Ebay for a location to hold them, you imagine them, and then act as scribe on their behalf.

As someone who has zero idea of his next sentence, let alone the next chapter, I'd find it hard to apply your analogy on any level.

*edit* what a thought provoking topic this is!


----------



## Terry D (Sep 17, 2014)

I guess what I'm trying to say (and I'm not building a very good kit so far) is that the writing itself is not creative. The words we use, and the way we structure them, is just a translation of the creative process which takes place in our heads (even if it's happening as we write). Just like any translation, its interpretation is subject to the limits of the medium and to the variations applied to it by the receiver. Knowing that my ability to translate what is in my head is limited, and that, no matter what I do, my reader will interpret my message in his/her own unique way, I must be as skilled a craftsman as possible. And I must understand that the image I send to my readers will never be completely accurate--like a fax with mediocre resolution. Understanding this basic disconnect between writer and reader lets me focus on the accuracy of my presentation (building a better fax machine).


----------



## Gavrushka (Sep 17, 2014)

I still think you're describing creativity. - What you call the 'mechanism' for applying creativity to a page is, I feel, just the medium we employ. - It's a device to record our creativity, but has no further input than that. The fact that the application of that creativity onto paper is then interpreted differently by each reader reinforces the creative process for me rather than denies it. - We read words and it's the imaginative area of our conscience that forms the scene in our mind's eye rather than some great machine. - Creative interpretation has to be about perspective, and the fact that no two people will interpret it in precisely the same way just underlines it for me. - It's the incomplete nature of the description that leaves creativity to flood into the gaps... So a character is tall, with a bulbous nose and smells of vinegar... BUT my mind has him bald, with bulgy eyes, whereas you, as the writer, imagined him otherwise. - It's the partial disconnect that thrills the reader, I feel. - They're involved. They are the ones that join the dots and create the detailed image.


----------



## Gargh (Sep 17, 2014)

I read Wolf Hall recently. It was really well crafted but there was nowhere to turn; I hated it. I don't know whether that was to do with Mantel's writing, or if it's common in historical fiction, because that's the first one I've read. It was a strange feeling though; like every time I tried to stand up and switch seats a hand on my shoulder pushed me back down into the one chosen for me. Like I said, not my thing!

I _think _what Terry's getting at though is the difference between the creative process of story-building and the mechanics of creative editing that can, in its own right, facilitate the construction of a bridge between the writer and the reader. Both of which, I would agree with Gav, are creative but one is more mechanical than the other. 

Or perhaps it's just that when you write for long periods of time you suffer from the 'orange' effect? You know, when you say 'orange' so many times in succession that it stops sounding like it's a word... no? Just me then?!


----------



## garza (Sep 17, 2014)

A carpenter builds a table. But it's not a table yet, not truly. It becomes a table when it's put in someone's kitchen, set about with chairs, and a family sits around it for breakfast. Then it's a table. Till then it's only bits of wood stuck together in the shape of a table.

A story is not a story, not truly, until the reader finds it and reads. Till then it's only words stuck together in the shape of a story.


----------



## dale (Sep 17, 2014)

this is kind of turning into a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" type of thing.
i believe the writing itself IS creative. the reader's interpretation of the creativity is merely incidental.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 17, 2014)

Nope... if I write it's cold out and she has blue hair then yeah, the reader may adjust the tone, slightly... but if they say it's hot and her hair is green, they're wrong. Unless I don't care about a detail I write the story... all of it. I write, they read.

 And a chair is a chair and a table is table, regardless of whether or not anyone ever uses them. As soon as they're made, a book is a book and a story is a story.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 17, 2014)

Kevin said:


> Nope... if I write it's cold out and she has blue hair then yeah, the reader may adjust the tone, slightly... but if they say it's hot and her hair is green, they're wrong. Unless I don't care about a detail I write the story... all of it. I write, they read.
> 
> And a chair is a chair and a table is table, regardless of whether or not anyone ever uses them. As soon as they're made, a book is a book and a story is a story.



You being in LA may say "cold" and mean 30 degrees, I'm reading it in Iowa and cold for me is minus 10. Blue hair? Oh, that's an old lady, or is it a punk rocker? What we write is not absolute--it is open to interpretation whether we want it to be or not. Just because we thought we 'created' an image when we wrote our words doesn't mean the reader will create the same one when they read them.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 17, 2014)

I think the creative process of art is not to create, but to enable others to do so in a more interesting way. Though you literally put X many words on the page, it's the reader who makes them come together. 

Stories wouldn't be stories without people to tell them to; the more the writer remembers this, I think, the more people will read their work.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Sep 17, 2014)

That's a very mechanical way of looking at it. It is true that we draw inspiration from the world around us and that we learn how to effectively communicate concepts from others. If we get good enough, we just rehash the time tested concepts of great authors. People take the scant words and reconstruct it in their heads. "Being able to dream in another's mind", I forget who said it. Furthermore, there have been many works that exceeded the author's intent when interpreted by the audience. You can never really tell what someone else will do with your work.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 17, 2014)

> You being in LA may say "cold" and mean 30 degrees, I'm reading it in Iowa and cold for me is minus 10. Blue hair? Oh, that's an old lady, or is it a punk rocker


 Yes, but if I say it's cold for LA or it's a wash and set popular among... then those are absolutes, right?  You set them with every description. And all your plots... if you say he went to the park which was very well groomed or full of trash and dying because it was never watered, he didn't go to the play, he went to the park. You create as much detail as you care to, as much as you think it needs. You create, you paint the picture.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 17, 2014)

> Yes, but if I say it's cold for LA or it's a wash and set popular among... then those are absolutes, right?



Still not. If a reader doesn't know what LA is like, then they aren't going to pause the exciting narrative in order to check; they'll just give it a guess and keep reading. They'll probably be wrong, but being wrong, or at least not in-the-know, is what art is all about.


----------



## dale (Sep 17, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Still not. If a reader doesn't know what LA is like, then they aren't going to pause the exciting narrative in order to check; they'll just give it a guess and keep reading. They'll probably be wrong, but being wrong, or at least not in-the-know, is what art is all about.



  it's still creativity, though. you're a religious dude. so god created the heavens and the earth. then you have dozens of different religious interpretations of this. you even have a few secular interpretations of universal formation. but that doesn't deny the creativity involved in universal formation. or i'll even take it to a more arrogant level. i created my kid. but what her life means is subject to all kinds of individual interpretation, according to who knows her. but these interpretations can't deny that i created her with my mad sexual prowess. the interpretation of creativity or the created object or even idea is incidental.


----------



## midnightpoet (Sep 17, 2014)

I think we can get bogged down in semantics and over-analyze our processes.  Just write!:icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## Schrody (Sep 18, 2014)

Ah Terry, but you do. You create different worlds. Someone might call it a lie, me, I call it a window to new worlds, opportunities, and experiences. It's a way to express your imagination and free yourself. I honestly feel sorry for the people without imagination. It must be a grey, somber life. Be proud you have that gift (or whatever you wanna call it) of great imagination and possibility to create stories even before they're written.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 3, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I had an epiphany today. I realized that I'm not a creative writer. I create nothing. All I do is build a kit from words; I package up a bunch of locations, characters, and situations and send them out to my readers. If I get all the right parts in my kit, and if my assembly instructions are clear, my ever so talented readers then assemble that kit using only their minds to create a story. Since no two readers are exactly alike, each of those stories will be absolutely unique. I always have an idea of how I want that kit to look once it's assembled, but I know my vision will never be the same as anyone else's. My hope is that I give the reader enough of the right materials so they can create something in their imagination which exceeds my meager plan. If I put the right words in the box, and supply my readers with well organized assembly instructions, I have a shot at succeeding. They create the story. I just supply the 'stuff ".




Once, when I was very young, my father took me to the corner drug-store. In those days, the neighborhood corner drug-store sold many things other than pharmaceuticals and sundries. This one was no exception. It sold clothing, hardware, periodicals, comic books, books, pets (I got two turtles from there, once), toys, games, the whole works...  This particular day I was fascinated by a model of a sailing ship. It was a ship and, since my father was a Navy man, it was the perfect choice for my fascination. I wanted it and, more importantly, I wanted my father to assemble it with me. Grudgingly, he agreed and purchased it.

On the way home, I opened up the box. Every little plastic piece was stuck on a spar or a tree of useless plastic. Each had a tiny tab next to it with some numbers on it. Understanding that these excess spars and trees of plastic were of no use in assembling the model and that the truly important pieces were simply stuck to them, I carefully removed all the pieces from the trees. For good measure, wanting to be thorough, I removed all the tabs that had numbers written on them, as well. 

When we got home, we had everything we needed, right? We had the pieces and the instruction manual. We're ready to assemble it, right? Of course not. Nothing that the instruction manual references can be easily found. Everything is jumbled up at the bottom of the box. Luckily, my father was an engineer and, through painful labor, managed to help me complete the model with not too many parts left over.


As a writer, you do more than just supply parts and instructions. What you manage to present is larger than just the act of creation would suggest. What you construct is greater than the sum of its parts. A Reader would not be able to reconstruct your story from a box of words and a simple instruction manual. If they did, it would not be the same story that you intended for them.








Take that picture to heart. It takes a writer to make sense of jumbled words in order to create something that is greater than just the sum of its parts. How you assemble them, you and your effort alone, makes the most qualitative difference of any component in the experience of "reading" your work that a Reader can hope to have. _You_ are the critical component in the process of story creation. Without you and _your creative input_, nothing gets created. Further, nothing that a Reader can do, on their own, can re-create what you originally intended.

A well-written piece says exactly what the writer meant it to say. If I read "Meditations", by Marcus Aurelius, created over two-thousand years ago, I am largely reading exactly what he intended to say. Given sufficiently accurate translations and an understanding of the culture at the time it was written, that is. You, with your understanding of present-day culture, can write a well-written work that can, just like "Meditations", be interpreted exactly as you meant it to be by Readers two-thousand years into the future. Provided they can still read... (Sometimes, I wonder.)

As a writer, you can not afford to leave the story up to the Reader. If that was what writing was all about, there would be no writers, only Readers.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 3, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> As a writer, you can not afford to leave the story up to the Reader. If that was what writing was all about, there would be no writers, only Readers.



Then why do we still study and attempt to interpret the classics today? If the story is so clearly spelled out, there would be no need. It is the writer's job to try his best to tell the story he sees inside his head, but in the end the reader will always see it through the filter of their own experience and perception.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 3, 2014)

> A well-written piece says exactly what the writer meant it to say. If I read "Meditations", by Marcus Aurelius, created over two-thousand years ago, I am largely reading exactly what he intended to say. Given sufficiently accurate translations and an understanding of the culture at the time it was written, that is.



Nonsense. If I read that piece, I'll have a different reception of it; and if I read it again, I'll have a different reception again. Plus, the difference in contextual knowledge will, as you pointed out, alter the reader's perspective. Even someone living at the time something is written hardly understands their own culture to the point that they can replicate the writer's mind in their own, because some of that culture is inaccessible to everyone but the writer themselves.

Also, tell me how the knowledge of Plath's suicide doesn't affect your interpretation of her work? She obviously didn't intend that readers would see her through the lens of her death, but countless readers and critics have and do. Are they wrong? No; it's their choice. That's the beauty of literature. The story is, in more ways than one, in the reader's hands.

The idea that you can get 'exactly' what a writer intends flies in the face of every school of literary thought. A well-written text doesn't narrow down the possibilities; it widens them. Didn't Shakespeare write for a multitude of audiences, often in the same breath of an actor? Aren't countless classics re-interpreted as new ideas reach them? Wasn't _Waiting For Godot_ successful because no-one knew what it was really about?

I often follow your advice, Morkonan, but this definition of effective writing is miles away from what my studies of reading and writing have taught me.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 3, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Then why do we still study and attempt to interpret the classics today? If the story is so clearly spelled out, there would be no need. It is the writer's job to try his best to tell the story he sees inside his head, but in the end the reader will always see it through the filter of their own experience and perception.



The writer is the one that provided the framework for all of these wonderful discussions of their work. If they had not written it the way that they wrote it, there would be no discussion. You don't see people sitting around a bag of scrabble pieces, discussing their literary merit, do you? 

 Besides, how many times have writers been asked about some literary allusion present in their work, only to respond "I have no idea what the heck they're talking about"? 

Back in college, I was in the middle of studying for exams when I cam across an assignment reminder, one that I had completely forgotten about. It was for some English/Lit class I was taking and it required me to write a term-paper that discussed the use of a particular theme. I had to give references, passages, blah, blah, blah. This was one of those times when I was taking an "overload" of classes. I had more classes that quarter than were recommended. I didn't have the luxury of forgetting an assignment and then rushing to make it up.

There were several suggested readings on the list, but, as I recall, the professor was an easy-going sort, only interested in performance and demonstrated knowledge. (Great guy, was a bit too affectionate with his female students, though...) There wasn't anything on the list I was intimately familiar with, at least enough to fudge a paper with, so I decided to come up with something.. random. I cranked out seven or eight pages on "Irony and Satire" and chose the only work of fiction that was in my bag - "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever." I was very familiar with that work, seeing as this was probably my fourth reading of it, and waded in.

What followed was one a thinly stretched attempt to apply a literary discussion of a loosely interpreted mechanic to a incompatible work. I brashly pounded home point after point, rambling into deep philosophical discussions that are more common in opium dens than college classrooms. Metaphysical allusions lurked behind every corner and, by the time I was done with it, a Reader would have sworn that Donaldson was making particularly inspired commentary on the human condition, religion and sealing wax. It was the most hollow and shameful attempt at a "research paper" I've ever undertaken. I wrote it while sitting in the student center over the course of about four hours and then dropped it off at the prof's office. I received an "A."

Donaldson never intended to communicate any of the garbage I insisted upon. But, that wasn't the point - We see literary devices where there are none intended because that is part of human "meta-communication." It's part of our way of appreciating art that drives spurious interpretation. If I look "deeper" into a work, past the threshold of the writer's intent, in order to find literary symbols, those symbols are still there, even if the writer didn't intend for them to be used in such a way. If I take a work and apply some of its themes to "the human condition", even if the writer was speaking directly about plants, I am still well within the realm of appropriate endeavors.

_"See Spot run."_

What does that say? Well, we know that Spot is a dog. That's the knowledge we bring to the table. In this "master-work," we know that Spot runs and we are instructed to "see" Spot do that. So, what is the writer saying about "the human condition?" There are any number of ways to fudge an answer, but due to its rather simplistic style and the absence of metaphors, we can only take that so far. We will not gain any particularly insightful view of "the human condition" with this work, even though it's familiar to just about every English speaker.
_
"...far beneath this wondrous world upon the surface, another and still  stranger world met our eyes...for, suspended in those watery vaults,  floated the forms of the nursing mothers of the whales, and those that  by their enormous girth seemed shortly to be mother. The lake, as I have  hinted, was to a considerable depth exceedingly transparent; and as  human infants while suckling will calmly and fixedly gaze away from the  breast, as if leading two different lives at the time; and while yet  drawing mortal nourishment, be still spiritually feasting upon some  unearthly reminiscence; -- even so did the young of these whales seem  looking up towards us, but not at us, as if we were but a bit of  Gulfweed in their new-born sight."_

Well, now... That's a bit of word-smithing. It's a passage from Melville's "Moby Dick." And, it's broken down and analyzed, here: The Atlantic - The Endless Depths of Moby Dick - Symbolism

The author of the article goes on to say:
_
"We, the killers, seek meaning in the depths even as the depths look back  and see in their murderers nothing but an inconsequential speck. And  deeper still in this clear iris we spot the moments following birth  where the line of umbilical apes the harpooner's hemp, and yet even  deeper we spot actual Leviathan lovemaking (and where, like a precursor  to David Foster Wallace, we are given a curious footnote, one of many).  We, like Ishmael, nature's disinherited, peer into this wide end of a  telescope and see the up-close secrets of the faraway world."_

"Umbilical apes the harpooners hemp" and "Leviathan lovemaking?" Right... OK, I guess one can see that. That's pretty deep, rich interpretation. It adds value to the work. Was Melville talking about humping humpbacks? I dunno.

How has Moby Dick been interpreted over the years? Well, it changes.

"... _Moby-Dick was now read as a text that reflected the power  struggles of a world concerned to uphold democracy, and of a country  seeking an identity for itself within that world."_ - Wikipedia - Moby Dick - Later Reception - Selby

So, was Melville commenting on World War I, a war that had yet to happen? Was he prescient? A time-traveler? Of course not! However, if he had simply written "See Spot Run", nobody would have been able to delve into the depths of "the human condition" _using his work as a guide._ There's nothing about World War I in Moby Dick, but because of the author's talent and his innate, creatively human, understanding of the craft of writing, his wonderful passages and explicit themes can be applied to many unintended subjects and that application _can yield good fruit._ Symbols can be interpreted in a number of ways - That is their nature. It's part of how humans reason and use symbols and metaphors that affords us that luxury. It's because of this meta-communication and the opportunities that skilled writers provide for it that a work goes from being a "period piece" to a "timeless classic." One can find illuminating "answers" in works like "Moby Dick" that were never questions in the twinkling eyes of the author. Those answers are still credible, still meaningful, even if Melville wasn't a time-traveler.

And, this is why book critics and professors of literary studies still have jobs. 

Edit - It's a bit longer than I originally intended, but I rarely give short responses... Sorry, I'm a scorpion - It's my nature.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 3, 2014)

To me, its creating the story and then the craft of communicating the story. But they are so wrapped together, I call them both writing.

I do want to control how readers understand and experience my story. Like Terry said, I can't do that as well as I want. But failures aren't good.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 4, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Nonsense. If I read that piece, I'll have a different reception of it; and if I read it again, I'll have a different reception again. Plus, the difference in contextual knowledge will, as you pointed out, alter the reader's perspective. Even someone living at the time something is written hardly understands their own culture to the point that they can replicate the writer's mind in their own, because some of that culture is inaccessible to everyone but the writer themselves.
> 
> Also, tell me how the knowledge of Plath's suicide doesn't affect your interpretation of her work? She obviously didn't intend that readers would see her through the lens of her death, but countless readers and critics have and do. Are they wrong? No; it's their choice. That's the beauty of literature. The story is, in more ways than one, in the reader's hands.
> 
> ...



The writer is the creator of the work, they're not just a semi-intelligent Scrabble bag. What the writer writes, in a well-written piece, is exactly what they _meant to write_. Or, are you saying that writers of well written works do not write what they meant to write?

As I mentioned above, one must be aware of the broader context in which the work was written in order to "read what the writer wrote" as well as what the writer "meant to say" properly. I can not appropriately interpret, for instance, "Meditations", without being aware that it did not start as being a work intended for publication or even broad distribution. I can certainly read what Aurelius wrote, but I can't know that, in many passages, these may have been intimate and unvoiced thoughts. That brings an earnestness and plain honesty to the work I wouldn't have been able to comprehend without a nice, scholarly, Forward. 

_"...The story is, in more ways than one, in the reader's hands..."_

It shouldn't be.

You seem to place greater importance on the interpretations of the  Reader as part of some "creative effort" in yielding a _written_ "story." I don't mean that the Reader doesn't add to their own experience of the story. That is a "given" and we can't separate that experience out and put it in a bottle, yielding a completely Blank Slate for writers to etch their wills upon. That would be foolish. But, the story, itself? That is _what is written_. If it is a well-written story, it includes the fact that the writer is writing well for their _audience_. That writing _includes_ whatever symbolism, allusion, metaphor or sneaky commentary the writer intended to be included. The good writer is counting on the abilities of their audience to correctly comprehend "what they are saying." If Readers take those metaphors, comprehend them, and understand them as being the intentional creation of the writer, then so much the better. But, that still makes them the _writer's_ intent and the _writer's_ creation! To say anything differently is saying that Readers write the stories by reading them and writers are figments of the imagination.

A note on "_exactly_" in writing: By saying "exactly", I do not mean that one can fully know the mind of another. That's not possible.. yet. What I mean is that when the writer penned the phrase "It was a dark, sultry, night" that is what they intended to _write._ If there is something more there, something that requires contextual knowledge, so be it - Communicating that is also the writer's intent. The OP questions the role of the writer in the final interpretation of the work and largely relegates that creative talent to what I take to understand as nothing more than a semi-intelligent Scrabble bag that pours out letters and phrases in some fashion suitable enough to be digested and made into a "story" by the Reader who reads it. I disagree completely with that idea. I do understand that the Reader brings with them their own experiences and understanding. The Reader is bound to "interpret" those words. It's unavoidable - We can't just shovel them into an open skull and hope for the best. Those words _must_ be interpreted.

However, the role of the writer is not diminished by the act of a Reader's interpretation. A well-written work say's what it means to say. If truly comprehending what it means to say involves understanding its creation in a broader context, that doesn't mean that the writer didn't mean to say what they said! All that means is that the writer is using the Reader's broader understanding in order to fully communicate "what they meant to say." If the Reader has to work a little bit harder to get all of that, it doesn't mean they deserve a byline on the cover.

That a Reader must interpret a work, to any degree, in order for that work to be read is an understood quality of writing. That a Reader interprets a work correctly, managing to comprehend its metaphors, does not mean that what is communicated is somehow the work of the Reader.



> ..I often follow your advice, Morkonan,..



I'm a verbose blowhard, only partially made credible by the fact that I can generate stupendous amounts of text. This gives me airs of credibility, for some reason.  Be careful of the paths you follow in the night... I, too, count on the fact that you have eyes and you can see.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 4, 2014)

> Or, are you saying that writers of well written works do not write what they meant to write?



Yes, and no. They write what they want to write, but they always write _more.
_
The creative process is never limited to intent, because one is never fully aware of their own practice. There's the subconscious, the undetectable influences that invade our work, so when we naturally present a character in a certain way or type because of the conventions of a genre that we're so used to, we don't have to _intend _to make that character seem superior/inferior; we just do anyway. Feminist criticism has been noticing this in hundreds of old, traditional stories, like fairy tales. Since society has changed, but the texts remain the same, the perspective on the text changes. It's like putting on a different pair of glasses; the story hasn't changed, but our reception of it has. Thus, no matter what the writer intends to write, the reader can and will put it together in a different way, not because they want to, but because their context is different to the writer's, and no amount of exegesis  will get them on par. In fact, many argue that exegesis takes away from a work, and we're better off only reading reading what the writer wrote; since, for example, no-one _intends_ to have their Forward written three hundred years later by a professor in Scotland.

You seem to discount the importance of the reader's life. Yet, a story would be pointless if no-one experienced it; it might as well not exist. Hence, the importance of storytelling lies in the mind that it forms inside - the writer's mind, during creation, and the reader's mind, during reception. Those two have, throughout history, always be different. Else, I wouldn't be applying to read English at Oxford. There'd be no point. I'd already know everything I'd ever need to know about all the texts I'm going to read.

I've evidenced my argument with literary examples of interpretive disagreement that blow the concept of 'exact' verbal communication out of the water. You have yet to give a single example, aside from your assertion that you know 'exactly' what a particular writer intended with a text, which is just ignorant arrogance; if you know so much about the work, why aren't you one of the countless critics and philosophers who have _disagreed _over it? Clearly, you are only one of the multitude that have pieced his words together differently.

I'd be ashamed if I told a friend that I had the 'correct' interpretation of a story. It means that either people agree with you, or they're wrong and not as good at reading the story as you. Say that to any scholar and they'll find a better conversation. 

And this:



> "It was a dark, sultry, night" that is what they intended to _write._



Ridiculous. How do you know many drafts it went through? How do you know if was their idea or the editor's? How do you know how their intentions changed over the course of the story's creation? You've put intention and creation as parallel, when they never are. The process is too wonderfully complex for such a simplistic assessment to be valid.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 6, 2014)

Cadence said:


> ...You seem to discount the importance of the reader's life.



Absolutely not. In fact, "interpretation" is entirely expected. However, the acknowledged fact that the Reader will interpret a work does not mean that the Reader created the work. Did they create the work in their own mind? Of course they did. Did they create that with the tools they had available to them, including their present culture or knowledge? Of course they did.

But, they did not write the story, the story that gave rise to that experience. They are the authors of their own experience, not the story itself.



> Yet, a story would be pointless if no-one experienced it; it might as well not exist. Hence, the importance of storytelling lies in the mind that it forms inside - the writer's mind, during creation, and the reader's mind, during reception.



I have no problem with that at all. I agree. What does that have to do with the creator of the written story and the story that they intended to tell?



> I've evidenced my argument with literary examples of interpretive disagreement that blow the concept of 'exact' verbal communication out of the water. You have yet to give a single example, aside from your assertion that you know 'exactly' what a particular writer intended with a text, which is just ignorant arrogance; if you know so much about the work, why aren't you one of the countless critics and philosophers who have _disagreed _over it? Clearly, you are only one of the multitude that have pieced his words together differently.



You're missing the point, entirely. 

The sticking point seems to be that you have a problem with my statement that the "writer intends to write exactly what they wrote." (Or "meant to say" or whatever.) What does that have to do at all with how it was received and interpreted by a Reader? As every Reader's experience is going to be slightly different, how can we comment on that experience in general? Even now, I can't seem to communicate succinctly enough to you what it is that I wrote, much less what it is that I intended to say... As a writer, I must assume that is due to my own failings, first, before assuming otherwise. That's a standard "Good Practice", isn't it?

Why do people agree on the progression of events in a story, any story? Are there contentious arguments about interpreting metaphorical passages in a story? Sure, that's because a metaphor is largely left up to interpretation, to begin with. But, let's just say it's a simple story about two siblings who go up a hill in order to fetch a pail of water. Why can we "agree" that is what happened? Why didn't one go up while the other stayed below? That would largely be an incorrect interpretation, wouldn't it? Or, are you saying that everything is subjective, including grammar?

The reason we can agree on anything a writer wrote is because of the skill of the writer in writing it and our shared understanding of the basis for communication. The further afield one moves from what is actually written, the more dissimilar the interpretations. This is to be expected, since no two people are going to likely be talking about the same thing any more. That does not devalue from what was actually written nor does it place the writer in a position where they are no longer the creator of the story. If the writer intended for certain interpretations to exist, and these interpretations exist or are well acknowledged, then the writer succeeded in their craft. If they had another intent for those interpretations, then they did not succeed. That there will be variances in overall interpretation is understood by all, or should be. But, none of these interpretations come to bear when it comes down to what the writer intended to write - They wrote it. If they did it well or poorly in regards to communicating that intent it is solely due to their skill. There's nobody else to blame. (Barring particularly insightful and popular critics and scholars who selflessly offer a proper reinterpretation of a work that is more in accord with the author's intent than what the author actually ended up writing... or contrariwise.)



> I'd be ashamed if I told a friend that I had the 'correct' interpretation of a story. It means that either people agree with you, or they're wrong and not as good at reading the story as you. Say that to any scholar and they'll find a better conversation.



What are you talking about? How does it mean that because a writer wrote what he intended to say or write that a Reader's "interpretation" now comes into play? As you have already pointed out, these can be two incompatible things. I did not say that because a writer writes, the Reader can only have one interpretation of it.

Did "Jack and Jill go up the hill" or didn't they? If you can agree that they did, then you just shot a foot in the hole in your argument.. 



> Ridiculous. How do you know many drafts it went through? How do you know if was their idea or the editor's? How do you know how their intentions changed over the course of the story's creation? You've put intention and creation as parallel, when they never are. The process is too wonderfully complex for such a simplistic assessment to be valid.



The process is not so wonderfully complex that we must claim it's completely mysterious.

Their name is on the cover. The immediate implication is that they wrote it. Everything else is just unsupported assumption. Are you saying that they didn't write it? So, how else did it get there? Was it "magic" that magicked it on the page when nobody was looking? Or... everything else? Was "everything else" _other _than the fact that the author wrote it the cause for its appearance on the page? Why do books traditionally have an author's name on them?

If I write something, is my intention to write the full experience that the Reader has? As you point out, that is not possible. However, as a writer, I must write what I intend to write. I can't very well hope to tell a story if I spend a lot of time writing it while not doing anything at all in the matter of actually _writing it_ so it can be communicated and "experienced" by the Reader, no matter what sort of experience that Reader ends up having after having read it. If many Readers found that valuable, that would be nice, no matter how their experiences differed. But, no matter how their experiences differed, I am still the one who is responsible for what was written, should be credited for writing it, and in some small way, contributing to the Reader's experience of the story. Or, if I did a particularly good job of it, should have a slightly larger credit for that experience in the mind of the Reader.

The story, no matter the Reader's experience, would not exist without the writer and what the writer actually _wrote_ is the foundation for that Reader's experience. The story takes its form, on paper, as the writer _intends _it to take form, regardless of the experience of the Reader or the skill of the writer, for that matter. Writing is a volitional act - Stories don't just happen, they are created by the writer. If they want that story to be experienced as accurately by the Reader as they intend it to be, they must use skill. The writer can't account for some experiences of the Reader, but they can certainly account for the fact that it was a "dark and sultry night" at the opening of the story. How the Reader experiences that is, of course, a mystery to everyone. But, a good writer can do a great deal to guide that experience along a certain path. That is why writing is "creative" and that's why writers are "creators." That's also why we have adjectives...


----------



## Terry D (Oct 6, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Besides, how many times have writers been asked about some literary allusion present in their work, only to respond "I have no idea what the heck they're talking about"?



This is my point precisely. The writer created the story in his head, put it on paper using the best words and techniques at his disposal, and still the reader forms something else in their own mind upon reading. Creation takes place at both ends; in between it is an attempt at translation--not creation.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 6, 2014)

> They are the authors of their own experience, not the story itself.



So the 'story' exists as an entity outside of a person's experience of it?

No; it's all in the head. The writer's experience of what they write may be the original 'story', but all the thousands/millions of other constructions of experiences fill the body of the story far more crucially. The writer's interpretation of their own work is, on the grand scale of things, like a pin-drop in an ocean.



> Did "Jack and Jill go up the hill" or didn't they? If you can agree that they did, then you just shot a foot in the hole in your argument.



Again, you've got an incredibly simplistic view of this. What I'm asking is; how big is the hill? 

The storyteller may have made the concept of ascension up a slope, but I put that into practice in my mind, creating the characters in my head who do as instructed; my hill may be X metres high, your Y metres high. The framework of both is the same, as is the result in this case, but we both create individual 'stories' in our heads.

That, or we're all one big hive mind and both our hills are X metres tall. Though the height of the hill may seem like an insignificant detail, it parallels with the height of emotion, the height of understanding, etc. 

What you're arguing for is that there is one 'true' story that all readers have some kind of variation of; but that means that there is a hierarchy of appreciation, in that one reader can have a superior reading of the story because of, using your own example, reading the Forward. What I'm arguing for is that every reading of the writer's 'story' is an individual story in itself, because every reader is incredibly different. So, the writer writes their 'story', and the reader perceives it _always _in a different way, their own version of events, and nothing in this is essential.

A good example of this is something I experienced for the first time last Thursday; reading a poem, aloud, to a published poet. His response was, at one point, to highlight a particular colour motif which I had never considered before, during or after the poem's conception. He thus gained a different perception of the poem to me.

What would you say to him? That he was wrong? That I didn't _intend_ to say that?


----------



## Santa (Oct 6, 2014)

garza said:


> It becomes a table when it's put in someone's kitchen, set about with chairs, and a family sits around it for breakfast. Then it's a table. Till then it's only bits of wood stuck together in the shape of a table.
> 
> A story is not a story, not truly, until the reader finds it and reads. Till then it's only words stuck together in the shape of a story.





midnightpoet said:


> I think we can get bogged down in semantics and over-analyze our processes.  Just write!:icon_cheesygrin:





Schrody said:


> I honestly feel sorry for the people without imagination. It must be a grey, somber life. Be proud you have that gift (or whatever you wanna call it) of great imagination and possibility to create stories even before they're written.



Many people have little imagination and even less creativity. Just as in days of old, I am a storyteller. I write to fill the void of other peoples lack of imagination and creativity. But mostly I write to tap the wellspring that is my own creativity. If someone is unable to see what I envision it is because I have not done a good enough job explaining myself.

This is not so different as going to a movie and asking the patrons to imagine their own story instead of what was produced for them. I see it all season long as I spin my tales and weave my stories. It is what I do and I do what I love. But to be honest, if I didn't explain myself, I would see an awful lot of blank expressions.

I think many of you give your audience more credit than they deserve. Don't give your audience too much credit, or yourself too little. Paint a picture for them and they will see it along with you. Most of the writers I have seen here are very gifted, and it is wonderful to see you sharing those gifts.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 7, 2014)

Cadence said:


> What would you say to him? That he was wrong? That I didn't _intend_ to say that?



I would say that I didn't intend to say that, but that he was right in his response.

Of course the story doesn't exist in a vacuum. For all the pounds of text I've overwritten,  there is only one main point: The author's work is creative and valuable and the "story", in any form, would not exist without the skill of the author.

And, why do I comment at all?

The OP puts forth an idea that the qualities of the Reader help "create" the story that they experience. That is true. However, the writer is more than someone just assembling random bits and pieces for the Reader's consideration. If a story is to be "good", the responsibility lies with the writer. I can't write crap and then complain that Readers weren't up to the task of understanding my mastery of prose. It's my responsibility to tell a good story, worthy of the Reader's noggin chewing on it and coming up with their own versions of the experience.

I am not arguing a "Platonic" story. The story doesn't exist in some idealized form outside of the ken of author and Reader. The story first exists in the author's head, is translated with more or less skill by the author and is then comprehended and experienced by the Reader. There is one "Fail Point" in that process that the author can control and that is the original "translation" of the story, from mind to paper. But, that Fail Point can not be successfully navigated without the author understanding their audience and providing them will as many tools as possible in order to "experience" the story as the author _intended_ it. That's the main disconnect, isn't it? How the author "intended it" to be experienced?

_"Jack and Jill went up the hill..."_

The author intends the Reader to "experience" the characters of Jack and Jill going up a hill. It is an understood quality of this piece that the author does not intend to dictate any more of the "experience" of that story to the Reader. The rest is left to the Reader's own devices. But, not everything can be left to the Reader's devices, else there is no "story" and nothing will be written on the page.

_"Jack and Jill wore trousers of blue, with yellow blouses true. They climbed the grassy hill, son and daughter, to fetch a pail of water..."_

OK, what "experience" did the author intend? What did they intend to "write" or "say?" Jack and Jill are siblings, wearing trousers of blue with yellow shirts. They climb a grassy hill, not just any hill, in order to fetch a pail of water. _This_ part of the story is a richer telling and the author intends to Reader to "experience" these specific things. Everything else, whether or not Jack and Jill liked each other or if Jill was planning on murdering her brother, is left up to the Reader's own interpretation. However, the grassy hill, the trousers, the blouses, Jack and Jill's genetic relationship.. those things are_ not_ left up to the Reader to decide. That the Reader may interpret even these specific things a bit differently than they appear in the writer's mind is completely understood by both. However, the degree of "acceptable" interpretation allowed while experiencing the story is always defined - It is either narrow or broad, depending upon the author's intent and skill. Jack and Jill were probably not wearing combat helmets, but they were at least wearing matching clothes.

The author's skill is paramount in the creation of the "experience" of the story in the Reader's mind. If the author has a story to tell and wishes it to be understood as they imagine it, then the have to write with skill. That is a creative effort that must not go without suitable acknowledgement.

On "Reading" - We all love a good experience. But, there's also a part of us that likes the experience of "experiencing." Reading gives one a lot of creative freedom and a good story provides one with great tools for one's own imagination. A good writer understands that. Plenty of stories have untapped resources for the imagination. Some writers are sure to supply such things. They're not a part of the plot or a critical part of the story, they're just there to entertain the Reader's imagination. Where are the Elve's going when they travel to the West in "Lord of the Rings?" Who were the Ringwraiths, really? Does a Balrog really have wings? How many axes did Gimli carry? In "The Hobbit", did Smaug know Glaurung? Ancalagon? It might be that actually answering some of these likely questions by a Reader would be doing a disservice to the Reader inasmuch as their final experience of the story goes. Some things might need to be left up to the imagination in order for a good experience to be had by the Reader. Certainly, the Reader doesn't need to be told that Jack and Jill are wearing matching clothes... and, if they were told that, it might lessen their experience of the story. We _need_ some things to be left up to our imagination - That's one reason why we read fiction. (In my opinion.)



Terry D said:


> This is my point precisely. The writer created  the story in his head, put it on paper using the best words and  techniques at his disposal, and still the reader forms something else in  their own mind upon reading. Creation takes place at both ends; in  between it is an attempt at translation--not creation.



I understand and agree, to a certain extent. But, the "creation" is very real. Some translation is, of course, necessary - We can not write "thoughts" completely. The writer must know the audience and must translate their thoughts so they can be understood and for that understanding to be as accurate as necessary for the story to be experienced as the writer imagined it to be. That is a tricky and difficult process of "creation." The "translation" didn't exist until it was "created" by the writer. The Reader is then free to have their own imaginative input, within certain limits, when experiencing the story. That's an understood quality of the process and a good writer anticipates that.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 7, 2014)

I believe there will always be a divide between what the author imagines and what the reader imagines.

Though, I believe that divide gets smaller and smaller the more skilled the writer is. :encouragement:


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 7, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I believe there will always be a divide between what the author imagines and what the reader imagines.
> 
> Though, I believe that divide gets smaller and smaller the more skilled the writer is. :encouragement:



You.... are a wonderful writer. In two sentences you've summarized the situation very well. 

I shall go bash my head upon my desk, repeatedly, until I learn how to be so succinct....


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Oct 7, 2014)

Well...I was going to go back and take a look at this entire thread because it looked pretty interesting.

But then I saw the words "just write" and "manure pile" used in the same sentence, one referring to the other, and, since I just write with no real plan, intended theme or any other such thing, and _don't_ happen to think my writing belongs in a manure pile (as a matter of fact, it's pretty damn good all things considered), I think I'll take a pass.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 7, 2014)

> I believe there will always be a divide between what the author imagines and what the reader imagines.
> 
> Though, I believe that divide gets smaller and smaller the more skilled the writer is. :encouragement:



Unless the author's intention is to make them imagine differently, as in _Waiting For Godot_ and other mind-boggling works. 

Morkonan, I agree with almost everything in your post, but that isn't the issue I'm addressing. I'm saying that the reader's creation of the story is more important than the writer's, as that is the end that the writer is working towards, and that you can't know that you're reading what the writer intended if all you get is their communication. You can't say that your interpretation of their work is definitely theirs.

There isn't any 'imaginiative input'; the reader is, rather, the imaginative output.


----------



## Sam (Oct 7, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I do dearly love my readers, but it goes deeper than that. As writers we have a tendency to think we are creating the world in which our stories take place and that's simply not true. We create that world once--when we imagine it--but that's only for us. After that all we can do is disassemble it as carefully as possible, translate it into these fragile abstract ideas we call words (each of which has a slightly different meaning to the next person in line), put them in some sort of sequence, and then hope the reader reassembles the concept close to our original intent. I know each reassembly will be different from my original and from each other.



But isn't that the point? 

If we all got the same experience and understanding of a story as everyone else, or even that of the author, reading would no longer be personal. It would be like writing and reading a technical manual with no deviation whatsoever. The joy of writing, for me at least, is the knowledge that what I create will impact and imprint itself on people in different ways. They may relate to my main character, but there's also the chance they might relate to the antagonist as well. Or they might think a character wasn't the colossal a-hole I made him/her out to be. 

For me, it's not about reading the book in precisely the way the author intended it to be read. That's why, many years ago, Flan O'Brien decreed that all the pages of a novel should be loose, so the reader can swap and change the story in whatever way they want. It never caught on, but the principle behind it was that the author shouldn't pigeonhole the reader into reading the novel in the way s/he wants them to read it. It should be the reader's choice.


----------



## JR. (Oct 8, 2014)

A reader liking a different character to you doesn't change the story.

A character climbing a hill that is this high or this high doesn't change the story. If it's exact height is relevant to the story, say so. Otherwise, it's the same story so long as you're imagining going up a hill. An imagining given to you via the creative process of the author.

Reading a character is cold and having a differing opinion to someone of 'cold' doesn't change the story. Cold is a relative term. If the author required you to know the temperature, he can say. Otherwise it is cold, and you imagine it to be cold. Mission accomplished.

Blue hair. Hair has a very precise definition. Blue has a hex code. Extrapolating toward cultural stereotypes isn't part of the story unless the author says so. You're being solely argumentative.

But let's get to the very heart of this conversation. Authors create stories. That, by definition, includes creativity. All the rest is ImSoPoMo wank.


----------



## Santa (Oct 9, 2014)

Sorry T.S. It had been a very bad day and I shouldn't have posted at all - I have removed the offending passage.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 9, 2014)

Somebody call the mods; this is getting dangerously close to a discussion of the nature of art.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 9, 2014)

> A character climbing a hill that is this high or this high doesn't change the story.



You're confusing 'story' and 'plot, here and throughout your post. Yes, the details don't really matter, but the story they form along with the reader's perception is saturated by them. That, or any attempt to complicate the story is either a waste or time or necessitates specifics.

Take The Great Gatsby as a good example of a detail which is incredibly important; the sexuality of the narrator. If you read him as straight, you get one underlying romantic story; read him as gay, you get another; read him as both, another. Fitzgerald has clearly left this up to the reader, allowing for multiple re-readings, demonstrating that the story can change between readers. In fact, any novel that is written for alternative re-reading disproves the concept of 'one story' in a novel, and there have been plenty of those.


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 9, 2014)

ppsage said:


> Somebody call the mods; this is getting dangerously close to a discussion of the nature of art.



We can't have that, now can we? :stung:


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> ...I'm saying that the reader's creation of the story is more important than the writer's, as that is the end that the writer is working towards, and that you can't know that you're reading what the writer intended if all you get is their communication. You can't say that your interpretation of their work is definitely theirs.
> 
> There isn't any 'imaginiative input'; the reader is, rather, the imaginative output.



You're a writer. What can you control?

For all its artistic and emotive quality, writing good fiction is one of the most complex things that we can do. Consistently good writers are intelligent people. They have to be - Writing well takes precision and forethought and requires us to expend great amounts of calories in order to sustain complex thunking stuffs... It's hard.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Know your target audience?" It's a maxim in writing. In order to be successful, you have to know who it is you're writing for. Sure, you can write "for everybody", but that's not who you're writing "to", is it? Ever heard of the "Ideal Reader?" That's the sort of platonic boogey-boo spirit that you're writing down the words for during your creation process. You often write to this imaginary person, even though you might not always realize it. And, why? Because, empathy is one of the most advanced forms of consciousness and in order to be a good writer, you must be able to empathize with your chosen audience. "Communication" is a purposeful and external process, but one that requires a great deal of internal debate. You have to put yourself _in their head_, the heads of your Readers, in order to write well for them. If you are much like they are and love reading the sorts of stories that you like to write, you've got half the problems with writing already solved. But, it's still the same process and it still requires the same enormous amount of calories... (I am trying to argue myself into having another bowl of ice-cream.  )

What can I control of this process? I can control what I write about. I can control how well I write it. I can control, within limits, my knowledge of my target audience and what constitutes an "Ideal Reader." I do this with certain self-knowledge and, if I'm good, an understanding that there are things that I can not predict and I will be fallible in my execution. I can control what I write and, using empathy as a guide for its construction, a large part of how it is received. But, I can't control it all. Once it is on paper and on the shelf, my influence over it is largely over. I can only control the mind of the Reader within certain limits. But, that lack of control doesn't mean that I don't have _any_ control. If that were true, "writing" wouldn't exist and neither would _any_ form of communication.

What do I "know?" 

Hey, you raised the word up from its philosophical grave, implying its existence, not me.  But, what can I know? Even self-knowledge is fallible, thanks to Freud. We don't always know ourselves, much less others. So, I have to restrict what I can say I truly "know" within certain narrow limits. I can know my "Ideal Reader", but I can't know every member of my target audience. I can know what my story is about, but I can't know what a Reader imagines, for themselves, about my story. Does this lack of knowledge have much bearing on the creation of a story? No. Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence, a lack of the ability for us to experience the mind of another person has no bearing on "writing." 

We can know, within reasonable limits, certain things. Because language follows certain rules, we can "know" these rules and use them. We can know how our Ideal Reader accepts certain sorts of stories and we can empathize with our target audience, within limits, in order to provide for them the most enjoyable or "communicative" experience that we can. We can know ourselves and recognize what we do best as well as where our faults are. We can improve those faults, too. But, all off this is just handy "perception." I don't know that you exist. I don know that there are really any true "Readers" out there. I'm only barely sure that I am a thinking thing and not some programmed element of a vast computer network. I am sure, however, that I like ice-cream and I have yet to succumb to the lure of a second helping... 

Earlier, you had implied, somewhat, that I was insisting that the "story" is platonic and exists independent of its evidenced creation, yes? What are you doing, now?



> ...I'm saying that the reader's creation of the story is more important  than the writer's, as that is the end that the writer is working  towards, and that you can't know that you're reading what the writer  intended if all you get is their communication. You can't say that your  interpretation of their work is definitely theirs.
> 
> There isn't any 'imaginiative input'; the reader is, rather, the imaginative output.....



Let's go through this, thought by thought - (Not trying to piecemeal your argument, I agree with some of it.)

"the reader's interpretation of the story is more important than the writers" - What is "important" relative to? More important "how?" Further, how can you make an argument between such dissimilar things, as you argue them to be? Cheeseburgers are more important than hot-dogs?  Why must you assume, automatically, that there is a _significant_ difference between a Reader's interpretation of a story and the writer's intent? In good writing, there should only be minor difference in interpretation. "Assumptions" are unproven things and what someone may "assume" a writer meant when he crafted a metaphor, which intrinsically implies an assumption is required, is only arguable because of its ambiguity. The less ambiguous it is, the less need for an assumption and the smaller the deviation possible from the author's true intent in communicating it. How do we reduce the margin of error on interpretation? By writing well. And, as I first mentioned, "writing well" is what this is all about.

"as that is the end that the writer is working  towards" - I agree that the Reader's quality experience of a story is of primary importance. I am not one of those people who feel that I have some special right that entitles me to subject the world to my mangled prose - I write for the Reader because that best serves us both.

"and that you can't know that you're reading what the writer  intended if all you get is their communication." - Wait a second. First, you mention what the writer is working towards, now you're in the Reader's perspective in the same argumentative sentence? As you also seem to insist, neither is entirely applicable to the other. Why is "knowing" such an all-important thing? Why is the lack of "full knowledge" somehow meaningful in a Universe in which it is impossible to have full knowledge of anything? There is a point when we know "enough" to practically accomplish a task. We know enough to be able to communicate to each other in a reasonable fashion and we can bypass what we don't know while still accomplishing a task, like telling a story. The fact that we can't know everything does not invalidate what we do know or our useful application of knowledge.

I can know that I can never have the exact same experience that was imagined by the writer when crafting the story. However, I can know that I can have the experience that was _written_ for me to read, within certain understood limits intrinsic in the act of communication.

"There isn't any 'imaginiative input'; the reader is, rather, the imaginative output" - What is the "output?" The Reader has an experience. But, as you imply, a full experience can not be shared, right? So, how then is their experience an "output?" In practical terms, their experience does not exist. I can't weigh it. I can not "know" it. Even if they tell it to me, that telling will not be complete, will it?

I agree that the Reader's experience is the ultimate goal of the writer. We want their experience to be a good one, right? However, the only control I have over such an experience, as I can understand it to be, is what I write. What I write forms the foundations of the Reader's experience. Without it, whatever that experience might have been, whatever predictable nature it may have had, would not exist. In fact, the only way for the Reader to have the experience of the story that I imagine is for me to write it well. I acknowledge there will be differences, but that doesn't make my writing of the story less important in the process. Without my _written_ story, there would be no "experience" of it, regardless of the mangled prose and fumbled metaphors.

In general, all this blather about things we can't control, measure or even acknowledge as existing doesn't serve the point of the discussion. That there are things in the process of writing and Reading that can not yield predictive value is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that the writer is_ important_. What the writer _writes_ is important. Without the writer, there would be _no_ experience had by the Reader, since there would be _no_ Reader. A writer who writes well is not a Scrabble bag, dumping out random letters to be interpreted by a Reader. A writer must write with intent. They must use empathy and an understanding of language, their tool, in order to provide the best possible chance for the Reader to experience the story "well enough" to understand it. Full knowledge, full comprehension, a complete understanding of what the writer's imagination churned out is not necessary and never has been in any process of communication. That is not what the Reader is attempting to interpret, since it's acknowledged as not fully accessible by the Reader. Instead, there are words on a page and they were placed there by the writer with intent. *THAT* is what is being interpreted and being experienced by the Reader.

And, I still haven't become a slave to ice-cream this evening... That's admirable, right? That's desirable, right? Please, tell me that some good will come from this painful act of self-denial!


----------



## Jeko (Oct 10, 2014)

> In good writing, there should only be minor difference in interpretation.



Again, this is what I keep coming back to. You're making it a rule that 'good writers' have to make their intentions clear - that 'good readers' have to get those intentions - when some of the best storytellers have purposefully obfuscated their narratives. And again, you aren't citing any examples of actual literature. I've laid on enough to not have to say any more about them, unless you can watch Waiting For Godot and maintain your stance. 

I've been exposed to far too many expansive stories, and expansive thinkers on stories (see: Barthes, Death of the Author), to believe that the 'margin of error' is something we should be inherently fighting against. I'd rather feed it as much as I can, because if everyone agreed on my work, no-one would be discussing it. As Oscar Wilde said:

'Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.'

If you want the best experience for your readership, you should be encouraging as many different experiences as possible. That way, your readers will have so much to talk about regarding your story, as each one of them will have gotten something completely different out of it, and their experiences will cling to them much longer than if everyone had the same story in their heads.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 11, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Again, this is what I keep coming back to. You're making it a rule that 'good writers' have to make their intentions clear - that 'good readers' have to get those intentions - when some of the best storytellers have purposefully obfuscated their narratives.



Ah, they purposefully obfuscated their narratives? 

How do you know?



> And again, you aren't citing any examples of actual literature. I've laid on enough to not have to say any more about them, unless you can watch Waiting For Godot and maintain your stance.



What sort of examples do you require? Tell me what points I have presented that require supporting evidence or citations and I will supply it. I have provided crafted examples, haven't I? Must I cite the creator of "Jack and Jill?" Must I substantiate my own opinion by finding scholars of like mind? With their agreeable interpretations serve a purpose, here? 

What is it, exactly, that we are confronting each other with? What are we "arguing about?" 



> I've been exposed to far too many expansive stories, and expansive thinkers on stories (see: Barthes, Death of the Author), to believe that the 'margin of error' is something we should be inherently fighting against. I'd rather feed it as much as I can, because if everyone agreed on my work, no-one would be discussing it. As Oscar Wilde said:
> 
> 'Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.'



What makes those work "expansive?" How much Reader deviation from your intent is acceptable in order that your intent to tell a particular story is served by your writing? Is any deviation equally as credible or worthy as another? Is interpreting the fact that you wrote "Jack and Jill went up the hill" to mean that people find each other and then one is inevitably left alone when the other dies within the acceptable margin of error? Is interpreting the same passage to mean that aircraft launched from a aircraft carrier sometimes carry weapons aboard them within the same acceptable margin of "interpretation?"

OR, instead, is it generally acceptable for people to comment on what some things mean to them or how a work makes them feel, but that sort of discussion will not always yield predictable or useful results for others. It's akin to using literature as a "thinking prompt." Is this a valid use of it? Absolutely. Can some of what is interpreted be intended by the author? Absolutely. Can you plan for this? Yes. Does it have anything to do with a "story?" Not always, no. People are free to do this if they wish, whether you intend it to be done or not. That doesn't make their attempts at reinterpreting a work legitimate, though.

There is no use trying to discuss something which has, as its standard rule, "Everything." The only way you can understand anything is to place limits upon it. You can't define what a "legitimate" interpretation of a work happens to be if you insist that all interpretations are equally valid. And, if that is truly the case, then writers would not be tasked with communicating stories to Readers, they'd just be unconscious Scrabble bags, if that. You are not a Scrabble bag and your stories are not credibly open to the interpretation of "everything."



> If you want the best experience for your readership, you should be encouraging as many different experiences as possible. That way, your readers will have so much to talk about regarding your story, as each one of them will have gotten something completely different out of it, and their experiences will cling to them much longer than if everyone had the same story in their heads.



I agree, but I fail to see the significance of that for this discussion. As I said, that people will experience things that are individually unique or that they will interpret things differently than the writer is an expected result of the process of communication. That doesn't mean that their interpretation has somehow created the work - That interpretation can't be experienced by anyone else. Above all, the created work is what is most important. It's important because the writer must clearly create it with intent and purpose if they wish to be understood. The created work is important because that is what will be interpreted by Readers, not the unknowable and internal "imagination" of the writer.

In the story of "Jack and Jill," how many "experiences" can we stuff in there? Our purpose is to convey a fictional story for entertainment purposes, perhaps with some social commentary. OK, so, are we supposed to write that "____ and _____ to _____ and _____" so that we can give our Reader's the most opportunity for a wide variety of experiences of the "story?" Of course not.



			
				Morkonan said:
			
		

> ..In good writing, there should only be minor difference in interpretation...




There are things that are open for personal interpretation and this activity is generally encouraged. Writing can be a "thinking prompt", after all. Unique associations or just vivid descriptions can help people see solutions to important issues, even though that wasn't originally intended by the author. This is acknowledged as existing and it's part of human communication. However, that "_Jack and Jill went up the hill_" is not arguable and isn't open for "interpretation." In the context of what happens in a story and what a story is "about", there are few legitimate interpretations and those that deviate significantly from _what is written_ have the highest margin for error.

These sorts of extremes are not something that the writer can "plan" for. Can the writer use allegories and metaphors? Sure. Can the author have written contemporary references that we, hundreds of years later, may have difficulty in interpreting correctly? Yes. But, I'm not talking about the Reader's interpretions, accurate or otherwise. I'm pointing out the fact that if you want to write a story about two characters, Jack and Jill, going up a hill, you had best write something very close in meaning to "_Jack and Jill went up a hill._" If one relies on a Reader interpreting "_Sparrows green cold past Jupiter tunnels_" to mean "_Jack and Jill went up a hill_", one should be considered to be an extremely poor writer or a Scrabble bag of phrases with no evidenced intent of creation of anything, let alone the cornerstone of a "Reader's interpretation" of a _story_.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 11, 2014)

> Ah, they purposefully obfuscated their narratives?
> 
> How do you know?



Because they say so.



> What sort of examples do you require?



A piece of literature within which merit can be judged from clarity of expression of intent.

I'm not going to go any further unless we're talking about an actual work from an actual author. Using 'Jack and Jill' is counter-intuitive, anyway, because the nursery rhyme is a perfect example of how its listeners have recreated and reinterpreted it over and over again, since so many different variations of it exist with different numbers of verses, with different metaphors being drawn out. Some believe, for example, that it's a record of King Charles 1st's attempt to reform taxes. So when they hear 'Jack and Jill', the story that forms in their head is more than just a rural excursion. The origins and intentions, overall, are unknown, so all we have to go on is what we and others have made of it.

To clarify, as it stands, the ultimate disagreement here is that you say:



> The created work is important because that is what will be interpreted by Readers



While I say that the interpretation _is _the created work. And again, I will ask, why can't it be?


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 11, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Because they say so.



Why did they have to "say so?" I thought writing was about... writing. 



> A piece of literature within which merit can be judged from clarity of expression of intent.



Errr.. Uh.. I'm not sure such an animal exists. What sort of "merit?" How is it judged to be meritorious? How is me writing "_Jack went to the store_" not a clearly expressed intent to communicate part of a story?



> I'm not going to go any further unless we're talking about an actual work from an actual author. Using 'Jack and Jill' is counter-intuitive, anyway, because the nursery rhyme is a perfect example of how its listeners have recreated and reinterpreted it over and over again, since so many different variations of it exist with different numbers of verses, with different metaphors being drawn out. Some believe, for example, that it's a record of King Charles 1st's attempt to reform taxes. So when they hear 'Jack and Jill', the story that forms in their head is more than just a rural excursion. The origins and intentions, overall, are unknown, so all we have to go on is what we and others have made of it.



Maybe Jack and Jill just went up the hill to fetch a pail of water, as the story implies? I'm not trying to draw on anything deeper than that by way of example.



> To clarify, as it stands, the ultimate disagreement here is that you say:
> 
> While I say that the interpretation _is _the created work. And again, I will ask, why can't it be?



It can't be because that "interpretation" can not be shared and will differ, sometimes tremendously, from person to person. As you point out, interpretations vary. If we count these as the true "work", then what the writer wrote is responsible for "creating" a great many different things in as many incarnations as there are Readers. It is understood that each Reader will have a different experience, some more than others. That is part of human communication. But, what is important for the writer is that their writing can be understood "enough" for their purposes. After that, if the Reader wishes to "create" their own experience, for themselves, that's fine.

If a writer does not successfully communicate what they mean to communicate, they fail. A Reader my have an entirely different point of view, viewing some work as being more than its execution would imply, but that's just part of the system. Everyone grumbles about the success of works that some would consider beneath the accolades they are receiving, right? That's part of the general environment and there's nothing really wrong with it, as far as Reader's being served matters. But, if the writer fails at communicating with their writing, they fail at writing. It's really that simple. 

Do you wish to leave the reception of your written work to chance? Do you wish your final product to be fully in the hands of Readers who will then be responsible for producing a unique version for every one of them that exists?

Human symbolic communication, whether in print or in verbal form, consists of two primary components - An explicit component, which is the basis for spoken and written language, and an implicit component, a sub-text that is not specifically verbally expressed. These go hand in hand and act in concert in order for communication to be comprehended. (There are many resources available through a Google search covering many topics on this. Here's a lecture by Chomsky: http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20110408.htm And here is an excellent video with Chomsky presenting a condensed view of the subject during his portion:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDCQZj7_Tho  (You'll have to fast-forward to his portion, I don't remember where it is. Sorry.)

You are implying that the "work" that the writer has produced is not "explicit." In other words, it is not what the author actually _wrote_. Instead, it's somehow fully "implicit", relying completely on secondary interpretation that is not explicitly present in the written words. Further, you're insisting that "work" is fully formed by this unknowable, unpredictable and untranslatable full-experience by the Reader which may be outside of the author's explicit intent. 

I'm arguing that while the experience exists for the Reader and we want that to be as enjoyable or as rich as possible, we can only manipulate the "explicit" component of our written work and that is the "written word." That is the only fully reliable power that we have as a writer and you can not take that away from us. That an author may "say so" when asked about their work's meaning has nothing to do with the product that they actually _produced_, since they are required to explain it for it to actually be realized, if not sufficiently present in their text. If they had communicated it effectively, explicitly, with a working knowledge of the likely implicit understanding by the Reader, by being able to know their audience, they would_ not _have any need to explain their work outside of the printed words already contained within it.

That intrinsic interpretations exist and may differ amongst Readers is understood as being part of the process of human communication. However, implicit interpretation is only part of human language, it is not its whole. We do not all go around declaring "_Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra" _and expect the listener to understand that Jack and Jill went up a hill and Jack is now in trouble. There is an explicit component in human communication and writers, through writing, must be able to manipulate that well enough to communicate the story that they intend to communicate, as well as its major implicit components, or all is lost and their efforts would be better spent writing Star Trek episodes solely in "Tamarian." *

*Tamarian - http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Darmok_(episode) , http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tamarian_language , in case you needed the reference. One of the few TNG episodes I liked, by the way.  BTW, do "Star Trek: The Next Generation" references count? Or are they not "literary" enough?


----------



## Jeko (Oct 11, 2014)

> As you point out, interpretations vary. If we count these as the true "work", then what the writer wrote is responsible for "creating" a great many different things in as many incarnations as there are Readers.



Yes. That's inevitable. All stories exist as a plethora of different stories within each person.



> Do you wish your final product to be fully in the hands of Readers who will then be responsible for producing a unique version for every one of them that exists?



Yes. That's inevitable, and part of the joy of literature.



> Further, you're insisting that "work" is fully formed by this unknowable, unpredictable and untranslatable full-experience by the Reader which may be outside of the author's explicit intent.



Yes. That's inevitable. A sound is just waves in the air until someone hears it; then they can say what it sounds like. Likewise, a story is made complete by its reception.

Since you're not talking about any stories in particular, which is the only way this conversation can get anywhere (else we're just waxing theoretical about unsubstantiated logic and philosophy), and since I've made my point clear with solid evidence, I don't think there's anything more to discuss. Your perspective does not, yet, apply to any stories I've ever read. That is why I don't agree with you. That and the fact that you're not giving merit to the art of miscommunication. But that's a different matter.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 11, 2014)

Cadence said:


> ...Yes. That's inevitable. A sound is just waves in the air until someone hears it; then they can say what it sounds like. Likewise, a story is made complete by its reception.



But, the wave is generated in a certain frequency, else music would be only a chance random squeal and nobody would develop notation by which it could be written.



> Since you're not talking about any stories in particular, which is the only way this conversation can get anywhere (else we're just waxing theoretical about unsubstantiated logic and philosophy),



I'm not talking about any specific story, since by your own admission "interpretation" differs from Reader to Reader and that's what you wish to discuss... about specific stories.



> and since I've made my point clear with solid evidence,



I don't see any "solid evidence" existing and I am not sure what your point actually is.



> I don't think there's anything more to discuss. Your perspective does not, yet, apply to any stories I've ever read. That is why I don't agree with you.



It applies to every story written, perhaps not every story read.



> That and the fact that you're not giving merit to the art of miscommunication. But that's a different matter.



I fail to see an artful merit in something that, by definition, fails at its intent.

I understand that this discussion will not be fruitful. That's just how things go and there's no harm in that. I think I disagree with you, but am not exactly sure that we're addressing the same thing. Be that as it may, good feelings, joy-joy happiness and the spirit of camaraderie in common cause, though interpretations my differ,  be with you, always!


----------



## ppsage (Oct 12, 2014)

_What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than just barely sketch the outlines of just one tiny part of it at one given time. _​DFW; "Good Old Neon"


----------

