Ambition and Miscellany

[mrissa]

It has occurred to me that I don't really care what an author was trying for. If I'm in their writing group, sure, because I'm trying to help them get closer to their vision. But once a story or book is published, I am no longer obligated to give a damn about what they hoped to accomplish. This cuts both ways: I don't feel that I have to cut a book slack for (as my mom says) sucking pond scum if its author can mutter about his/her grandiose visions. But I also can enjoy a book if its author intended it to be the Great American Novel and it is instead a fun piece of entertainment. I'm allowed to bring my own standards to the reading experience -- I am not bound to accept the author's.

I don't think intent and ability correlate all that well in this field, is part of my deal. There are people who can talk about the wonderful things they're going to do in the novel they're going to write someday when they get around to it, when the excuse list dwindles.

For some strange reason, pegkerr kept showing up in my dreams this morning, telling me to hurry and get to it. What it was is not yet clear, nor why Peg when I don't really know her. But I wouldn't want to be unpleasant, so I hurried and got to it. And now I seem to be hurrying and getting to adding things to my to do list.

One of which is picking up a package at the post office. I love birthdays.

Finished writing "Docile Bodies." Freakin' finally. Also finished reading the Hugo-nominee short fiction.

The plumber is supposed to fix the outdoor hose faucets tomorrow morning, finally, after an unsuccessful visit last week. None too soon, as it's sticky here, and the yard could use watering. The Hungarian peppers are a lovely yellowy green. The herbs are going nuts. There are iron sculptures in town tomorrow and Wednesday for Aquatennial, and my aunt Mary's paintings are up for the rest of the month in the Thrivent building, so if we can get downtown, there'll be art to see. So I hope the plumber hurries.

Is 26 supposed to be a hormone roller coaster age for women on a par with 14 or 15? I'm just asking....

Comments

[palinade.livejournal.com]

Once the novel is completed and published, the intent of author is only helpful to the author if the intent was entirely lost on the readers. The author can then, hopefully, learn to either clarifiy the writing to get the intended meaning across more succinctly OR the writer can just sit back and think about the various ways readers will bring their own interpretations to the story. Either one is valid.

But when examining technique or use of certain writerly "tools" to get the meaning across, the discussion about intention can be very useful. What one writer may think is working, the readership as a whole might not see at all; a red flag has been raised. It might mean that something other than the intended meaning is drawing more attention than the writer wanted. And it might be the lodestone to the frustration the writer is experiencing. Solving this mystery might help the writer become a better self-editor.

I don't mind people who talk about the things they intend to do in stories. I do it all the time. It's cathartic for me--helps clear out the cobwebs, sometimes.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I don't mind when my writer-friends talk about what they intend to do, either. It's when you have finished, published books with authors going on about what they intended that I don't really care to hear it in general. Once it's on the shelves, if you didn't write a novel "exploring all the facets of gender" or some such goal, I'm not sure why I should care that you meant to. Comments about what the author meant can be amusing (like when pameladean said she'd written Tam Lin to give people book recommendations -- I didn't take that as a comprehensive statement of authorial intent, just as a true but amusing summary of one of the things that book can be to people). They can be interesting. But I don't think I'm required to reevaluate a book I disliked and rank it more highly because the author meant to do something else entirely. Or to downgrade a book that succeeded as itself for me just because the author intended more for it.

Sure, if an author asks me for a critique (as opposed to a review) of a published book, I can do one. But I don't think I'm required to do one every time, especially if I don't know the author from Adam/Eve/whatever other protohuman you like and they've expressed no such desire to learn from my reaction.

[palinade.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean--I agree that hearing about the "intention" after the fact is pretty lame. Humorous anecdotes or plans for the book during construction can be funny (I meant the book to be about X, but the main character wouldn't keep quiet, so it ended up being about W).

But yes, we shouldn't be asked to reevaluate a poorly written novel just because the author has had a chance to verbalize/summarize/synopsisize/explain what the intended story was supposed to be. If the finished piece can't be accepted the way it's written, then (for me) the author hasn't done the job.

I never relook at a book I dislike just because the author has had a chance to "explain". ::rolls eyes::