Book conversations

[sartorias]

calimac riffs today on peake's post on being reviewed instead of being the reviewer, specifically, what do you do (if anything) if people read something in your text that you didn't put there? Can you respond?

Comments

[asakiyume]

I like seeing how people interpret things differently. When you show and don't tell, it's interesting what people add to what's shown; I like that there can be variety. And--with luck--the variation isn't too too wild. I mean, if I intend someone to be shy but sympathetic, I can understand how s/he might come off as a cold fish (this happens in real life, too, with shy people), but I wouldn't want her to come off as, say, scheming and deceitful (unless I'd put that in there). And so on.

A lot of times I think readers add richness to what's there, all the extra notes, so to speak.

And yes, I'm glad too that "trashy" literature and anime and films and comics can be discussed now. Sometimes portrayals of people in suchlike can be simplistic, but those simplifications tell us interesting things about ourselves, too.

[sartorias]

Sometimes portrayals of people in suchlike can be simplistic, but those simplifications tell us interesting things about ourselves, too.

Bingo. This can be especially startling when one reads the so-called trash of a hundred years ago--stories full of cliches and assumptions of the time. wowzers.

[krylyr]

I think it depends on the author's response. If it's a rant, then, no. Don't post that. If it's answering an honest question, I don't have a problem with that (I've been guilty of saying, "gee, thanks!" before, though, so YMMV) but it can potentially stifle discussions. OTOH, occasionaly, I've seen authors' participation in threads add (positively) in some cases, even if it does change the atmosphere.

[sartorias]

*nodding*

Author as "I'm right, and you just don't understand my brilliance"--not so good on encouraging communication, though it's fine as a signal for the author's particular posse to issue comforting and worshiping noises.

Proving I guess there's an audience for everything. And the Internet is becoming the place to find it.

[cliosfolly]

I love it when an author clarifies intentions regarding a work, because it's such a rare insight into what goes into a text versus what a reader gets out of it.

Where I've seen such conversations run into trouble usually occurs around both reading protocols as you mention, and also interpretive protocols. On more than one occasion, I've seen an author clarify by means of invalidating a reader's interpretation--acting in ignorance of the fact that an author cannot control what a reader sees in a work. In response, readers may not have the knowledge about interpretive methodologies (which are still, I suspect, known more in the academy than out of it) to make a case for their own reading.

[sartorias]

Yes. Yes, exactly.

[sartorias]

Hey, I see posts like that all the time. One just the other day. (benefit of the biggest flist in the world, I guess, and nuclear powred speed reading.)

[rachelmanija]

I think readers often pick up on things that are in the text, even if the writer didn't intend them to be there; or that are at least legitimate interpretations

[sartorias]

Excellent point. That highlights what a lot of writer say about how unconscious their process is. "Oh, I can't outline, that kills the creative urge." "No, I just write, and muddle my way through--if I intellectualize too much, it all goes away." These are legitimate processes, and directly related to what you just talked about.

We can set out to write about X, but when readers find A, B, and C in the text, whoa, sometimes we go back and find it too. But haven't the faintest memory of putting it there.