Here is a somewhat condensed and (ironically!) reorganized version of what my husband had to say about why he didn't like my "Choose Your Own Adventure" post:
"My reaction to your first blog entry is that it seemed like an attention getter – and kept on being an attention-getter. So its primary purpose was to show off. It wasn't about what the reader might want or need. It was about you having fun with it. Except that your 'fun' seemed to be primarily about imagining the reader saying, 'Oh, this is clever!'. Well, I'm not impressed. I already know you can do the clever thing. What would really impress me is some kind of growth, you trying something new.
"I didn't like the cleverness because I think it served to cover up the fact that you really don't know what you're trying to say. Reading that first entry, the message I'm getting is that this blog is going to be a lot of disorganized information that will be a lot of hard work to figure out. I'm a lazy reader – if I'm going to read something, I want the author to do some work. You've got my attention, now persuade me that this is worth my while.
"I know that you are trying to be less audience-centered, that part of your point is that not all writing has to be the kind of organized writing I'm looking for – but that puts me in an awkward position. It's like I'm being told that you don't really give a fuck about me, the reader."
(Me: <writing it all down> Care if I quote you on this? Tyler: <slight laugh> No.)
***
Now, I have a long list of possible responses to Tyler “The Critic” Jarvik's somewhat valid but also hard-to-choke-down complaints, but as much as I love lists (Tyler: “Lists are the worst possible form of organization!”), I think I'd like to conclude this post with a pair of poems by Mark Doty:
Concerning Some Recent Criticism
of His Work
-----Glaze and shimmer,
luster and gleam;
can't he think of anything
but all that sheen?
-----No such thing,
the queen said,
as too many sequins.
Concerning Some Recent Criticism
of His Work
-----Glaze and shimmer,
luster and gleam...
-----What else to do
with what you adore
but build a replica?
My model theater's
an opera of atmospheres:
morning's sun-shot fog
hurried off the stage,
tidal gestures,
twilight's pour:
these gorgeous and
limited elements
which constitute
a universe, or verse
and if I love
my own coinage,
recombinant elements
(I know, lacquer
and tumble and glow,
burnished and fired
and hazed) it's because
what else Lord
to wear? Every sequin's
an act of praise.
These bright distillates
mirror the day's
glossed terms-----
what's the world but shine
and seem? She'd sewn
the wildly lavish thing
herself, and wore
-----forgive me!-----shimmer...
I think writing (perhaps different than other art forms due to the investment of time the reader makes)is like sex. On the one hand, you don't want to be a completely selfish narcissist because that's boring (unless your obsessions are particularly unique). On the other, if you're not having a good time, it's unlikely your lover, er, reader will either. As Carl Rogers said, "The most personal, is the most universal." I don't think he was thinking of this in the artistic sense, but I think it applies. If one is inclined, how does one actually think about 'the reader' anyway? Who is that? The mythological 'average' person? My curiosity would be whether the real issue is not whether a given piece is too persoanl, but whether it is in fact personal enough?
ReplyDelete