When a writer works in the realms of poetry or fiction, or anything that isn't strictly nonfiction, he must deal with the problem of people thinking that the origin of the poem or story must be autobiographical. Frequently it is, of course, but writers also need to feel free to create art without worrying about how the art will be perceived as a reflection of the self. This is particularly a problem with significant others, I think, because they look at the writing as potentially providing clues about people (writers) who are often taciturn and frustratingly difficult to understand. If you're Stephen King's wife, you read a novel like Carrie, which King reportedly threw in the garbage can, and tell him, "I think this is publishable," instead of, "I can't believe you wrote a novel about a weird high-school girl getting her period and killing everybody at the prom." But not everybody can be Stephen King's wife (herself a poet and apparently also a solid proofreader). Sometimes a significant other can be less-than-ideal as a "first reader" because they're reading the story or poem for clues about the reader instead of reading it on its own terms.You can't really blame them.
A related issue, unfortunately brought up by the events at Virginia Tech a few years ago, is what writing can tell us about the potentially violent tendencies of a person. This is a wholly misguided and dangerous effort. While the Virginia Tech shooter's creative writings might have been disturbing, what might happen if we looked at the books of a writer like King and decided that he was a danger to society? (Another interesting yet sad footnote: King has refused to allow reprints of one of his disturbing novels, published under his Bachman pseudonym, because he was afraid it was inspiring high-school shooters. This is an unfortunate way of looking at things, and if Salinger had thought the same way, we wouldn't have reprints of Catcher in the Rye. But it's obviously King's right, and it certainly reveals his caring and compassionate side.)
Writers tend to hide behind the idea of "persona," telling friends and especially significant others, "This isn't really about me. It's a persona. It's fictionalized." This is true, of course, in that all creative writing involves a reimagination of the truth. But it's also true that writing can tell you something about the writer -- not about his evil thoughts or his past devious deeds, but about what he's thinking about and obsessed with.
Either way, it's important for the writer and the reader to not get too hung up on what's based on real life and what works can tell us about an author. Creative writing instructors, myself included, are always trying to convince students that it doesn't really matter if something happened -- it has to be believable and valuable on its own terms as writing. This also works in the converse; we shouldn't look to discern the "real truth" behind a work of fiction or a poem if it works on its own. We might be curious and that might tell us something about whether the story is good (our imaginary conception of Poe as a deranged drug addict says more about the compelling nature of his stories than about anything he did in real life), but we should push that aside as much as possible, and allow the poem or story to speak for itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment