Fair enough, and a very good assessment.Khaliban wrote: The reader's interpretation does not negate the writer's. They function side by side.
Here, I think you touch the essence of what I really meant to get at. On the whole, and in my experience, as well as yours obviously, the writer doesn't necessarily write with any intention in mind. He (We/I/You) simply puts down what sounds right. I never write fiction with story-lines/plots/characters, most of my stuff is poetry, so I can't speak for stories. I usually assume that "stories" require more mental participation(from the author) than poetry, and as such, that the authors intent is more relevant.Khaliban wrote:I've tried forcing my own opinions into my writing and find it ruins the story. I have no idea what other people will read into the stories, and I accept that.
With poetry, my intent is to capture a thought, a feeling, an observation or emotion. So it never bothers me that people interpret it personally, I actually sort of want them to.
My problem, and the reason for my comments, is when people make much of something that was, to the author, not an issue. When they imagine some greater significance to the work, rather than realising that any significance comes from their personal interpretation of it, and thus shouldn't be classified as "This story means..." If people do it, the should add the qualifier of "...to me."
I agree that both may be right, or wrong, but the only danger I see is to the author himself. I didn't intend this to be seen as an "ego" issue at all.Khaliban wrote: I have no idea who's right. Both can be right, both can be wrong. But I think it's dangerous for a writer to place his own ego above the story.
Great post, you raised some very valid points.
Take it Easy
--Avatar
