Click on the link below and read Ghosh's blog about how literary festivals and other public engagements are changing the ways in which writers and readers interact, and the implications for their roles in the writing / reading process. Personally, I cherish meeting writers and every chance I get I like my students to meet with them, too. Our first Trinidad and Tobago literary festival (Bocas Lit Fest 2011) was an awesome experience.
However, Ghosh raises some valid points. What is your response to what he says?
http://amitavghosh.com/blog/?p=2361
Ghosh's article was very interesting and to some degree I agree with him. The mere fact that writers are being asked to sign contracts which demand public appearances is unfair. I think a writer should choose whether he or she wants to interact with the audience. As Ghosh comments, not all writers are performers and they should not be forced to be. Some writers, create novels as a means of letting go of pains of the past such as Virginia Woolfe. Therefore I do not think they always want to have to constantly be bombarded with questions about pains of the past. On the other hand, there are those who are interested in gaining responses from readers as it inspires them to keep writing. I just think that it should be a personal choice for writers and that readers should regard it as a privilege and not a right, for writers to attend forums revolving around their work. When we think of it as the latter sometimes we become disappointed to find that the personality behind the work is not as satisfying, which may cause adverse effects in the author's future readership. Engage the work, not the personality.
ReplyDeleteThanks for starting us off with that deep and insightful response, Creole B. Let's hear what the others have to say.
ReplyDeleteCreole B (Dhanika)- I think you have made a valid point and I agree. It’s true as readers we must engage the work not the personality, because a text on its own offers so much more that what an author has to say on it. Like Roland Barthes says in “The Death of the Author”: ‘to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text’. (After reading a couple of interviews with various authors for research)-I think sometimes, even the author themselves are surprised to hear the various interpretations of their work.
ReplyDeleteBut one interesting thing about reading this article to me- was seeing how similar Ghosh’s thoughts and Senior’s own in the “The Reluctant Interpreter” are- especially where she mentions that she wished to separate her personality from her books. While I understand the writer’s argument, I think that they must acknowledge that they are celebrities for many of us not only in the academic world but all over. Readers want to meet the person behind the work-they want to know the author who inspired and sometimes touched their lives so I think this is something all writers must keep in mind.
(But I understand Ghosh's concern, because tendencies for radical behaviour are high in countries like India, or even in the Middle East-so that safety at public events must be foremost in the writer's mind-but even so, I don't think that this is of major relevance to writers from our region, especially Trinidad).
I am in full agreement with Creole B especially when she says “sometimes we become disappointed to find that the personality behind the work is not as satisfying, which may cause adverse effects in the author's future readership” this strikes closely to how I feel, particularly when it comes to writers such as V.S Naipaul for his personality is far from appealing and this affects my interest in his writing. I am also in agreement with Nadja’s comments as I too as a reader express interest in meeting these writers just as any other artiste I admire. I believe as well most times individuals and writers themselves don’t view writers/ authors as celebrities which should be something that needs to be changed so that these writers are treated with the precedence and respect they deserve.
ReplyDelete"...he believed that books should have lives of their own and that writers could only diminish the autonomy and integrity of their work by inserting themselves between the reader and the text." I like what Gaddis told Ghosh. I believe that a reader should interpret a text without the input of the writer and it is not necessary for one to meet the writer of a piece of work in order to form opinions about the piece. Inserting the writer between the text and the reader subverts the meaning and impact of the work. Many times too, the writer himself/herself is not the voice in the text.The narrator's voice is not always the writer's voice. These narrators are not flesh and bood; they are in the authors' minds and in our minds when we read what they have to say. Therefore, we cannot meet them in person, we can only interact with them through the text. This being so, the writer should be divorced from the text and not be seen as an integral part of the text's interpretation.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would love to meet with all the authors of the books that I've read. I do not think that authors should be forced to make public appearances and speak about their works. However, it is a fantastic experience to meet an author of a book which inspired you. I had the opportunity to meet Micheal Anthony when he visited my LITS 2508 lecture and also Shani Mootoo at a Gala Reading last year. It was really nice to hear them speak about their works and what what inspired them to write. Kathleen noted that Naipaul's personality is far from appealing and this affects her interest in his work. I believe that the author's narratives should not judged based on their personality and personal life.
ReplyDeleteAmitav Ghosh in Festivals and Freedom is writing from a very informed personal experience. I agree with Kathleen when she says that writers deserve to be treated with respect, but festivals definitely give writers exposure and recognition, but not respect necessarily. Respect for writers could be gained through the popularity and reception of the literary work by the readers and critics.
ReplyDeletePresenting the author is a brilliant way of appreciating the creative mind behind the writing. To imagine that the author of the work is mute or dead is to assume that the author is disinclined to stand up in support for what he/she has offered to the world. Since literary works are established enough to speak for themselves, the author’s voice cannot be ignored but rather embraced as an asset. The Voice of the author exists in the work yet i agree with the idea that writers should be at liberty to choose whether or not they want to address or confront their audience.
Alternative mediums such as radio, television, internet, and videos exist for indirect interaction between the author and readers.The interaction between the writer and reader is narrowed because of new media allowing for the writer to become a part of reader space in accessible ways.
As Ghosh is explaining, what does the author gain and what does he lose? The life and works of the author may have influenced the writing in some way. The danger of over interpreting the writer’s personal life and inserting it into the world of the text is where the anxiety of confrontation arises. The work should not be defined by the author and the work does not define the author. The level of subjectivity which surrounds the work of writers and the multiplicity of perspectives generate the noise that distracts from the significant coherence created by the text. The interaction between the audience and the author is good since they both share in the world of the writing.
"... books should have lives of their own and that writers could only diminish the autonomy and integrity of their work by inserting themselves between the reader and the text." William Gaddis makes an interesting point here. Reading is essentially the interpretation of a work by the reader and having the writer come in between this process can affect the readers experience of the book. However, I am of the view that the more interpretations and opinions of one work the better. It raises the opportunity for debate and I am always open to differing ideas. I have always been intrigued in literature by the way that one work can bring out an array of emotions from different readers. To me it is one of the magical aspects of Literature. I should think that as a writer, one would be interested in hearing how their work has impacted their audience, but as Ghosh says, to each his own.
ReplyDelete