Marietta’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
If it is true that is "not the writer's responsibility to make art that's clear" then what is the point of writing? Doesn't an author want to share her vision? If she is so sloppy or arrogant that she uses pronouns in her own incipherable way, she can't expect readers to buy any future books. I personally will not and I know others who feel the same way. It is too bad because her topic could have been fascinating.
I would take Emily one step further: a writer (novelist or otherwise) is making an argument....an argument about character, situations, conditions....the story is intended to, for lack of a better word, persuade. It may be that an author hasn't figured something out....so the author sends a signal or uses a metaphor to guide us. In fiction, the author isn't held accountable for "truth" (as would be the case in science or history or another type of authorship)....but with the tools available, the author is supposed to be serious and taking us to the point. True about Faulkner, true about Joyce. All that said: Mantel isn't Faulkner or Joyce and Wolf Hall comes up short (at least for me).
Emily, you might think she was being sloppy in the least; I think it was a brilliant literary device that made me see the world through Cromwell's eyes. But to your point, I think I misspoke: I meant that it's not an artist's responsibility to be clear to EVERYONE, but to be truthful to her vision and, in doing so, using devices that illuminate that vision. It wasn't indecipherable to me - but it was to others. Mantel is not Faulkner or Joyce - but both of them have their detractors for their "unclear" style. But not everyone is going to like or get every writer, artist, musician. Part of why it's so endlessly fascinating:)
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
☯Emily
(new)
Apr 17, 2013 07:42PM
If it is true that is "not the writer's responsibility to make art that's clear" then what is the point of writing? Doesn't an author want to share her vision? If she is so sloppy or arrogant that she uses pronouns in her own incipherable way, she can't expect readers to buy any future books. I personally will not and I know others who feel the same way. It is too bad because her topic could have been fascinating.
reply
|
flag
I would take Emily one step further: a writer (novelist or otherwise) is making an argument....an argument about character, situations, conditions....the story is intended to, for lack of a better word, persuade. It may be that an author hasn't figured something out....so the author sends a signal or uses a metaphor to guide us. In fiction, the author isn't held accountable for "truth" (as would be the case in science or history or another type of authorship)....but with the tools available, the author is supposed to be serious and taking us to the point. True about Faulkner, true about Joyce. All that said: Mantel isn't Faulkner or Joyce and Wolf Hall comes up short (at least for me).
Emily, you might think she was being sloppy in the least; I think it was a brilliant literary device that made me see the world through Cromwell's eyes. But to your point, I think I misspoke: I meant that it's not an artist's responsibility to be clear to EVERYONE, but to be truthful to her vision and, in doing so, using devices that illuminate that vision. It wasn't indecipherable to me - but it was to others. Mantel is not Faulkner or Joyce - but both of them have their detractors for their "unclear" style. But not everyone is going to like or get every writer, artist, musician. Part of why it's so endlessly fascinating:)
