I bring coals to Newcastle

[gurdonark]

In recent years, I've been intrigued with the interaction between the reader and the writer. To be a bit less grandiose, I've noticed how much of my own ideas I bring to anything I read. I began my recent focus on this phenomenon when I had a nostalgic longing to re-read the ending passages of Great Expectations. In Great Expectations, one may recall, the hero, Pip, spends significant portions of the novel longing for Estella, a woman who has been brought up by the deranged Miss Havisham as an instrument to wreak havoc upon the male gender, through the device of being both completely irresistible and completely unattainable.

At the end of the novel, there is a passage in which Pip and Estella, much older and wiser than the children and young adults they had been, meet in a story-closing finale. Here is where the problem arises. In my memory, this encounter was an extremely vivid meeting, accompanied by a long dialogue in which the older, wiser, but irretrievably flawed Estella
tells Pip in detail that she was in error and he was in the right.

I wanted to re-read this passage, for reasons that are now obscure to me. So one lunch hour, I headed to the Los Angeles downtown public library, to look it up. Sure enough, at the end of the book, Pip and Estella have a final meeting. But the text was far from the "you were right" soliloquy I was expecting. It is barely a glancing blow of a meeting--a good passage, but far short of my mind's eye version.

Something was wrong. Where was the passage I recalled?
Surely there was another edition. The LA library has an extensive literature section, and I was able to determine that Great Expectations' ending did evolve in different editions from the one I had initially located. That did not solve the problem, though. *No edition* had anything like the detailed discussion I recalled. I had lived some 25 years in which one of my favorite passages of literature was wholly a passage of my own invention. The Pip and Estella in my head had an extensive discussion, to which no reader but myself will ever be a party. Perhaps this is the central dilemma which causes people to write fanfiction, but I do not believe that my version of "Great Expectations--Pip and Estella Redux" will be hitting the stands anytime soon.

Since I learned this mildly troubling fact, I find similar things happen everyday. In the yahoo discussion group on marstokyo's artworks,
I frequently find that I "see" aspects of the artwork that I cannot, on reflection, find to be there, and then read explications by others that make clear to me that I failed to see literal portions of the artwork clearly identifiable to casual observer.

Even here on LiveJournal, I'll notice *just after* I posted a comment that I missed a key wrinkle in the post which made my literal comment apply to a metaphoric idea (or, in one notable case, vice versa). I also find that I add a great deal of plotting to people's journals based on intuition and surmise. In my work, this can be a very good thing, as the ability to "intuit" facts and ideas the client has not supplied can help me get to the truth of the legal problem. In reading, though, it can have real downsides as well as upsides. It's as though the poor Estellas of my heart and mind *should be saying* things to older but wiser Pip, and then my imagination makes it so. But why can't my internal Estellas just speak to me directly, and leave Great Expectations out of the equation?

Now, we all must bring interpretations and ideas to works of literature and art. The pleasing ambiguity that we bring in our differing interpretations
is one of the wonderful things about art and literature. But I worry that I clothe the emperor sometimes when in fact he has no new clothes, and that sometimes the garment from which the bride is stripped bare is the crucial set of threads, which I've altogether missed.

Comments

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with a personal interpretation?? I see nothing wrong with that. Especially regarding discussions of the theaters! sheesh, man, that's what I want. I want the work to invoke personal interpretations that may not be the same as my own--that shows me that the work as a broad base-- and that's good. Universality in art is always the highest acheivement (I think.)
Sounds like you're thinking there's a right or wrong answer.
I used to tell my students, when asking what they thought of one design or another-- that there are NO right or wrong answers-- only YOUR answers!

there is much in what you say

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I would never mean to imply that a "personal interpretation" is a bad thing, and I like that I can bring intuition and other ideas to art or literature. This is part of the fun for me.
It's that fuzzy area in which I move beyond accretion and interpretation and actually make x into y, as with a passage of a book or putting people in a pic that just aren't there. That doesn't make the
exercise *bad* or *wrong* necessarily, but it seems to me it's something I should account for in my thinking. I think you're right that this should not transmute into a "right" or "wrong" thing. I find that the "rightness" and "wrongness" may exist, but they aren't readily susceptible to drawing dark black lines between them. I see just what you are saying about personal interpretations being desirable--that is a large part of the fun, isnt' it?

[akhliber.livejournal.com]

i want to thank you for this post.
this is actually something that i've been having to think a lot about lately as well, as there has been more evidence in everything around me lately than ever before in my life that sometimes my perception of things, and my clear and lucid memories of my experiences, is almost wholly created by the ideas that i already had about what the experience should be like.
i've spent most of my life being harder on myself than i should, paying a bit too much attention to my own faults, and yet one of the few things i was entirely confident in was my ability to pay attention to detail and to really absorb (with what i always assumed was nothing less short of perfect accuracy) the things that happen around me and the experiences i have in my life.
then i'll re-read a book and passeges are gone, i'll look at an old picture and the wrong people are in it out of nowhere, etc.

in the past couple years all of this evidence that my intentionally objective perspective on different things in my life was actually more of an unconscious fabrication of the events based on my feelings about the subject matter, or the ideas i had about what the event should have been or meant.

part of me assumes this is the case with everyone, but for some reason i'm not really able to really think about that... it kinda fogs up my head the way trying to REALLY PICTURE a black hole does.

The question is who is the master, me or the word

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's not so much that I mind adding context and even imaginative portions to what is there. It's when I put the people in the photo who weren't really there. It's not a "clear line", but even given how hazy the line is, I find myself, like you, sometimes "crossing the line". I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing I must account into my view of literature, art, life, the universe, and everything :)

[geisa.livejournal.com]

very interesting post. i experience the dilemma of the "lost part" in film quite often. many times there are several versions of a particular film because the "companies" have cut certain parts depending on the country that the particular print was distributed to. it can be quite frustrating to find the full uncut print sometimes. unfortunately, i experienced that with a dvd recently, which was upsetting, because it has been my experience that everything on dvd is the uncut version. i hope that a new trend in digital video is not beginning.

as to the concept of personal interpretation of other peoples art, i have always disliked that idea. it was such a turn off in art classes, etc. to hear "it's whatever you want to see, etc." while the subjectivity of the individual cannot be ignored, i want to know what the artist is SAYING..."what is your point!" "this piece cannot stand on it's own!" don't hide behind a facade! do not leave it up to me, because i will miss it and, therefore, miss YOU and MYSELF and most importantly, the IDEA!!! because it is false. i used to hate abstract art because of this personal dilemma. but as i got older and was able to study the artists and learn more about their backgrounds and own interpretations of their work, i have become much more acceptive, because i understand their "idea" and it is always best to hear it from them, because they are almost always fascinating "ideas". and after visiting the rothko chapel in houston, i have become a HUGE rothko fan, because i understand what he was doing, i experienced it and most importantly IT WORKED, again that is to me, can never leave out subjectivity...i know.

but i still prefer the simple and profound forms of art or anti-art if that is appropriate, bad films, bad music, bad art...i can instantly relate to it and easily recognize its statement. i like that. not that this is "bad", but i like the idea of filming someone sleeping for six hours or filming the empire state building for eight hours with no sound. i know what that person (warhol) is doing. he is playing with "time"! one of my constant obsessions, and i LOVE it!!! but that's just me. it is a great IDEA!!!

with all of that said, and i haven't even scratched the surface...lucky you!!!;) in attempting to create my own "art" i run into many internal and external contradictions. first, i am VERY guilty of placing the viewer or reader in a position of "whatever you want it to be" and i don't want to do that. i want the person to know exactly what "it" is saying. because i want the art to stand on it's own. i want it to be so profound and clear that the only thing that the person is thinking about is "it"!!! not me, themselves or anything else for just that one moment!!! and possibly take the IDEA away with them, a specific idea, not a wishy-washy personal interpretation forced upon them that they will probably forget ten minutes later. i became so obsessed with this concept in photography that i literally quit "holding" the camera when pictures were taken or film rolling. i would set-up, put the camera on timer..."time" again!;) and just walk away from the camera so that i wouldn't even be touching the mechanism as the image was captured. i could hear the click-click in the background, that really excited me. but it was an attempt to further separate ME and EGO from "the process". JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURE!!! writing is even worse. it is HILARIOUS to me, but too personal and too many inside jokes for others to relate to or even begin to have an "idea" which leads back to the point...who am i really doing this for?! ME!!! i don't care if anyone else "likes" it. if i like "it", then i'm happy. yet i still seek the profound, universal statement...so many contradictions!!! so much subjectivity!!! just put the soup can on my wall.

connect the dots

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

When I write poetry, I usually will either tie up the image expressly, or point out to the reader that the central ambiguity is intentional. The result is usually not what I consider "good" poetry, and in fact I take some pride in labelling what I write "bad" poetry. I don't operate in a void without "free verse poetics", I am just less concerned about being seen as "good" as being accessible and hitting my point. In this way, my poetry is really just extended aphorism, but "bad poetry" is a catchy phrase.

I think it's a continuum. On the one hand, there's the anything goes school--art is what I say it is; meaning is what I say it is.
At the other extreme, in poetry at least, are those tiresome internet forums when a poet will bewail a critique he/she received because the reader "obviously" didn't understand 'that
she was writing in an Elizabethan doublediptych format,
with a strong reference in the verse to Levertov', and thus was unqualified to appreciate the work.

I come from a totally middlebrow position. If someone wants to find a meaning different than I intended to put in, that's great.
They'll have to work at it; I seldom am ambiguous. OTOH, although I don't "set out" to write work with a fixed meaning, by poem's end all my work typically has one. I discover it as I go. I have written purely allusive "pure poetry" in images, and that's probably "better" poetry. It certainly is "easier" to publish in a certain type of grant driven litmag. But it's not really what I want to write, and not what I want to read.

As a reader, I want to know enough about anything to get through the average dinner party with the average anyone in anyfield.
Beyond that, I want to listen, really listen, to what the author is saying. This post was generated by my feeling that too often I just listen to myself. It's a bit like that old movie the Ruling Class...I know I'm God, because when I pray, I'm talking to myself....

Re: connect the dots

[geisa.livejournal.com]

thank you!!! you understand exactly what i was trying to say. and the last thing that i read are critics and pretentious artists complaining about what some critic, or any other person, does or doesn't understand about their almighty intellect, artistic wisdom and grandiose "style". that bores me! you can see right off SELF is the driving force more so than the art. i don't subscribe to that philosophy. again, i like the art that can stand on it's own, "bad" or "good". but i prefer "bad" ha!!!;)

also, i did not read the post from, i think it was marstokyo, before i wrote my entry. and i hope that i have not offended that person with some of my comments. not that i would censor myself anyway, but i don't want it to be thought that my comments were tied to hers in any way. i really had not read it until after...and sort of went, "uh-oh!" i apologize. i do realize that there are many different schools of thought regarding subjective interpretation. i was just expressing mine...a "bad" one!!!;) plus i'm frustrated and out of ideas. i have never been like this before, something must change. i keep notebooks, and for the first time i am going to have to go search for an "idea" i can't believe this!!!

like a lot of other people, i like all of the stuff that i have read of yours. i'm not playing "critic" here, because i don't like them, and i'm not "smart" enough anyway. but i will say that my personal (ha, here we go again!!!) attraction to your writing is not so much the technical writing abilities that you obviously possess, but the thoughtful poignancy in your writing and, for lack of a better term..."soul"! not only is it understandable and insightful, it is inspirational and moving. i say this because it backs up my own artistic philosophy that i know what you are saying. i understand it. and most importantly, it stands on it's own. i'm not sitting here going "what the..." or "who is this guy?" the words stand on their own and that is the greatest compliment that "i" can give ANY artist, for whatever it's worth. so, yeah, i can talk about it at the average dinner party!!!;)

oh, guess what my fortune cookie for today was?! "what's vice today may be virtue tomorrow" hmmmm!!!;)

Re: connect the dots

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the kind words. I didn't think, and I'm not sure anyone else would think, that you were
trying to critique a different take than yours.

Re: connect the dots

[geisa.livejournal.com]

forgot something! the part about not setting out to write with a fixed meaning...i wrote in a friends lj recently regarding writing in longhand vs. computer, etc., and i told her that, although i am doing this REALLY bad free flow, NO EDIT rule stuff, that longhand is better to me because it is nice to see it written out and be able to x out, add, rearrange, cirle things, draw lines, etc. sometimes, hopefully, you can get to a point in the process that the piece seems to begin to take on a life of it's own. and you may very well end up with something that was never intended. but i like the "taking on a life of it's own" characteristic very much. it is similar to me taking photos while not touching the camera. it feels less about me and more about these words coming into their own. i like that a lot!!! i think that maybe what i like about the "no edit" stream of consciousness stuff too. altough it may suffer in the external meaning department, it does have a peculiar distancing effect that gives me a similar feeling of separation from what is written and allows me to go from illogic to dialog to fantasy, humor, and right back to logic, maybe?!!;) i think it is fun and hilarious to read. but again, it's so personal and, god i hate to admit this, "abstract" by it's very nature, that it comes full circle back to what i dislike artistically...but it's fun, so i'm just gonna keep doing it. who knows, maybe an "idea" will creep up from my subconscious and i can "grab it"!!!;)

Re: connect the dots

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I write on line, but for the same reason.
I like that ability to edit, strike through, delete.
As I mentioned, I do not consider myself a profound poet, but the parts of my work that do work work when they take on that "life of their own".