Wednesday 18 March 2015

Of Literature and Other Abstract Thoughts

If, like me, you buy or you are subscribed to The New Humanist, you, too, probably read a recent essay by Philip Pullman that appeared on the pages of the magazine. Under the title “Writing is despotism, but reading is democracy”, the best-selling author mixed cuckoos, philosophy, censorship and writers’ responsibility towards their readers. I might not be familiar with Pullman the fiction writer (my son is), but I have always been really keen on Pullman the essayist.

The title of Pullman’s piece is, of course, confrontational. Because that is what the better intellectual minds do; they provoke, and in the process they make us think. Pullman’s statement might come across as absolutist and dogmatic, but scrape the surface and you will find plenty to agree with. Equally, some of his ideas will leave you shaking your head.

I think Pullman is right when he avers that arts have other values (...) that can’t be measured in financial terms. In this case his use of Wilde’s theory of books not being either moral or immoral, only good or bad, is apposite. Similarly, the kernel of his argument, the writer’s despotism vs reader’s democracy is hard to disagree with prima facie. On writing a book (fiction, poetry, non-fiction, I am not being discriminatory here), the writer creates a private space between the reader and themselves. It is this intimate relationship that I seek when I take a book off my shelf and rest it on my lap, when I decide to delve in its pages, when I close myself off to the outside world. But whilst I buy the despotic nature of the author, I do not totally agree with the reader’s democratic character.

Who is the real victim, the writer or the reader? Or both?

We, readers, can be as brutal as any writer. We demand, that is our essence. This is even more so, when we follow a certain author. Like junkies, albeit of the literary type, we strap up our arm whilst cooking up the next volume of letters slowly on a leather-bound spoon. We fill up the syringe with each word, sentence and trope, until we finally sink it into our flesh. Yes, you might say that I have gone a bit too far with my metaphor or you could say that I have been watching too much Breaking Bad lately. About the latter, yes, I have, but I am merely catching up. Still the metaphor applies. Because if we are not happy with the product, if we feel let down, even cheated, we will not return to the same dealer. i.e. writer. So, no democracy, as in demos (common) and kratos (rule). “Reading is tyranny” could well have been the second part of Phillip’s essay title.

Of course, not all readers are the same, and in this respect you could well agree with Pullman’s use of the word “democracy”. Just as there are intolerant readers for whom a change of genre signifies a breakdown in their imaginary relationship with their favourite author, there are also readers who behave otherwise. The latter are the ones who understand development and evolution. Sometimes at the expense of structure, mind you. But the gains are far better than the losses.

What about the financial side of writing? Pullman touches on it briefly and, in my opinion, he is quite dismissive of it. I would not dare adopt the same approach. When I worked in the cultural and creative industries (CCIs was the handy acronym we used in those days), we always had to emphasise the revenue the arts generated in the wider economy. Without making that point it was nigh impossible to convince the movers and shakers of local authorities, funding bodies and community organisations that the print and design industry, for instance, had a value to the office of the Exchequer. Writing, sadly, falls into the category of jobs in which most people struggle to make ends meet. So, when someone says, to quote Pullman – who is already using a quote in his article – that “the arts are important because they bring in so many billion pounds to the economy”, s/he is not being money-minded, but trying to place the creative industries in the same context as the banking or manufacturing ones. Let us not forget that Britain is chiefly nowadays a “service” nation. What this means in reality is that the service sector is one of the industries leading the economic recovery.

Where I do fully agree with Philip is on what motivates a writer to pick up a pen or switch a computer/laptop on. It is that interaction with the medium in which the writer frees up her/his imagination that gives us the Dickens and the Munro. Forget about the relationship between author and reader, it is the engagement with language that constitutes the ultimate display of despotism, democracy and anarchy, all rolled into one. Despotism because our friend, l‘écrivain, exercises absolute authority. Democracy because very often this authority is undermined by a conglomerate made up of agents, editor, publishers and last, but not least, the public. And anarchy because writing, as an art form, is sometimes chaotic and unstructured and therefore it should ideally respond first and foremost to the writer and then to everyone else.

Read Philip Pullman’s essay and let me know what you think. Is writing despotic and reading democratic or is there space for overlapping?

© 2015

Next Post: “Saturday Evenings: Stay In, Sit Up and Switch On”, to be published on Saturday 21st March at 6pm (GMT)

21 comments:

  1. I actually heard Pullman make this controversial point in person when I was on my Oxford Sabbatical in 2007: http://blog.sarahlaurence.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-on-writing-myth-religion.html. I think he made a valid point that the author (mitigated by the publisher as you rightly add) has control until the reader takes over. Writing fiction has opened me to the idea that readers find stuff that I never planned and that is an exciting part of the process. It's like a blog with comments. Think how different the process would be if you couldn't hear our responses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Definitely a mixture.
    What I take from a piece of art (what-ever its form) is going to be different to what anyone else takes away. As a consumer, I am a kind of despot. A despot who hopes she will contine to grow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's a continuum - when I tackle a first draft it is just me and the notebook and I can scribble whatever I like. Slowly, as the edits develop, I have to think about the reader - allow him or her into the arena, if you like. Not that I'm going to try write something just because someone wants me to, but to make sure my words say exactly what I want then to say.

    And then it's gone - into the lap of the reader - and becomes something else again. It grows into a different piece in each reader's head. As the writer - I have to let it go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The process is beautiful. From ideas to paper, back to brain, back to paper and to relatives or friends, agent, back to brain, back to paper. It's a continuum, you're right.

      Greetings from London.

      Delete
  4. Without having read anything by or about Philip Pullman prior to today, I think the final word of any written piece always belongs to each reader individually and to the majority of readers collectively.

    But, writers do not all write for the same reasons and readers do not always read what writers write for the same reasons, so the point is moot from my viewpoint other than in terms of commercial success.

    Sorry, CiL, but being located in the colonies, I never have heard of "The New Humanist." Must be something Brit .... teasing ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with your second paragraph 100%. Let's also not forget about the "success" factor, as in financial success. That definitely puts an extra degree of pressure on the writer.

      Greetings from London.

      Delete
  5. I agree with Fram Actual's opening comment. A writer shouldn't write for him/herself but for the reader, otherwise why write at all? Perhaps I should read more about Pullman.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I had no knowledge of Philip Pullman before reading your post today...and it has certainly given me much to ponder.
    Exactly who does a writer write for?
    Perhaps it varies from author to author.
    Obviously, for a piece of written work to be a commercial success the writer must write for the reader...but as every reader is an individual, so most likely each will form a different picture of what is being read in his/her mind, that rather contradicts that theory...and what one person may really enthuse about, another may absolutely loathe.
    So I guess I can only speak for myself. I write purely for pleasure...because I love to express myself (as best I know how!)...but then, I am not writing with the aim of targeting any particular market.:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do come across as a very sensitive, perceptive and humane writer in your poetry. I guess this is an example of a writer who is in tune with her inner reader. :-)

      Greetings from London.

      Delete
  7. I write to get the ideas out of my head. But if I got rich, then i might write more for the reader lol fat chance of that though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep at it, mate, maybe one day... :-)

      Greetings from London.

      Delete
  8. lol, I stick to my images and science :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have read almost all of pullman's novels -- many numerous times. He is an extremeky good writer and there seems to me to be always a pull between the despotic and the democratic in his work-- with a very strange appeal given to the despotic yhoihj usually the cruelty is too muxh. I am sorry to be typing on an iPhone-- I'll look for his essay. Thanks. K.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sounds like a great article. I only know Pullman the novelist...

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can't be a good writer if you're not a reader I think. I haven't read his essay yet. I'd get to that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think it's a blend of both but I also believe that writing is about communicating but not necessarily with just the reader. Writing can be communication with the author's self and the readers join in. Writing just for readers tends to be one-dimensional and not be as inspired by the creative force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree. That's why I think writing is anarchic somewhat. It respects no rules nor boundaries. However, at the same time the author reins him/herself in. Whatever causes this control is worth exploring. Thanks.

      Greetings from London.

      Delete
  13. Your points are very well made. I had not heard of Philip Pullman, sad to say. Your post causes me to seek him out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think, as in most things. there's going to be some overlap happening in your anarchy-democracy concept. As a writer, I want to write the kind of book I want to read, but I also want readers to like it, so the book, at best, can serve as a connection, a type of communication, between us. So while I strive to please myself, I also think of a book as a gift from writer to and for readers.

    Interesting post! I'm looking forward to reading your happiness post.:)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pullman's essay about the nature of writing and the responsibilities of a writer is excellent. I agree with "the most important responsibility is to serve the story, to serve my imagination, and not expect the story or my imagination to serve me, or my principles, or my opinions." However, this may not be entirely applicable to, say, business or legal writing, which while sometimes using imagination, must necessarily bow to the specific objectives and principles.

    Regarding the relationship between the writer and reader, I have a nuanced distance between my views and Pullman's. While the writer's primary objective is to create the best-written story he can write, there still exists a relationship with the reader that can't be dismissed. In order to communicate effectively, the writer must endeavor to understand her audience. As a result, there is a sort of subliminal "dialogue" between writer and prospective reader taking place as the piece is being written.

    For another interesting take on the writer-reader relationship, I encourage you to read Sartre's essay Why Write? In it, he talks about the interaction between the writer and reader in the creation process, saying that “the [writer’s] creation can find its fulfillment only in reading, since the artist must entrust to another the job of carrying out what he has begun.” Of course, Pullman is more focused on the craft of writing, whereas Sartre is addressing what constitutes a final product in a dynamic philosophical sense. In any case, it's worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now I am going to have to read Pullman... But I don't think I would agree with his abosulte position about writing and reading.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...