|
Post by brightlamp on May 25, 2008 6:23:33 GMT -5
How do people feel author intent?
Like if I wrote a piece about the apathy of society, but it can be taken at face value, and I wrote another about the absurdity of the human condition, but it too can easily be taken at face value. hould the author put a note to the editor, making sure that their piece is read in the right light? Or should they let everything speak for itself and if the reader is too shallow to find what is there, then so be it? Should and author have to sell their work, or should they just focus on writing well?
|
|
|
Post by --Ed. on May 25, 2008 8:51:42 GMT -5
So you wrote some pieces and they got rejected but you feel like if you wrote a note explaining what the stories were about to your shallow editor they could have been accepted?
I don't think you should have to write explanatory notes. Maybe you could do something creative with the titles of your stories, and point your readers in the right direction from the start.
If the reader doesn't read the piece in the right light, then it could be the author intent wasn't clear enough, or the author ability just isn't there.
If this is in response to specific work of yours that may have been rejected by Thieves Jargon, it could also just be that we reject 95% of the work that gets sent our way, and it has less to do with the editor's depth of understanding than you think.
In summary, just focus on writing well. If the piece is well written, it will speak for itself.
|
|
|
Post by brightlamp on May 26, 2008 7:20:17 GMT -5
The question isn't out because I'm bitter about rejection.
I do not plan on explaining my work, I just wonder if other people whore their writing and if editors read pieces as literature or purely for entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by --Ed. on May 26, 2008 8:08:59 GMT -5
I do not plan on explaining my work, I just wonder if other people whore their writing and if editors read pieces as literature or purely for entertainment. Whoring involves money. There's no whoring going on around here.
|
|
|
Post by jakemooney on May 26, 2008 14:50:15 GMT -5
If the question is: Will any of us read an explanatory note detailing the meaning of your work? The answer is obviously no. We're smart people, and if the work has a meaning, and you were adept enough to make that meaning visible in the text, then we won't need any explication.
|
|
|
Post by travisjhue on Jun 6, 2008 21:29:22 GMT -5
So you wrote some pieces and they got rejected but you feel like if you wrote a note explaining what the stories were about to your shallow editor they could have been accepted? I don't think you should have to write explanatory notes. Maybe you could do something creative with the titles of your stories, and point your readers in the right direction from the start. If the reader doesn't read the piece in the right light, then it could be the author intent wasn't clear enough, or the author ability just isn't there. If this is in response to specific work of yours that may have been rejected by Thieves Jargon, it could also just be that we reject 95% of the work that gets sent our way, and it has less to do with the editor's depth of understanding than you think. In summary, just focus on writing well. If the piece is well written, it will speak for itself. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by travisjhue on Jun 6, 2008 21:30:16 GMT -5
I do not plan on explaining my work, I just wonder if other people whore their writing and if editors read pieces as literature or purely for entertainment. Whoring involves money. There's no whoring going on around here. Oh, and this too.
|
|
|
Post by P. H. M. on Jun 10, 2008 17:16:10 GMT -5
The Absurdity of the Human Condition. Maybe you should have titled your piece of crap that. It's funny to me how pseudo-intellectuals always assume there is an innate absurdity to being human, and they always say "human condition"--as opposed to what, fucktwat, the canine condition? Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by brightlamp on Jun 16, 2008 14:06:29 GMT -5
You don't ever think its weird that we're not dogs? =p
I went to an art museum the other day and read the placks on the walls telling me that the red line represents hope and it's tapering is the diminishing of it in society. All I could think was, "who decided that? Did the artist do that on purpose, or maybe his brush just ran out of paint? Did the museum write the blurb or did he tell them what to write?" There quite a few stupid water colors that I could have shat out [note I'm not a painter], and I wondered what made them special, again the placks told gave me these cosmic statements that did not directly transmit from the picture. So, did these guys explain their work? It's the same thing with painting, as writing [in a way 'coz it's all art].
Maybe I think too much?
|
|
|
Post by aids69 on Jun 16, 2008 16:37:52 GMT -5
i always thought the blurbs on art were idiotic and often pretentious, especially in modern art museums.
|
|
|
Post by --Ed. on Jun 20, 2008 15:06:19 GMT -5
"Put the word 'Between' At the beginning of the Third line: a haiku"
Molly Coldshoulder Does not know the difference a scab and a scar
|
|