This is schoolwork, and incoherent.
the incoherent reading was
Essay: The Truth of Fiction Evokes Our Common Humanityby Susan Sontag
One statement:
Quote:
Of course, the primary task of a writer is to write well. (And to go on writing well. Neither to burn out nor to sell out.) In the end—that is to say, from the point of view of literature—a serious writer is not representative of anybody or anything but herself or himself. That, and the noble cause of literature.
And here is what I rambled on about for seminar notes:
—“A serious writer is not representative of anybody or anything but himself.”
I understand that to maintain a singular, uncensored personality and vision, one shouldn’t be obliged to allow the will of a second party influence over your art, but what does “anything” mean? A broad term, does it include concepts, and opinions? Many writers, or artists, are inspired by an agenda or a specific cause, they have a need to convey, however subtly, the disservice to this, or the inhumanity of that. In choosing what elements to include in the story, which scenes, or what the dialogue should be, the writer is picking a theme, and creating a mood, to communicate, and persuade the reader into reacting a certain way. Isn’t this allowing “anything”--the intent to persuade or entertain-- precedence over their product? A piece made to further political awareness, even to satisfy a personal need, isn’t so much expression of the artist’s singular, uninfluenced soul, but an attempt to convert or manipulate into considering the artist’s own opinion or philosophy. To branch off of that, if true art, unrepresentative of “anything” outside the artist, is an expression of the artist’s soul for the artist’s record and satisfaction, a cathartic and personal exercise, why would the artist need to show anybody? The only reason to show, to share, to needlessly (if it was a singular, personal act) manipulate into contemplating your thoughts would be to gain and hold the attention of another, to be validated for your action as a person, to show off and gain praise from someone else. This is vanity, or loneliness, or maybe merely human insecurity and need for human approval, but, I assert, is “something”, which is included by “anything”. Therefore, for a writer or artist to be unrepresentative of “anything” except his self is to keep his works private and selfless, or, if he believes them to be of true worth to the public, to be anonymous, accepting no acclaim or validating direct commentary.
On this note, anything made, produced, or performed, to which the creator attaches his name is merely a bid for attention, and not motivated purely by any soulful epiphany.
----------
What do you think?