Perhaps the reason that I’ve put this post off since last night is that in trying to organize my thoughts, I’ve gotten bogged down with coming at it from all angles:
—–> Reader reading readerly written text
—–> Reader reading writerly written text
—–> Writer writing readerly text
—–> Writer writing writerly text
If I may eliminate the first two choices, that of the reader, because it is obvious that a reader can read something as written (readerly), whether taken as fact such as textbooks, etc. (it is probably near impossible for a reader to NOT add his own input); or to interpret the text any way his experience or desire guides him (writerly).
Okay, now that I’ve gotten that nonsense out of the way, let me explore with less baggage and a better map.
Barthes’ notion of writerly narrative from a writer is perhaps a brilliant acknowledgement of the way people not only enjoy, but have a natural tendency towards reading. We learn the alphabet, how to switch letters around to form words, then how to switch words around to form a narrative structure. We want more; the entertainment value of story that didn’t need letters at all—the folklore style of story. But fiction, no matter how well written, is not complete to the reader if he cannot comprehend or relate to it by his own experiences, whether lived or read or told about, or watched on film. This is the element he adds to help him understand and enjoy reading.
Barthes saw this, and has held specifically noted various elements within narrative that could be met to produce the highest level of reader “involvement.”
To gear to this new level, Barthes suggested that to be a writer, one would be actively seeking to engage the reader, taking the focus off meaning as he intends (decentralization), to allow audience participation. This recognizes the reader’s ability to fill in what’s not been stated. The reader is allowed to wonder, produce mental images, using the text, without being tied to it. Meaning lay in the interpretation, was arguable, therefore had plurality, and opened up the literature to far beyond its numbered pages.
Barthes’ suggestion of writerly writing is exactly geared toward the new media of hypertext.
She wore a dress the color of blood. (Pretty denotative; if you think “green,” you’d be wrong or invalid. Flash image, and although dependent upon reader recall, pretty limiting in color between arterial or venous. However, being given the time, the reader’s natural imagination may conjure up a style as well.)
She wore a red dress. (Ah, now that’s better, very connotative; the reader must work a bit. Although it happens rather quickly, and the reader, anxious to move along, picks a color, not much more.)
She wore a dress. (Different ballgame. And while the “writer” still offers an authoritative color palette, he’s offering many choices as well. Each reader, by choice, will take a different path. Each reader, by choice, may take a different path each time he reads the story.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
you made my brain hurt, but in a good way
I’ve had the fleeting thought before of leaving space in my writing for the reader to draw their own conclusions. In fact, I sort of had a mini-breakthrough when I realized I wasn’t required to supply EVERY detail, and, if fact, sometimes the finished product was enhanced by leaving some things open to the reader’s imagination.
yep, you hurt my brain. In a really good way.
thanks for the reminder.
Ha! My brain is pounding with the possibilities, the conflict between the imagery and goal of concise clarification while maintaining the right for the reader to make the experience his own.